Schwartz ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 ISSN 2159-3159 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Fighting Unshod: The Question of Footwear in Hoplite Warfare Adam Schwartz 1. Going barefoot It is normally assumed that the Greeks of antiquity used foot- wear to the same extent that we do, likely because we perceive footwear as a cornerstone of civilisation and so necessary that we can hardly imagine willingly forgoing the support and protection of the feet provided by a good pair of shoes.1 To a certain degree, this is corroborated by the extant literature: leather-workers are attested,2 along with a bewildering array of named types of foot- wear for a wide variety of purposes.3 The prevalence of footwear is perhaps best demonstrated by contrasting with the instances of anypodēsia, which are usually treated as an anomaly. Socratics and satirists alike famously portray Sokrates as almost never wearing footwear.4 This might 1 See e.g. A. A. Bryant, “Greek Shoes in the Classical Period,” HSCP 10 (1899) 57–102, esp. 57–58. 2 Pl. Resp. 369D; cf. Arist. Pol. 1291a13. The word skytotomos is frequently translated as “shoemaker” (see LSJ9 s.v.), but it seems obvious that a leather- worker (a type of craftsman allowed in the ideal polis of the Republic) would not necessarily confine himself to making or repairing shoes, and that Sokrates did not exclude the many other useful services such a craftsman would be able to provide. 3 Summed up and catalogued in Bryant, HSCP 10 (1899) 57–102. 4 Ar. Nub. 102–104: “Yuk! That scum. I know them: you mean the char- latans, the pasty-faced, the unshod, like that miserable Socrates” (αἰβοῖ, πονηροί γ᾿, οἶδα. τοὺς ἀλαζόνας, τοὺς ὠχριῶντας, τοὺς ἀνυποδήτους λέγεις, ὧν ὁ ADAM SCHWARTZ 363 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 be a peculiarity of the philosophically inclined;5 at any rate later writers identify the lack of footwear as a distinguishing mark of actual and would-be philosophers.6 But others might be similarly inclined, such as the orator Lykourgos, who, “although he was well-to-do […] wore one and the same cloak winter and summer and put on sandals only on days when they were necessary.”7 At the same time, being barefoot was the norm in certain settings: in the religious sphere, for example, a wide range of sanctuaries had prohibitions against footwear that applied during cultic functions.8 κακοδαίµων Σωκράτης [transl. Henderson]); Ameipsias fr.9 Storey (= Diog. Laert. 2.27–28): “Your poor condition is an insult to shoemakers everywhere” (τουτὶ τὸ κακὸν τῶν σκυτοτόµων κατ᾿ ἐπήρειαν γεγένηται [transl. Storey]); Xen. Mem. 1.6.2 (ἀνυπόδητός τε καὶ ἀχίτων); Smp. 174A, Sokrates wearing san- dals to the symposium at Agathon’s. 5 Pl. Phdr. 229A, Smp. 173B. This may include Phokion, a former student of Plato’s noted for his austere lifestyle, always going barefoot (anypodētos) and without overgarment in the country or on campaign, except in extreme cold (ἐπεὶ κατά γε τὴν χώραν καὶ τὰς στρατείας ἀνυπόδητος ἀεὶ καὶ γυµνὸς ἐβάδιζεν, εἰ µὴ ψῦχος ὑπερβάλλον εἴη καὶ δυσκαρτέρητον: Duris FGrHist 76 F 50 [= Plut. Phoc. 4.3–4]). 6 Luc. Icarom. 31, Cynic. 1; Athen. 163E; Theoc. Id. 14.5. 7 [Plut.] Mor. 842C: εὔπορος δ᾿ ὢν ἱµάτιον ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐφόρει τοῦ χειµῶνος καὶ τοῦ θέρους καὶ ὑπεδέδετο ταῖς ἀναγκαίαις ἡµέραις (transl. Fowler). 8 A.-M.-S. Karatas, “Greek Cults and their Sacred Laws on Dress-code: The Laws of Greek Sanctuaries for Hairstyles, Jewelry, Make-up, Belts, and Shoes,” CW 113 (2020) 147–170, lists evidence for the cults of Alektrona at Ialysos (IG XII.1 677), Zeus Kynthios and Athena Kynthia on Delos (I.Délos 2529); Demeter and Kore at Andania (IG V.1 1390) and Lykosoura (IG V.2 514.6–7); Demeter at Kios (I.Kios 19.3–4); Asklepios at Pergamon (I.Perg. II 264); and Athena at Lindos (Lindos II 487). Karatas seems to suggest that the term hypodēmata, since it properly applies to footwear of the sandal type, does not necessarily imply all footwear, but then adds (164), “The hypodemata were presumably used as a general term for shoes in sacred laws on dress-code mentioned above.” The term ὑποδήµατα undoubtedly serves as a κύριον ὄνοµα or catch-all, and a prohibition against sandals but none against, e.g., boots on religious grounds seems implausible (though IG XII.1 677 expressly 364 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 Nor should the fact that almost all our sources were written by wealthy Athenian city-dwellers be overlooked: the streets of Greek cities were, at least until Roman times, at most metalled with rubble or potsherds and undrained, to which we may add a large population and, normally, the absence of sanitary infra- structure.9 It would not be surprising if urban populations opted to use footwear outside as a rule, as demonstrated by Phokion, who did not necessarily keep up his habitual anypodēsia in the city, “since in the country, at least, and on his campaigns, he always walked without shoes.”10 This aspect intersects with a possible socio-economic bias in that footwear, made of leather, may have been outside the economic reach of the poorest subset of any population. Its frequency in the extant literature therefore may have to do with the urban social circles our sources moved in, whereas the lower strata either had to do without or had more pressing needs.11 But equally, for many it may not have been a priority: for the rural population living in the country well outside of Athens,12 forbids “shoes or anything else made from pigs” (µηδὲ ὑποδήµατα ἐσφερέτω µηδὲ ὕειον µηθέν). 9 A. Toynbee, “Town-Planning in the Ancient Greek World,” Ekistics 24 (1967) 445–448, at 447; S. Müth, “Chapter 5.2.2: The Plain of Sikyon in the Archaic and Classical periods,” in K. Kissas et al. (eds.), Finding Old Sikyon: The Surveys (Monographs of the Danish Institute of Archaeology, forthcoming; I am grateful to Silke Müth for calling my attention to this work). 10 Duris (n.5 above): ἐπεὶ κατά γε τὴν χώραν καὶ τὰς στρατείας ἀνυπόδητος ἀεὶ […] ἐβάδιζεν (transl. Perrin, emphasis added). 11 Barefootedness is treated as an indicator of poverty in the case of Eros by both Plato and Xenophon: Pl. Smp. 203D, Xen. Mem. 1.6.2 (Antiphon speaking). This is borne out by Ps.-Plutarch’s puzzled comment regarding Lykourgos, who went barefoot “although he was rich” (n.7 above). 