But before I get into that, let's review the text first:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. Eph 6:10-20 (ESV)Now, on to the historic reality that we as 21st century westerners seem to have trouble picturing. (Admit it, when you read this passage you picture something more like King Arthur than Hercules. That's okay, because that's more the direction I'll be taking this later.)
We'll look at the Greeks first, since, well, they were first in the Greco-Roman style. I'll try to be brief, but this is covering something like 2000-3000 years of battles, tactics, and military technology. But, then again, some things never change. Like the phalanx.
(The phalanx, as performed by the popular "big band era" group "Leonidas King and the Thermopylae 300.")
Before I look at the armor, I'll look at the warfare style, since that is what drove the development of shields, weapons, and other tech. Regardless of era, that is the norm. The need drive the next invention, not the other way around.
Now I'm going to try to run a primer on the Greeks, their culture, and their history, at least up to the rise of Caesar Augustus and specifically focusing on the more martial side. That's a lot of culture, and history, and warfare, some of which the average American is familiar with (thanks to Disney for making "Hercules") while some is quite obscure. But be patient. Remember that I am trying to provide background so we better understand the metaphor in its context (The 1st, 2nd, 3rd rule of Biblical Exegesis).
An added bonus to this endeavor is that we will get a better understanding of the world that Christ was born into. While the Greeks were no longer the great power in the 1st century, their culture and history was a massive foundation. So, putting in the grunt work here will be well rewarded later down the line.
But before we can to the rippling pectorals of a number of larger than life characters, we've got to find a starting point. (Kit Kat points and a Fanta to whomever "lol" at that joke.) That means a little time travel to the the 26th century BC.
I'm starting at the Minoan civilization, then through the Mycenaeans, the Dark Ages, Archaic period, the Classical era, and the Hellenistic period. Its a lot of ground to cover, especially if I dig into the empire of Alexander and the follow-up kingdoms. Don't worry, the Roman empire will make Greece look more comprehendible. Or at least less soap opera. If you wish, you can skip/scan the next few indented paragraphs. It helps better understand the context, but isn't needed for the armor metaphor.
Now, technically I can argue that the Minoans are not Greek, since they are on Crete and not Greece proper. But the cultures that would grow into Greece started there, and they were among the first organized civilizations in Europe.
Now, if you know your mythology, you'll be familiar with the legend of the minotaur and the labyrinth. They are from Crete. The eruption at Thera (modern day Santorini) was a major contributing factor of the collapse of the Minoans. This made conquest by the Mycenaeans the definitive. The Minoans are pretty interesting, but a decent amount of their culture is unknown, due to the fact that the Minoan language, along with their alphabets Linear A and Linear B, isn't deciphered.
The Mycenaeans era took place in during the Bronze Age. While parts of their culture will be familiar to people familiar with Greek history or mythology, it won't be too familiar. The classic "city-state" we think of when thinking of Greece didn't exist quite yet. There is not a satisfactory explanation for why the Mycenaeans collapsed. Regardless, the "Dark Ages" followed.
The Greek Dark Ages were a two-three hundred year period before the ancient Greece we know. Major stone buildings were not constructed. The use of Linear B ceased. The economy crashed as trade routes were forgotten. Towns were abandoned and the population decreased. This was a more true dark age than the one in Europe following the collapse of Rome (which we will get to some day). We just don't know much outside of what is found at burial sites. But the Archaic period, as part of the Iron Age, changed all that.
The Archaic period saw the rise of the city-state (the polis), the Peloponnesian and Delian leagues, the rise of cities like Sparta and Athens, and the rise of tyrannical rule. I'd like to note that the classic Athens, seen as the origin and home of democracy, was most frequently ruled by either mob democracy or by a tyrant. Now a tyrant isn't necessarily a bad thing, but absolute power is a dangerous thing. But in this era trade began again, as did colonization. Thanks to the Phoenicians the Greeks developed a new alphabet. And literature grew; this is the era of Homer.
The Classic era followed, and it had, and still has, a heavy influence on history, society, and government. Its a short period, but a lively one, culminating in Alexander the Great. The battle of Thermopylae happened in this era. The ideals of democracy, and of numerous philosophies, got their root here. For the purpose of our discussion, it is in this era that we'll end up focusing, since this is when the shift in tactics occurred most drastically.
