Further to our earlier article on the development of Hoplite Warfare we must look at the various key factors:

• the historical enemies facing the Greek City States & the various colonies
• the variable development of development across these territories
• the development was necessitated by conflict

Historical Enemies
Greek mainland City States
Thracians
Illyrians
Persians
Italian Hill Tribes
Etruscans
Romans
Macedonians
Greek Hill Tribes
Greek colonial City States
Egyptians

Development by Geographical Position
Certainly those less reliant and in the core region of the mainland Greek City States were less likely to develop as quickly unless they were in major conflict areas such as the colonies adjoining the Persian Empire such as Lydia, as were those more reliant on Cavalry such as Thessaly. True, the various colonies in Southern Italy, Sicily and along the Mediterranean coastal regions of France & Spain would have had continued influx of developments from their respective cities of origin but they had their own specific situations to deal with.

Development Necessitated by conflict
A series of conflicts from the 8th Century onwards, as well as social developments, caused the necessary development within individual City States. Probably the most famous is that of Sparta, but failures in military conflict in the Ionian colonies would not have gone unnoticed (after all the naval threat certainly did not).

Perhaps, notwithstanding the critical early conflicts in mainland Greece that ensured the creation of the Classical Hoplite, the two Persian invasions of the early 5th Century BC did much to ensure the continued development of the Hoplite as is played on the wargames table.

However the frequent wars from the Peloponnesian War onwards did much to formalise the structure of Hoplite warfare as much as continue its development into specific specialisations such as the Macedonian Pike Phalanx.

So let us look at the development so much as we can guess or hopefully ascertain:

1. The Javelin gave way to the Long Thrusting Spear - though for a time both were used (either per warrior/soldier or within a unit)
2. After the initial ‘Homeric Warrior’ period the size & relative quantity of 'Heavy Infantry' units increased significantly in the core Southern & Centrally-located City States of Greece.
3. The use of 'Heavy Infantry' became uniform in the core City States & their colonies.
4. Heavy Infantry formations traditionally fought ‘8 ranks deep’ but could fight with as little as ‘4 ranks deep’
5. From the Persian Wars onwards these core City States had experience of conflict against non-Greek adversaries (which included significant firepower from lighter troops). Others, further afield,  would have to deal with other significant cavalry threats, massed missiles & loose-formation skirmisher/warriors
6. From the Peloponnesian War onwards Hoplite tactics certainly included (and perhaps earlier) the use of Ekdromoi (lightly-armoured formal or informal  Hoplite detachments) due to the threat of Peltasts & other Light Troops.
7. From lessons learned in the Peloponnesian War advanced tactics were employed at Army level, particularly the ability to manoeuvre & retain control on the battlefield.
8. By the time of Alexander (the Great) the Hoplite unit could stand up to the deeper Pike Phalanx, but could not defeat it successfully in frontal combat (excluding perhaps, in difficult terrain)
9. The Hoplite was retained as a viable combat unit well after the introduction of the Pike Phalanx but ultimately deferred to it and/or the "Roman system". It should be noted that it's frontage was much wider than a Pike phalanx, man for man.
10. Hoplite Units may well have moved (as later Pike Phalanxes) in an open deployment as standard, but double the normal depth, when moving around the battlefield. Why? Well because moving around any other way is tiring, inefficient, breaks up the battleline, breaks up the Unit's cohesion and is SLOW, When they were approaching any (known) enemy they would simply move into close order by the rear half advancing to fill the gaps in files.

The 4th Century Hoplite Combat system
As best as we can determine:
• Defence
Each Hoplite wears a helmet and carries an Aspis koilè (the large circular shield often called an Aspis or wrongly called a 'Hoplon')
• Offence
Each Hoplite carries a long thrusting spear (it should be noted that the Greeks had five names for spear or spear/javelin) & sword
• They have three standards of deployment

• standard
• close order
• locking shields

• They have two Tetrarchia each of four ranks deep, normally one behind the other (but could be side-by-side).
• Their tactical options were:
◦ a charge on the run which would, in most cases, disorder the formation.
◦ a general advance followed by the use of impetus to break the opponent
◦ hold the line and form “close order” or even “locking shields”
◦ form a line, concave battle formation or hollow wedge
◦ in difficult terrain advance in a loose order
◦ use Ekdromoi to chase off enemy skirmishers
◦ use Promachoi to protect friendly supporting skirmishers (to their front)

How we tend to treat Hoplite units in wargaming:
Slow moving (almost ponderous) because they are:
• close order troops, if not permanently in ‘shieldwall’ or locked shields
• normally in ‘two ranks’ (figures) deep block formation – not exactly linear
• no ability to chase off skirmishers (this was certainly attempted by WRG with Ekdromoi detachments in their 7th Edition Lists)
• no inherent shooting ability (except at times in the 8th - 6th centuries BC which is not unreasonable)