12 The vast majority of the population was occupied with agricultural work, one estimate putting it at “probably at least 80 percent”; see L. Migéotte, The Economy of the Greek Cities. From the Archaic Period to the Early Roman Empire (Berkeley 2009) 67. Many of these were smaller farmers or homesteaders who lived the greater part of their lives on land far from the city, and may not often have ventured into town. ADAM SCHWARTZ 365 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 forgoing footwear may have come naturally under most circum- stances.13 2. Practical considerations Whatever role economic factors played in the use of footwear, it may have been preferable to go unshod for physical labour. Plato seems to indicate as much when he has Sokrates lay out the work life for the inhabitants of the ideal polis: they will “build houses, work naked and barefoot in the summer, and wear adequate clothing and footwear in the winter.”14 Similarly, Hesiod, who dispenses advice on nearly all aspects of a farmer’s life, has curiously little to say on the subject of footwear—except that in the harshest winter, protection against the cold is in order: “Bind around your feet well-fitting boots from the leather of a slaughtered ox, padded inside with felt.”15 Winter cold, then, might induce all but a few to wear some form of footwear—as 13 S. Blundell, “One shoe off and one shoe on: The Motif of monosandalism in Ancient Greece,” in S. Pickup et al. (eds.), Shoes, Slippers and Sandals. Feet and Footwear in Classical Antiquity (Abingdon 2018) 216–228, at 225 n.17: “[An interlocutor] passed on information that on the island of Lewis in her grand- father’s time, people used to put on shoes only when they went into the town of Stornoway (even though the streets in the town were probably easier to walk on than the stony roads in the rest of the island, or so we imagine). Similarly, we are perhaps more likely to see children running around without shoes in the country rather than in a town. A friend who grew up in India told me that when he was a child going without shoes was a joy, but he would not have done it when visiting Delhi.” 14 Pl. Resp. 372A–B: καὶ οἰκοδοµησάµενοι οἰκίας, θέρους µὲν τὰ πολλὰ γυµνοί τε καὶ ἀνυπόδητοι ἐργάσονται, τοῦ δὲ χειµῶνος ἠµφιεσµένοι τε καὶ ὑποδεδεµένοι ἱκανῶς (transl. Grube). 15 Hes. Op. 541–542: ἀµφὶ δὲ ποσσὶ πέδιλα βοὸς ἶφι κταµένοιο / ἄρµενα δήσασθαι, πίλοις ἔντοσθε πυκάσσας (transl. Most). Lenaion is described with vivid imagery at 504–518 and said to be the worst month of winter (557–558). The pedila described are open and tied under the foot with straps, and thus structurally similar to hypodēmata; see LfgrE s.v. πέδιλον (M. J. Cuypers): “Die für den Winter bestimmten π. […] sind m. Filz gefüttert; kein Grund zur Annahme, daß dort andere π. beschr. als sonst.” 366 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 we saw above, even the austere Phokion did so—but to keep the feet from freezing, rather than to cushion the foot soles. Anypodēsia was also a matter of course in sports of any kind.16 While there may have been ritualistic or aesthetic reasons for this practice,17 most ancient sources connect it with enhanced performance.18 And on the race track, and especially in the palaestra, bare feet would have a surer foothold and be more tactilely responsive to the shifting of the sand beneath.19 A striking illustration of the preference for going barefoot during physical exertion is furnished by the hēmerodromoi, dispatch-runners routinely covering several hundred kilometers at a time, who certainly ran barefoot later—and did so on the notoriously poor Greek road network.20 16 See e.g. Thuc. 1.6.5 for a statement that, by implication, can only mean that Greeks invariably did sports naked (along with the somewhat startling claim that they actually did it clothed “until not many years ago,” οὐ πολλὰ ἔτη ἐπειδὴ πέπαυται; cf. Pl. Resp. 452C), and cf. Hdt. 1.10, Eur. Andr. 595–600. 17 Lucian Anach. 36: nakedness is essential for showing off the well-trained body. 18 Paus. 1.44.1–2 (though see also 5.6.7–8); Dion. Hal. Ant.Rom. 7.72.3–4. See J. A. Arieti, “Nudity in Greek Athletics,” CW 68 (1975) 431–436, esp. 435–436 for an attempt at a rationalising explanation. 19 It is interesting to note the wealth of perfume flasks, aryballoi, shaped like sandal-clad feet with ankles: A. Smith, “The Left Foot Aryballos Wearing a Network Sandal,” in Shoes, Slippers and Sandals 195–215, at 195 notes that “foot vases are best suited to their erstwhile contents, namely perfumed oils. Such oils could have been used on removal of sandals or slippers, for example, in bathing, sympotic, erotic and funerary settings.” I would add that they were at least as likely to be used in a sports context, as part of the after-exercise toilette. 20 Musonius 19.22–28 [ed. Lutz] (= Stob. Flor. 3.1.209): “Dispensing with shoes provides the feet with plenty of ease and lightness in movement, if they have been trained. Accordingly, one does not see hēmerodromoi wearing shoes when on the road, and of the athletes the runners would not be capable of maintaining speed, if they were to run wearing shoes” (ἡ δ’ ἀνυποδησία πολλὴν εὐλυσίαν τινὰ καὶ εὐκολίαν παρέχει τοῖς ποσίν, ὅταν ἠσκηµένοι ὦσιν. ὅθεν καὶ τοὺς ἡµεροδρόµους ὁρᾶν ἔστιν οὐ χρωµένους ὑποδήµασιν ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς ADAM SCHWARTZ 367 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 All this indicates that there were practical reasons for opting to go barefoot for any kind of serious physical exertion. And in fact the naked, human foot is by nature supremely well adapted to walking and running.21 Humans accustomed to walking without shoes inevitably develop calluses and hardened foot soles, without losing tactile sensitivity.22 Thus, protection from puncture wounds, and the general discomfort of walking on rugged terrain, is much less likely to be perceived as a necessity, or even advantageous, by humans accustomed to walking bare- foot and hence with better-protected foot soles. Since footwear is a late development in human history, going barefoot has been the norm for the vast majority of our existence as a species and until comparatively recently—except perhaps in very cold con- ditions, since tough skin alone does not provide protection against cold and frostbite (as is indeed reflected in the sources). καὶ τῶν ἀθλούντων τοὺς δροµεῖς οὐκ ἂν δυναµένους σῴζειν τὸ τάχος, εἰ δέοι τρέχειν αὐτοὺς ἐν ὑποδήµασιν). On the Greek road network see Y. A. Pikoulas, “Travelling by Land in Ancient Greece,” in C. Adams et al. (eds.), Travel Geography and Culture in Ancient Greece, Egypt and the Near East (Oxford 2007) 78– 87, at 80. That such a feat is by no means physically impossible is amply demonstrated by similar or greater feats of endurance on display among certain African and Mesoamerican cultures practicing extreme long-distance running to this day with minimal or no footwear: D. L. Christensen, D. H. Nielsen, and A. Schwartz, “Herodotos and Hemerodromoi: Pheidippides’ Run from Athens to Sparta in 490 BC from Historical and Physiological Per- spectives,” Hermes 137 (2009) 148–169, at 160–161 and 164–165. 