It was in this era that the preeminence of Sparta ended, with the rise of Athens. I suspect this is why Athens is seen as the pinnacle of ancient Greek history: they wrote their own propaganda. Since much of our knowledge of the previous eras originates out of the Classic era, their assumptions and biases gave the accounts a certain perspective. Athens was also the center of political and philosophical thought. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were at large in this time period, as were the writers Euripides and Sophocles, and the historians Herodotus and Xenophon. The world was turning more toward the complex and intellectual pursuits, instead of simple subsistence and contentment (which were among Sparta's ideals). An article of consideration for this thought can be found on the Art of Manliness website: Courage vs. Boldness.
Regardless of your opinions, it is impossible to deny the effect this era has. Aristotle is still taught in philosophy classes. And for good reason, whether he was right or not. That is how education should work: building on already existent foundation. But for the Christian, this era is most especially noteworthy since a number of the philosophies that the Early Church encountered got their start or inspiration here. Thinks like the Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans (though they would not truly start until the Hellenistic era), and the Gnostics.
The era saw the rise of Athens, their defeat by the Spartans, their collapse, then the entrance of the armies of Philip of Macedonia. It was a complicated era, setting up an even more complicated period.
Rounding out our romp through history is the Hellenistic period. The boom of philosophy, art, science, literature, and politics continued. The theologian in me is quite interested in this period, one for the Seleucids, and two for the development of Koine Greek. While the Hellenistic period politically ended with the Roman's conquest of the region, but the cultural period continued into the reign of Constantine.So, lets backtrack to the Classic period, and warfare in particular. Before this, most armies were used as large mobs, charging straight at enemies, and that side that went "stabbity-stab-stab" best won. Sometimes this tactic is also known as a Zerg Rush, and it results in lots of KIA.
Well, the Greeks, still recovering from the Dark Ages nearly five hundred years before, didn't have the numbers to fight this way. Especially with the Persians breathing down their necks. Now the wars with the Persians were more than just land battles, and the techniques and tactics used developed earlier during wars between the city-states, but we're distilling this down to the base essentials. Especially as the world moved from bronze to iron.
The development of iron was a technological leap similar to the move from single-shot muzzle loaders to breach-loading magazine fed rifles. A game changer. There are stories of iron swords cleaving through bronze ones, and I've seen video to support this, to a degree. Worse, what the sharper, stronger iron weapons did to the lightly armored warriors of the late Bronze Age. Leather armor, if thick enough, could stop a blow from a bronze sword. But not against iron. Especially as the weapons moved from being short curved blades to longer straighter swords. But even before this, the use of bronze had trumped other metals, like copper, for weapons. Technology and technique for countering these arms was needed.
Shields and phalanx: the Hoplite.
The Greeks were actually quite brilliant in their choice of warfare style. They had an entire group of infantry, the hoplite, who were the core of the armies. The hoplite gained its name from a word for armor, hoplon, which is often used to describe the soldier's most obvious piece of armor: the shield. Now, as I'd mentioned in previous posting, the shield is what this all focuses on. If you've seen 300 (which I have numerous mixed feelings regarding), and recall Ephialtes's attempt to join the Spartans, you may see their logic. The core of the fight for the Greeks was the shield wall. If a soldier could not bear a shield properly, there was a weak point in the wall, and a breakthrough may be exploited.
Essentially, the phalanx with its shields was a mobile fortress. When their men would go off to war, the wives and mothers of Spartans would tell them "With it or on it." (Ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς, pronounced "ae taan ae epi taas") Fighting without a shield was impossible. Retreating and discarding your shield was unthinkable, and the hight of cowardice.
The individual hoplite did have armor. Breastplate and helmet were frequent, with arm and leg armor being occasional, from what I can gather. These were expensive pieces of kit, and often passed down from father to son. Leather or linen were cheaper, and used by poorer soldiers, who functioned as skirmishers and scouts. But at the end of the day, the shield was the chief defense.
The Greeks preferred spears as the main weapon. The doru spear was over eight feet long, allowing them to reach an incoming enemy long before the charge reached the shield wall. Later Alexander's army would use the sarissa, which was over 14 feet long. However, unlike the sarissa, the doru wasn't just an emplacement pole arm. It was used one handed and thrusted. But St. Paul doesn't mention a spear, and we'll look at why I think he didn't later.
The end result of the nearly 3000 year history of the Greeks was a military style that would be immensely successful until being adopted, adapted, and superseded by the Romans. And that is for next time.