Yet:
Whilst many references indicate that they charged into contact almost pell-mell they also engaged as close order troops with interlocking shields. Now charging in could be simply different approaches towards:

1. enemy Light troops
2. enemy Hoplites (especially of inferior quality)
3. a need to cross a missile beaten zone as quickly as possible or to gain a tactical advantage (for instance at Marathon)

Or: a breakdown of control due to troops being over-eager to engage

A more defensive posture could be reserved for:

1. responding to enemy cavalry (such as at Platea)
2. responding to superior enemy Infantry advancing towards them (such as Spartans)
3. better control & discipline such as Spartiates
4. holding formation within a battle line

So what can we surmise from the data (and reasonable conjecture) available:

• Firstly that Hoplites held onto their aggressive form of 'noble' combat (at least potentially - as a tactic) well into the 5th Century BC but by the end of the Peloponnesian War a more professional Hoplite had emerged in conjunction with the introduction of sophisticated battlefield tactics (including 'Combined Arms') that would increase the effectiveness of both the Unit and Army as a whole.

• Secondly the Hoplite unit could potentially withstand pretty much all frontal assaults when in a deeper 8-man formation, but as alternative Heavy Infantry tactical doctrines became available then their abilities became outdated on the battlefield.

• They were most effective in good going, but could operate in smaller, looser groups should the need arise when moving/fighting across varied terrain

• Better discipline and training form the latter stages of the 5th Century ensured a greater adherence to the Hoplite we use on the wargames table with the exception of the following:

1. Rear rankers were most likely used as 'Light Hoplites'* as Ekdromoi detachments & as Promachoi falling back to the parent when needed, which could then move into 'Close Order'.
2. This would allow a more equitable balance between front & rear Tetrarchia.
3. The rear Tetrarchia could also be used as pursuers of defeated enemy Heavy Infantry.

Some or all of these tactics probably came into play even before running in full panoply came into play at the Olympic games and developed from there.

Note (*): the difference in armour would, in the end, be minimal suggesting additional tactical changes, reducing fatigue and increasing mobility across much terrain. This would allow for a Heavy Infantry response to the increased use of more sophisticated Light Troops such as Peltasts.

So Early Hoplites (750 BC to 420 BC) should be represented as follows:

• Loose order until the latter half of the 6th Cent, BC (typically 3 figures, rather than 4 figures to a 'WRG' base), then Close order (4 figures)
• Armed with Javelin and/or Spear (Spartans would have the Spear & lose the Javelin earlier) with the exception of the northern City States such as Thessaly.
• Be able to move faster across the battlefield until they form Close order (presumably in the proximity of known enemy) from after Marathon (except the Spartans who would be able to do so earlier) and minor Greek City States and colonial City States who would do so after 420 BC at the earliest.
• With the exception of the Spartiates any Hoplite unit can become impetuous - similar (but not as loose as) a 'Warband' classification unit when facing enemy non-Light Foot/mounted.
• Regular or Elite units may use Ekdromoi detachments from the latter half of the 6th Century within one Light infantry move distance (which is their maximum speed - their reaction time/movement should be randomised with modifiers for quality). Presumably parent units couldn't be in Close order (locked shields) to allow the Ekdromoi to deploy sufficiently quickly - even if they deployed from on of the first four ranks, let alone the more reasonable rear ranks.

Later Hoplites (after 420 BC) should be represented as follows:

• Close order (4 figures to a base - if that is how Close order is represented)
• Armed with Spear (one cannot totally rule out the partial reintroduction of the Javelin to combat the threat of Peltasts)
• Be able to move faster across the battlefield until they form Close order (presumably in the proximity of known enemy)
• Will not become impetuous (except perhaps Militia-grade troops)
• Would have a higher level of morale than looser formations (for troops of the relative quality)
• More susceptible to rapid flank attacks but less so to frontal attacks
• Regular or Elite units may use Ekdromoi detachments keeping within two Light infantry moves distance from the parent unit (with a maximum speed of up to that of Peltasts - their reaction time/movement should be randomised with modifiers for quality)
• The same detachments can be used as Promachoi, keeping within two Light infantry moves distance of the parent unit.
• Not only can Hoplite units form up in one or two-figure (4 or 8 ranks generally) Line but also in Wedge, Column or in a reduced movement, but mobile multi-unit Square (effectively a combination of four or more units in column & line that can face all directions should the need arise).
• Hoplite units could probably re-order or exchange ranks internally when not engaged or when following-up in combat - unless in Close order and certainly if 'locked shields'. Presumably 'locked-shields' would reduce the units overall frontage?

Note: not all of these suggestions will not be suitable for all rule types or games and players are recommended to experiment with the new ideas. It would be best to try re-fights of recorded battles to see if the various phases of battle are replicated, or at least represented.