21 A comparative study of the metatarsal bones in modern groups and one pre-pastoral group (dated to between 9720 and 2000 B.C.) found that all sets of modern feet showed considerably more pathological lesions of the bones than those of the pre-pastoral group, and concluded that “[t]he influence of modern lifestyle, including the use of footwear, appears to have some signifi- cant negative effect on foot function, potentially resulting in an increase in pathological changes”: B. Zipfel and L. R. Berger, “Shod Versus Unshod: The Emergence of Forefoot Pathology in Modern Humans?” The Foot 17 (2007) 205–213, at 206, 209–212. 22 N. B. Holowka et al., “Foot Callus Thickness Does Not Trade Off Pro- tection for Tactile Sensitivity during Walking,” Nature 571 (2019) 261–264. 368 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 Certainly sandals, the most basic and common type of ancient footwear, do not grip the foot tightly enough or provide adequate ankle support, and may, in terms of traction, actually be worse than going barefoot. Wearing sandals therefore might be an impediment rather than an aid where strenuous physical labour requiring a firm foothold, such as fieldwork,23 is required. 3. Military footwear? The textual evidence The more or less tacit assumption that because footwear existed, it must have been universally used in everyday life, extends to the military sphere: the question of military footwear is generally not brought up, and then usually only in passing, and to note that footwear must have been used as a matter of course. Bryant, in 1899, made the observation that mentions of anypodēsia in the sources all point to “exceptions to a rule almost universal,” a viewpoint echoed by Combellack, who cites Bryant but broadens the scope somewhat to “a number of references in Xenophon, Plato, Plutarch, and others to barefoot Spartans, philosophers, and other odd characters.”24 Jarva’s very com- prehensive examination of Archaic Greek body armour finds comparatively few representations, yet still concludes that “[d]espite relatively scarce positive evidence from archaeological and artistic sources, or written ones, it is probably reasonable to conclude that Archaic Greek soldiers used footwear, but that the military footwear may not yet have been particularly special- ized.”25 Throughout his interesting reading of Xenophon’s Anabasis, Lee appears to take it for granted that Kyros’ mer- cenaries wore footgear.26 Similarly, Krentz seems to presuppose a pair of sandals as standard when assessing the total weight of 23 See e.g. Pl. Resp. 372A; N. Sekunda, The Spartan Army (Oxford 1998) 23. 24 Bryant, HSCP 10 (1899) 58–59; picked up by F. M. Combellack, “Achilles – Bare of Foot?” CJ 41 (1946) 193–198, at 197. 25 E. Jarva, Archaiologia on Greek Body Armour (Jyväskylä 1995) 106–109, at 109. Jarva’s archaeological findings are discussed below (380–381). 26 J. W. I. Lee, A Greek Army on the March. Soldiers and Survival in Xenophon’s Anabasis (Cambridge 2007) 119–120 and passim. ADAM SCHWARTZ 369 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 hoplite equipment.27 Finally, Matthew draws attention to the fact that footwear is mentioned nineteen times in Homer alone and is prevalent in other Greek literary texts, and on that basis concludes that All of these passages indicate that during the eighth to fourth centuries BC, tunics, cloaks, armour and footwear were com- monly worn, and that the naked hoplite depicted in vase paint- ings, and of some modern theories, was not the standard of the time despite artistic suggestions to the contrary.28 There seems to be a certain tendency to assume that going barefoot, when footwear demonstrably existed, cannot have been done in earnest, on any large scale or systematically, in some cases even to the point of dismissing evidence that does not fit this notion or arguing e silentio. But while it remains true that a necesse ad esse valet consequentia, the causality does not work the other way around. The only apparent exception to this tendency is Nicholas Sekunda, who focuses on the literary sources and pithily con- cludes, “Consequently, in our reconstructions we should no more give shoes to Greek soldiers than fig-leaves to Greek athletes.”29 The majority of Greek land warfare in the Archaic and Classical period was fought between infantry armies consisting primarily of hoplites. The question of the degree of congruity between the agrarian population and the hoplite segment is better left for discussion in another context; suffice it to say that the mechanics of hoplite fighting at the very least required stamina and included gruelling physical exertion of a kind that 27 P. Krentz, “A Cup by Douris and the Battle of Marathon,” in G. G. Fagan et al. (eds.), New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare (Leiden 2010) 183–204, at 189 n.28, 196; The Battle of Marathon (New Haven 2010) 1, 49 (though see also 54). 28 C. Matthew, A Storm of Spears. Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War (Barnsley 2012) 36. 29 Sekunda, Spartan Army 22; see also Greek Hoplite 480–323 BC (Oxford 2000) 61. 370 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 made up a large part of agricultural day-to-day work in a pre- industrial society.30 In this respect, then, there was a certain degree of overlap between hoplite fighting and hard manual labour. A recurring theme in the sources is the need for ‘digging in’ and standing fast, for not giving ground under any circum- stances. A very early instance from the mid-seventh century B.C. occurs in one of Tyrtaios’ battle harangues: “Come, let everyone stand fast, with legs set well apart and both feet fixed firmly on the ground, biting his lip with his teeth.”31 A similar notion seems to be entertained by his contemporary Archilochos: I have no liking for a general who is tall, walks with a swaggering gait, takes pride in his curls, and is partly shaven. Let mine be one who is short, has a bent look about the shins, stands firmly on his feet, and is full of courage.32 Archilochos, the mercenary-poet, knew what he was about, and his particular requirements of an ideal commander—quite in- compatible with contemporary aristocratic ideals—reflect the experienced soldier’s eye for the essentials of combat and for a ‘soldiers’ general’, and again the focus is on legs and feet as crucial in establishing a sure footing. The famous exhortatory cry “give me just one more step!” 30 For a view of yeoman farmers comprising something like a middle class, see V. D. Hanson, The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (Berkeley 1995) 5, 22, 193, 219, 359, 366–368, 398, and “The Hoplite Narrative,” in D. Kagan et al. (eds.), Men of Bronze. Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece (Princeton 2013) 256–275. For the opposing view— that in the archaic period there were in practical terms only two economic classes, leisured gentlemen farmers comprising a maximum of 15% of the citizen mass, and everyone else more or less forced to work for them—see H. van Wees, “Farmers and Hoplites: Models of Historical Development,” in Men of Bronze 222–255, at 222–240. 31 Tyrt. fr.11.21–22 West, ἀλλά τις εὖ διαβὰς µενέτω ποσὶν ἀµφοτέροισι / στηριχθεὶς ἐπὶ γῆς, χεῖλος ὀδοῦσι δακών (transl. Gerber). 32 Archil. fr.114 West, οὐ φιλέω µέγαν στρατηγὸν οὐδὲ διαπεπλιγµένον / οὐδὲ βοστρύχοισι γαῦρον οὐδ’ ὑπεξυρηµένον, / ἀλλά µοι σµικρός τις εἴη καὶ περὶ κνήµας ἰδεῖν / ῥοικός, ἀσφαλέως βεβηκὼς ποσσί, καρδίης πλέως (transl. Gerber). ADAM SCHWARTZ 371 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 ascribed to two different commanders, bears this out: in the grueling physical push-and-shove on the hoplite battlefield, achieving a firm foothold was important enough to merit specific mention in the exhortations.33 In works on military matters from the Classical period we find a similar interest in the feet. Xenophon, who had his sons brought up according to local custom in Sparta, extolled the genius of Lykourgos as exemplified in the rigorous Spartan education and training program, the agōgē. This famously tough regimen, which Xenophon compares favourably with the pam- pering of youth elsewhere in Greece (which includes providing them with footwear), provided for the feet: Instead of softening the boys’ feet with sandals he required them to harden their feet by going barefoot. He believed that if they developed this ability, they would climb hills much more easily and descend steep inclines with less danger, and that a youth who had accustomed himself to go barefoot would both leap, jump and run more nimbly than a boy in sandals.34 This is echoed by the Spartan Megillos in Plato’s Laws, who approves of the krypteia as a “wonderfully severe training” (θαυ- µαστῶς πολύπονος πρὸς τὰς καρτερήσεις), including going barefoot in winter, something the Athenian later takes up as a particular requirement of the citizens of the ideal state to ensure prowess in war (633B–C, 942D). Of course, the emphasis on anypodēsia specifically as part of the agōgē might be taken to mean that this was an exception, and that Spartans normally wore footwear in the field once they had completed their education. Michael Lipka adduces several types 33 Polyaen. 2.3.2, “ἓν βῆµα χαρίσασθέ µοι, καὶ τὴν νίκην ἕξοµεν.” ἐπείσθη- σαν, ἐνίκησαν (Epameinondas; see also Excerpt. 14.4); cf. 3.9.27 (Iphikrates; see also Excerpt. 14.12)—and cf. 4.3.8 for a rather similar concept (Alexander). 34 Xen. Lac.Pol. 2.3, ἀντί γε µὴν τοῦ ἁπαλύνειν τοὺς πόδας ὑποδήµασιν ἔταξεν ἀνυποδησίᾳ κρατύνειν, νοµίζων, εἰ τοῦτ᾿ ἀσκήσειαν, πολὺ µὲν ῥᾷον ἂν ὀρθιάδε βαίνειν, ἀσφαλέστερον δὲ πρανῆ καταβαίνειν, καὶ πηδῆσαι δὲ καὶ ἀναθορεῖν καὶ δραµεῖν θᾶττον τὸν ἀνυπόδητον, εἰ ἠσκηκὼς εἴη τοὺς πόδας, ἢ τὸν ὑποδεδεµένον (transl. Marchant and Bowersock, modified). See also Plut. Lyc. 16.11. 372 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 of footwear associated with Sparta and Spartans in support of this view.35 One author he cites is Kritias, whose extant frag- ments on the Spartan constitution unsurprisingly reveal him as a Lakonophile.36 He speaks approvingly of Spartans as wearing “extremely comfortable and useful” (ἥδιστα καὶ χρησιµώτατα) footwear and cloaks, but does so in the context of an enumer- ation of “the smallest things in daily life” (τὰ σµικρότατα ἐς τὴν δίαιταν), whereas his effusive praise of the unique Spartan mug, the kōthōn, repeatedly emphasises its usefulness on campaigns be- cause of its built-in water filtration capability (Kritias B 34 = Athen. 483B–C]). In a parallel quotation by Plutarch, evidently derived from the same source, Kritias speaks of the kōthōn in sim- ilar terms, on a background of general Spartan craft excellence including more unwarlike examples such as couches, chariots, and tables (κλιντῆρες καὶ δίφροι καὶ τράπεζαι, B 68 = Plut. Lyc. 9.4). Lipka goes on to say that “[i]n practice, the aim of bare- footedness was hardly the increase of mobility in the open country [… q]uite the opposite: a special kind of footgear, the κρηπῖδες, are constantly associated with the most mobile part of the army, the light-armed.”37 The authority cited in support of this is Pollux, who, in the context of listing names for footwear with a short definition, defines krēpides as “military wear” (φόρηµα στρατιωτικόν, 7.85). Apart from the fact, however, that several hundred years separate Pollux from Greek warfare of the Archaic and Classical period, other, earlier sources also describe krēpides as footwear for stage actors.38 Theokritos’ Idyll 15, in which two festival-attending Alexandrian women complain that 35 M. Lipka, Xenophon’s Spartan Constitution (Berlin 2002) 121. 36 88 B 32–37 D.-K.; Xen. Hell. 2.3.34; N. Humble, Xenophon of Athens. A Socratic on Sparta (Cambridge 2021) 88. 37 Lipka, Xenophon’s Spartan Constitution 121. 38 Istros FGrHist 334 F 36 (= V.Sophocl. 6): “Istros also says that [Sophokles] invented the white krēpides worn by actors and members of the chorus” (φησὶ δὲ καὶ Ἴστρος τὰς λευκὰς κρηπῖδας αὐτὸν ἐξευρηκέναι, αἷς ὑποδεσµεύονται οἵ τε ὑποκριταὶ καὶ οἱ χορευταί). ADAM SCHWARTZ 373 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 the city streets are thronged with people and four-in-hands (“everywhere krēpides, everywhere men wearing chlamydes”),39 has sometimes, on the authority of the scholiast, been taken to mean that these men must be soldiers, but as Gow astutely points out, both krēpides and chlamydes formed part of Macedonian national dress and were regularly worn at court, just as there is no good reason why troops would be patrolling the streets on a public holiday.40 Building on this, Lipka expands on the general importance of footwear for light-armed troops by citing the equipment reforms introduced by Iphikrates for his mercenary forces in 374 (Diod. 15.44.2–4, Nepos Iph. 11.1.3–4). The main source is Diodoros: “He made soldiers’ boots that were easy to untie and light and they continue to this day to be called ‘iphicratids’ after him.”41 Now, there is some confusion in Diodoros’ text itself, since some of the reforms seem to be directed towards hoplite equipment, but there is no doubt that the changes introduced by Iphikrates applied to his own mercenary troops, who were peltasts.42 The 39 Id. 15.4–6, ὢ τᾶς ἀλεµάτω ψυχᾶς· µόλις ὔµµιν ἐσώθην, / Πραξινόα, πολλῶ µὲν ὄχλω, πολλῶν δὲ τεθρίππων· / παντᾷ κρηπῖδες, παντᾷ χλαµυδηφόροι ἄνδρες. 40 A. S. F. Gow, Theocritus II (Cambridge 1950) 268: “More probably therefore Gorgo means merely that the Greek or Macedonian element in the population is conspicuous in the streets wearing its national clothes, which it perhaps reserved for ceremonial occasions; they will be going to the races.” See also K. Erbacher, Griechisches Schuhwerk. Eine antiquarische Untersuchung (Würzburg 1914) 13: “Neben der Chlamys getragen [...] von der Masse der gewöhnlichen Leute, die sich das Fest ansehen.” 41 Diod. 15.44.4, τάς τε ὑποδέσεις τοῖς στρατιώταις εὐλύτους καὶ κούφας ἐποίησε, τὰς µέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἰφικρατίδας ἀπ’ ἐκείνου καλουµένας (transl. Old- father). 42 G. Wrightson, Combined Arms Warfare in Ancient Greece (London 2019) 139; H. W. Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers (Oxford 1933) 80. Diodoros’ notion that hoplites received new shields, peltai, and were henceforth known as peltasts on that basis, is simply wrong: not only did peltasts exist long before this point, but hoplites as the heavy infantry mainstay of the army continued for a long time. Lipka, Xenophon’s Spartan Constitution 21, says that Iphikrates “established a new military unit of light-armed, the peltasts, in 393.” 374 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 peltast as a warrior type was native to Thrace (though the type existed throughout Anatolia, see Hdt. 7.72.1), and their earliest certain mention in our sources is in the context of Athenian operations in the regions bordering on Thrace.43 Herodotos, while not using the term ‘peltast’, nevertheless seems to give a rundown of standard peltast equipment when describing Xerxes’ invasion corps in 480: “The Thracians […] wore fox-skin caps, and tunics with colourful zeiras [= cloaks] thrown over them; on their feet and shins they wore fawn-skin footwear. They carried javelins, peltas, and small daggers.”44 Peltasts are a frequent enough motif on Attic vase paintings (ap- pearing a full century before the Peloponnesian War),45 where they are normally equipped according to Herodotos’ description (though some are depicted with only the shield and javelins). The eponymous peltē was a light crescent-shaped shield, and the light nature of peltast equipment made them, in a Greek context, an intermediate class between heavy-armed hoplites and the psiloi who carried no shield46—though they primarily functioned as skirmishers, well adapted to hit-and-run tactics. It is conceivable that peltasts and their equipment went together conceptually, in a development similar to the much later appearance of ‘ethnic’ troop type units, such as hussars, uhlans, or zouaves (complete with ‘native’ equipment), in armies far from where they origi- nated, such as those of France and the USA in the nineteenth 43 Thuc. 2.29.5 (where they remain a promise), and see 4.28.4. 44 Hdt. 7.75.1, Θρήικες δὲ ἐπὶ µὲν τῇσι κεφαλῇσι ἀλωπεκέας ἔχοντες ἐστρατεύοντο, περὶ δὲ τὸ σῶµα κιθῶνας, ἐπὶ δὲ ζειρὰς περιβεβληµένοι ποικίλας, περὶ δὲ τοὺς πόδας τε καὶ τὰς κνήµας πέδιλα νεβρῶν, πρὸς δὲ ἀκόντιά τε καὶ πέλτας καὶ ἐγχειρίδια σµικρά (transl. Purvis, modified). For corresponding de- scriptions of peltast equipment see e.g. Arr. Tact. 3.1–4; cf. Ael. Tact. 2.7–9, Asclepiod. 1.2. 45 J. E. Lendon, Soldiers and Ghosts. A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity (New Haven 2005) 95. 46 J. G. P. Best, Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare (Groningen 1969) 4. ADAM SCHWARTZ 375 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 century.47 It may have been felt that troop type and equipment to a certain extent belonged together, or that their fighting prowess and/or requested special abilities depended on their ‘natural’ weapons and equipment—so that they were equipped accordingly, even when raised from the populations of Greek poleis nowhere near Thrace. Alternatively, it may be that their fawn-skin boots enabled them as skirmishers to roam over and through any type of terrain in the mountains, including thorny undergrowth, and ice and snow in the winter. As Iphikrates was always a peltast commander and largely won his renown as such, it was this troop type that he sought to reform: evidently, he wished to enable them to engage hoplites directly, in static combat, by adopting some of their features, notably extending the peltasts’ reach with the addition of a long thrusting-spear and a longer sword.48 As for the ‘iphicratids’, however, boots with tough soles (Polyaen. 1.39.2.) had always been a part of traditional peltast equipment, certainly among the original Thracian warriors, and possibly also when native Greeks acted the part. It cannot be concluded on that basis that hoplites, or other Greek troop types, wore footwear, nor that such a change came about as a result of this. In short, the mere existence of such footgear does not warrant the conclusion that it was worn as a rule, let alone in the field. While there is some textual basis to suggest that certain types of footwear might be employed by some light-armed troop types, it is not conclusive. It is also problematic that the testimony is primarily derived from later periods, and in some cases from sources with a limited understanding of the subject at hand. 47 Contra Best, Peltasts 12: “I do not believe I am oversimplifying matters by stating that the peltasts in Thracian dress on vase-paintings are indeed Thracians and not, for instance, Athenians dressed in this foreign garb.” 48 The extent—and, indeed, reality—of these reforms is debated: Best, Peltasts 102–110, and Wrightson, Combined Arms 139–142, are inclined to dismiss them altogether, but see N. Sekunda, “The Chronology of the Iphicratean Peltast Reform,” in N. Sekunda et al., Iphicrates, Peltasts and Lechaeum (Gdańsk 2014) 126–144, at 129–137, for an opposing view. 376 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 3. Military anypodēsia? The textual evidence On the other hand, there is some evidence that under normal circumstances, the absence of footwear during campaigns was to be expected. In the few instances where hoplites are explicitly said to be wearing footwear—or when the lack of it is at all re- marked upon—it is under extreme weather conditions, such as deep winter campaigns. A passage from Xenophon’s Hellenika is particularly illuminating: For as long as it was summer, the soldiers who were with Eteo- nikos at Chios subsisted on the produce of the land and by working the land for a price. But when winter came and they were in addition poorly clad (γυµνοί) and barefoot (ἀνυπόδητοι), they joined together and plotted to attack the city of Chios.49 This shows not only that these troops must have set out for a summer campaign without footwear as a matter of course, but also that this became a concern only with the onset of winter. A similar case can be found in the Anabasis where Kyros’ hap- less Greek mercenaries find themselves in the harsh Armenian winter and must fashion makeshift karbatinai, cut from untanned leather, to give some measure of protection against snow and frostbite, as their previous footwear had “given out” (ἐπέλιπε, An. 4.5.13–14). During the Athenian siege of Poteidaia in the early Pelo- ponnesian War, there set in the “most horrible frost” (πάγου οἵου δεινοτάτου), so that nobody ventured outside or—if they absolutely had to leave their tents—“wrapped ourselves up in anything we could lay our hands on and wore footwear, tying extra pieces of felt or sheepskin around it,” whereas Sokrates went out wearing his same old light cloak and unshod, “and even like that made better progress on the ice than the other soldiers 49 Hell. 2.1.1, οἱ δ’ ἐν τῇ Χίῳ µετὰ τοῦ Ἐτεονίκου στρατιῶται ὄντες, ἕως µὲν θέρος ἦν, ἀπό τε τῆς ὥρας ἐτρέφοντο καὶ ἐργαζόµενοι µισθοῦ κατὰ τὴν χώραν· ἐπεὶ δὲ χειµὼν ἐγένετο καὶ τροφὴν οὐκ εἶχον γυµνοί τε ἦσαν καὶ ἀνυπόδητοι, συν- ίσταντο ἀλλήλοις καὶ συνετίθεντο ὡς τῇ Χίῳ ἐπιθησόµενοι (transl. Marincola). ADAM SCHWARTZ 377 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 did in their footwear.”50 Yet another example is furnished by a late source, Polyainos (second century A.D.), who says that Iphikrates at one point galvanised his troops, demoralised because poorly equipped and fed, to fight a battle in winter frost by walking from tent to tent in even worse equipment and exhorting them: “When they saw their general in such poor clothing and without any footwear, yet exerting himself for their common safety, they followed him willingly.”51 Much has been made of Thucydides’ puzzling description of 212 Plataians’ and Athenians’ equipment during their breakout from the besieged Plataia in the winter of 428/7: “They were lightly armed, and had shoes only on their left foot to give them a safer grip in the mud.”52 Commentators are divided between those who accept the given reason more or less at face value, and those who, seeing this as an instance of Thucydides’ rationalist avoidance of religious or supernatural elements (supposedly to the point of actively suppressing actual religious motivations for choices in the human and societal sphere),53 identify it as a case 50 Pl. Smp. 220A6–C1, καί ποτε ὄντος πάγου οἵου δεινοτάτου, καὶ πάντων ἢ οὐκ ἐξιόντων ἔνδοθεν, ἢ εἴ τις ἐξίοι, ἠµφιεσµένων τε θαυµαστὰ δὴ ὅσα καὶ ὑποδεδεµένων καὶ ἐνειλιγµένων τοὺς πόδας εἰς πίλους καὶ ἀρνακίδας, οὗτος δ᾽ ἐν τούτοις ἐξῄει ἔχων ἱµάτιον µὲν τοιοῦτον οἷόνπερ καὶ πρότερον εἰώθει φορεῖν, ἀνυπόδητος δὲ διὰ τοῦ κρυστάλλου ῥᾷον ἐπορεύετο ἢ οἱ ἄλλοι ὑποδεδεµένοι (transl. Nehamas and Woodruff, modified). 51 Polyaen. 3.9.34, οἱ δὲ προθύµως ἠκολούθησαν ὁρῶντες τὸν στρατηγὸν ταπεινῶς ἠσθηµένον καὶ ἀνυπόδητον ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας προθυµούµενον. It may be observed that Iphikrates’ trick here recalls Phokion, who, on cam- paigns at least, may have had similar objectives (see n.5 above). 52 Thuc. 3.22.2, ἦσαν δὲ εὐσταλεῖς τε τῇ ὁπλίσει καὶ τὸν ἀριστερὸν µόνον πόδα ὑποδεδεµένοι ἀσφαλείας ἕνεκα τῆς πρὸς τὸν πηλόν (transl. Hammond). 53 S. Hornblower, Thucydidean Themes (Oxford 2010). The present passage is dismissed at 28–29: “That is, their reason for leaving one foot unshod was not, as Thucydides thought, in order to get a better footing in the mud, al- though this quaint explanation satisfied Gomme.” Yet, as Hornblower ad- mits, its inclusion at all is difficult to explain if Thucydides’ object was to tone 378 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 of the quasi-religious practice termed ‘monosandalism’ in modern scholarship.54 The disinclination to accept Thucydides’ explanation is typically based on the breakout party’s baffling decision not to carry out their night action with both feet either shod or bare: surely, if either provided the better grip, it would be twice as effective to use it on both feet.55 Yet even if Thucy- dides is in bad faith here, he must have been confident that his explanation would be accepted by his readers, and so cannot be dismissed out of hand. Sue Blundell, in a well-balanced article on monosandalism, discusses this passage and relates an ex- periment of her own, in which having one foot bare increased its traction in mud, in contrast to the other, sandalled one.56 An additional reason, one suspects, may have been the bitter winter cold. Thucydides is explicit that the breakout party chose a stormy night with rain or sleet to avoid detection: slush ice had in fact formed on the surface of the water in the ditch through down or obscure the real, religious motivation: “But just why he gave the de- tail, and the unsatisfactory explanation for the detail, remain totally baffling questions” (29). 54 For suppressed ‘monosandalism’ in the case of the Plataians see especially P. Lévêque and P. Vidal-Naquet, “Épaminondas Pythagoricien ou le problème tactique de la droite et de la gauche,” Historia 9 (1960) 294–308, at 298–299, stating “[v]oilà donc l’historien pris, qu’on nous passe l’expres- sion, en flagrant délit de rationalisme abusif”; L. Edmunds, “Thucydides on Monosandalism (3.22.2),” in GRBM 10 (1984) 71–75 (with an overview of further skepticists at 71 n.1). Monosandalism, as encountered primarily in myths, seems to be connected with direct contact with the earth, and hence with chthonic deities, and perhaps on something liminal and rites of passage (as the putting on or taking off of shoes typically precedes leaving or entering); see R. L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography II (Oxford 2013) 206–207. However, the connection between these clearly observable religious and ritualistic prac- tices and the behaviour of the Plataians in 428/7 is not easily established. Moreover, evidence for monosandalism in this region and in the fifth century B.C. is scarce, and the present passage is in fact the only historical one in Greek literature, as pointed out by Blundell, in Shoes, Slippers and Sandals 221. 55 Lévêque and Vidal-Naquet, Historia 9 (1960) 299; S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides I (Oxford 1991) 407. 56 Blundell, in Shoes, Slippers and Sandals 218–219. ADAM SCHWARTZ 379 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 which they had to wade. It was, in other words, a very cold winter night: the exact conditions under which footwear might be expected anyway, as protection against the cold ground. By wearing only one, the Plataians may have achieved some measure of protection against the cold while ensuring the necessary grip, during fighting in the icy mud, for the supporting foot generating thrust in most combat stances. An additional point which, to my knowledge, has been so far overlooked is the fact that Thucydides’ statement may only have been intended to cover the initial escape action and fighting. Each man may well have brought his unworn sandal along, to be put on when on the road to Athens: in terms of weight or encumbrance a spare would have made very little difference and could easily be tucked under the tunic or in a belt. The idea that there were practical advantages to leaving one foot bare did not, at any rate, seem strange or quaint to Euripides, in whose Meleagros the sons of Thestios participated in the hunt for the Kalydonian boar “each with his left foot unshod while the other was sandalled, so the knee should carry less weight, as is the custom for all the Aitolians”57—nor to Aristotle, who felt compelled to call out Euripides for getting this detail wrong: Now, Euripides says that Thestios’ sons walked with their left foot unshod. […] But the Aitolians have the exact opposite custom: they wear footwear on their left foot and keep the right unshod. The dominant foot has to be light, I suppose, the other one does not.58 Gomme’s parallel from Scott’s Last Minstrel (“Each better knee 57 Eur. fr.530 Kannicht (= Macrob. Sat. 5.18.17), οἱ δὲ Θεστίου παῖδες τὸ λαιὸν ἴχνος ἀνάρβυλοι ποδός, / τὸ δ᾿ ἐν πεδίλοις, ὡς ἐλαφρίζον γόνυ / ἔχοιεν, ὃς δὴ πᾶσιν Αἰτωλοῖς νόµος (transl. Collard and Cropp, emphasis added). 58 Arist. fr.74 Rose (= Macrob. Sat. 5.18.17), τοὺς δὲ Θεστίου κόρους τὸν µὲν ἀριστερὸν πόδα φησὶν Εὐριπίδης ἐλθεῖν ἔχοντας ἀνυπόδετον […]. οἷς δὴ πᾶν τοὐναντίον ἔθος τοῖς Αἰτωλοῖς· τὸν µὲν γὰρ ἀριστερὸν ὑποδέδενται, τὸν δὲ δεξιὸν ἀνυποδετοῦσιν. δεῖ γὰρ οἶµαι τὸν ἡγούµενον ἔχειν ἐλαφρόν, ἀλλ’ οὐ τὸν ἐµ- µένοντα. 380 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 was bared, to aid / the warriors in the escalade”)59 incurs the derision of Lévêque and Vidal-Naquet: “On s’étonnera de voir ainsi les genoux comparés aux pieds, les rochers à la boue.”60 But this is surely not the point of the comparison: rather, it is to point out that under certain circumstances it may be advan- tageous to have the favoured or stronger body part of a pair bare and thus unencumbered. 5. Military anypodēsia? The archaeological evidence61 Depictions of hoplites wearing sandals in combat seem to be the exception in any visual medium during the period.62 The following observations are not based on systematic investigation, but rather on reviewing representations under relevant lemmata in iconographic resources such as LIMC, and in databases like the Beazley Archive Pottery Database and Arachne. Jarva lists an impressive overview of shod warriors in iconography, but for the purposes of this survey I can find no more than two of these representations actually showing shod hoplites in combat: the vast majority are either not hoplites, not in combat or, in some cases, not showing footwear at all.63 In vase painting, one rare example is a black-figure neck amphora from ca. 575–550 attributed to the Camtar Painter and showing an Amazonomachy, in which Telamon plunges his sword into Glauke; he is clearly wearing some sort of closed foot- wear with lacing extending up the ankle and past the lower part 59 A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides II (Oxford 1956) 238. 60 Lévêque and Vidal-Naquet, Historia 9 (1960) 299 n.29 (calling it “le commentaire, étrange sur ce point, de A. W. Gomme”). 61 For invaluable assistance and expertise in this section, I am indebted to Jan Stubbe Østergaard. 62 It should be emphasised that depictions of hoplite footwear in non- combat contexts are not included in this survey. 63 Jarva, Archaiologia 106–109. To give one example of the last category, I am unable to find “hoplites provided with footwear” in two of the six repre- sentations listed by Jarva 108 and n.665 (namely ARV 2 429.21 and 599.2 [= BAPD 205065 and 206930]). ADAM SCHWARTZ 381 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 81of his greaves.64 Of the five warriors depicted in this scene, he is the only one to be shod. Two more are both Attic red-figure neck amphoras, datable to ca. 425–375, and attributed to the Suessula Painter. The first shows a hoplite attacked by two Amazons: otherwise naked, he is wearing black boots (resembling nothing so much as modern neoprene water shoes), extending to the middle of his lower legs.65 Another hoplite nearby, though also apparently in action, has bare feet. The other shows a fight between two hoplites (one naked, the other wearing a cloak) and two young warriors more lightly equipped;66 all are wearing black boots identical to those on the previous amphora, something that apparently held some kind of fascination for this painter. These three, however, represent all that I have been able to find of pictorial representations of shod hoplites in combat. Two fringe cases are interesting: an early Classical tondo of an Attic red-figure kylix by the Sosias Painter shows Achilles bandaging Patroklos’ left arm, wounded by an arrow. This is clearly an emergency procedure: both are wearing their scale corslets. But where Achilles is wearing sandals, Patroklos is barefooted. The two were in fact never on the field of battle at Troy at the same time: while Patroklos was fighting, Achilles pointedly remained hors de combat until Patroklos’ death. Interestingly, then, the active fighter in this scene is barefooted, whereas the undisputed non- combatant is wearing sandals.67 64 Tarquinia, Museo Nazionale Tarquiniese inv. RC5564 (= ABV 84.1; BAPD 300779). See also Jarva, Archaiologia 108 and nn.665 and 671. 65 New York, Metropolitan Museum inv. 44.11.12 (= ARV 2 1344.3; BAPD 217570). See also Jarva, Archaiologia 109 and n.676. 66 New York, Metropolitan Museum inv. 44.11.13 (= ARV 2 1344.5; BAPD 217572). See also Jarva, Archaiologia 109 and n.676. 67 Kylix by the Sosias Painter: Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2278 (= ARV 2 21.1; BAPD 200108); J. Østergaard and A. Schwartz, “A Late Archaic/Early Classical Greek Relief with Two Hoplites,” JdI 137 (2022) 1–38, at 17 with fig. 17 and n.62. 382 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 In sculpture, the funerary stele of Lykeas and Chairedemos, found on Salamis and datable to ca. 420, shows two hoplites, probably on their way to or from battle, wearing sandals.68 The archaeological evidence for hoplites fighting barefoot is, by contrast, overwhelming. While the subject has not been com- prehensively dealt with, an exhaustive treatment is out of the question in the present context; instead, a limited, representative selection, spanning the period and encompassing its principal visual media of vase painting and sculpture, must suffice. In vase painting, hoplites are shown in one of the four registers of the Late Proto-Corinthian Chigi vase, an olpe of ca. 640, with nothing to suggest a mythological context.69 Moving on to the black-figure vase paintings of the sixth century, the giganto- machy on an Attic psykter in Houston stands for a host of similarly barefooted fighters.70 From the Late Classical Period, ca. 430, we have another gigantomachy, on a squat lekythos by the painter Aison.71 A mythological context is all-pervasive in Archaic and Classical sculpture depicting fighting on foot, from the gigantomachy of the Siphnian frieze to the individual Greeks fighting Amazons, centaurs, and Giants in the metopes of the Parthenon and the battle scenes on the Alexander Sarcopha- gus.72 Rounding out this minimal overview, a bronze statuette 68 Piraeus, Archaeological Museum inv. 385; A. Scholl, “Aigina, Megara, Salamis. Zur Heroisierung des Verstorbenen im frühen attischen Grabrelief der Klassik,” JdI 133 (2018) 187–239, at 188–195, esp. 191 (fig. 21). 69 Rome, Villa Giulia 22679; T. Rasmussen, “Interpretations of the Chigi Vase,” BABesch 91 (2016) 29–41, esp. 34–36. 70 Menil Collection 70.53 (= ARV 2 21.1; BAPD 478 with bibliography). 71 Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale RC 239 (= ARV 2 1174.6; BAPD 215562; J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases. The Classical Period (London 1989) fig. 293. 72 The Siphnian frieze: Delphi, Archaeological Museum; V. Brinkmann, Beobachtungen zum formalen Aufbau und zum Sinngehalt der Friese des Siphnierschatz- hauses (Munich 1994), esp. 56–62. The Parthenon metopes: London, The British Museum and Athens, The Acropolis Museum; I. Jenkins, The Parthenon ADAM SCHWARTZ 383 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 may be mentioned: the hoplite on the frieze around the neck of the Archaic krater from Vix, ca. 530.73 It may be asked whether the Greek penchant for displaying the male body naked extends to pictorial representations of combat, where it is by no means unusual. But the important point is that while hoplites are shown in many different degrees of undress, the feet are unique in their insistently pervasive nakedness: they are the only body part to be naked in very nearly all cases across the board. Even when pictorial representations of hoplites are emphatically not otherwise naked (i.e., ‘realistic’), the feet are almost invariably bare. It therefore does not seem possible to understand this persistent trait by means of any of the various modern interpretations of the implications of artistic nakedness (such as idealisation or heroisation).74 As a curious aside, the footguards from the Archaic period found at Olympia may be mentioned: thin sheets of bronze with anatomical details such as veins and toes (in one case hinged), and apparently meant to be fitted to footwear and/or a pair of greaves. For whatever reason—possibly the very fact that they required a sole to be stitched onto—they do not seem to have caught on: very few specimens, three in all, have been found, and they have left no trace in iconography.75 Sculptures in the British Museum (London 2007) 69–81; K. Schwalb, “Celebra- tion of Victory: The Metopes of the Parthenon,” in J. Neils (ed.), The Parthenon from Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge 2005) 159–197. The Alexander Sar- cophagus: Istanbul, Archaeological Museum inv. 370; V. von Graeve, Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt (Berlin 1970). 73 C. Rolley (ed.), La tombe princière de Vix (Paris 2003). 74 For an overview of the topic see Østergaard and Schwartz, JdI 137 (2022) 12–13. Sekunda, Spartan Army 22, already rejected the notion of anypodēsia as purely artistic convention. Erbacher, Schuhwerk 40, contrasts the many ‘realistic’ depictions of ephebes wearing krēpides “im Gegensatz zu den Hopliten, die in heroischer Idealisierung mit ehernen Beinschienen und nackten Füßen erscheinen,” though without asking why some Athenian soldiers deserved this treatment in iconography, while others did not. 75 Jarva, Archaiologia 105–106. 384 FIGHTING UNSHOD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 6. Conclusions Preconceived cultural notions of footwear as an absolute necessity, internalised enough to be completely reflexive, are a formidable barrier to our understanding of alternatives in other times or cultures. Yet even today, in many places around the world people go barefoot as a matter of course, and their hardened foot soles (and overall healthier feet) give perfectly adequate support in rough terrain: indeed it was not so long ago that children in the countryside in our own part of the world went barefoot as a matter of course.76 In 1542, the highland clergyman John Eldar wrote to king Henry VIII of England: Moreover wherefore they call us in Scotland Redshanks, and in your grace’s dominion of England Rough-footed Scots, please it your majesty to understand, that we of all people can tolerate, suffer, and away best with cold: for both summer and winter, (except when the frost is most vehement,) going always bare-legged and bare-footed, our delight and pleasure is not only in hunting of red- deer, wolves, foxes, and graies, whereof we abound and have great plenty; but also in running, leaping, swimming, shooting, and throwing of darts. Therefore in so much as we use, and delight, so to go always, the tender delicate gentlemen of Scotland call us Redshanks.”77 Almost incredible as this seems to modern sensibilities, people in antiquity, especially in a Mediterranean climate, were no different, and outside of city centres the majority of the popu- lation likely went barefoot most of the time, except in the winter cold. Our literary sources, heavily skewed towards life in the city where anypodēsia must have been rather more unusual, should not blind us to the fact that living conditions for the majority of most populations are very dimly known to us, if at all, and may well have been very much different on a number of points. 76 M. Martin, A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland (London 1703) 194: “The Generality wear neither Shoes nor Stockings before they are seven, eight or ten years old.” 77 J. Pinkerton, The History of Scotland from the Accession of the House of Stuart to that of Mary II (London 1797) 396–397. ADAM SCHWARTZ 385 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 362–385 Sandals, by far the most common type of footwear, may offer a measure of protection for a delicate foot sole, but very little in the way of traction, and may in fact hamper it. Field work such as ploughing was no doubt done barefoot, as was any kind of sports and extreme distance running, and the same very likely applies to the gruelling work of hoplite fighting, where traction was of paramount importance. Certainly, there seem to be a number of references to unshod hoplites in the literary sources, and very few to the use of footwear unless explicitly in a winter context, while the importance of a firm stance is emphasised again and again. Just as important, however, is the overwhelming amount of evidence provided by iconography, in which any footwear on hoplites in a fighting context is a very rare exception to a hard rule of naked feet, irrespective of whether or not they are other- wise portrayed as naked. To borrow a phrase, “a negative argu- ment is not valueless if the negative is universal.”78 No matter how counter-intuitive to us, we may have to face the possibility that hoplites routinely preferred to fight without footwear.79 November, 2023 Department of Greek and Latin University of Copenhagen schwartz@hum.ku.dk 78 R. Carpenter, “The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet,” AJA 37 (1933) 8– 29, at 26–27. 79 This article has its origins in fruitful discussions with Jan Stubbe Østergaard in the course of our collaboration on another article (JdI 137 [2022] 1–38): for those, and for assistance with the more archaeological sections of the present work, I am indebted. I am also grateful to the external reviewer and the editorial board of GRBS for invaluable comments and suggestions.