Classical Quarterly -'Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens' by Matthew R. Christ, 2001

7/27/2019 Classical Quarterly -'Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens' by Matthew R. Christ, 2001

1/26

Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens

Author(s): Matthew R. ChristSource: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2001), pp. 398-422Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556519 .

Accessed: 15/08/2013 12:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 65.88.88.42 on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:08:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3556519?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3556519?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/26

ClassicalQuarterly1.2 398-422 2001)Printedn GreatBritain 398

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES INCLASSICAL ATHENSOtAE)dapAvspard0'AE/LopEVEvEoJoVaralwayshuntsoutyoungmen (S.fr.554R)

Although Attic funeral orations praise the citizen-soldiers of Athens for embracingthe opportunity to serve their city, hoplite service was compulsory throughout theClassical period.' The divergence between civic ideology and practice alerts us here,as elsewhere,to possible tensions within the city. Conscription in Athens was, in fact,a sensitive matter-as it continues to be in modern democracies (Cohen, 1985). Itscompulsory aspect existed in tension with the personal freedom normally enjoyed byindividuals. Furthermore,in distributing among citizens the obligation to risk life onthe battlefield, it raised questions of fairness and equity to which Athenians, aspolitical equals, were acutely attuned. Athenian arrangements for conscription arethus significant for our understanding not only of military institutions but also ofdemocratic citizenship. Curiously, this intriguing facet of Athenian democracy hasnot received much attention in its own right. Scholars address conscription in Athensinfrequentlyand then only briefly as it pertains to other subjects,especially Atheniandemography. This paper seeks to fill this gap by reconstructing how conscriptionworked in Athens and locating it within its evolving historical context.During the Classical period, Athenians used two different methods of conscriptionof which we know. At the time of the Peloponnesian War, the generals exercisedconsiderable discretion in selecting whose names to post on the ten conscription lists(katalogoi), one for each tribe, that werecompiled whenevera campaign was planned.By the mid-fourth century, however, the generals had begun keeping permanentrecords of potential hoplites by age-group and calling up entire groups to serve basedexclusivelyon their age. Many questions remain unansweredconcerning both systemsand the transition between them. How exactly did the new arrangementdiffer from itspredecessor? Was the transition gradual or abrupt? What were the motivations,practicaland ideological, behind the change?Whatconsequences did the reform have?I will argue that the reform was implemented all at once sometime in the period386-366 B.C.While it was important as a militaryreform since it sped up mobilizationof the Athenian army, it was also significant as a democratic reform that providedafirm institutional basis for citizens taking turns in the riskyenterpriseof war. As such,I will suggest, it was consistent with other contemporaryefforts to ensure that citizenscarryout their civic duties equitably.

CONSCRIPTION BY KATALOGOSAs the hoplite phalanx grew in importance during the Archaic period, most Greekcity-states probably made hoplite service mandatory for those who could affordarmour and weapons. Whateverform conscription of hoplites took in Athens in thisperiod, the reorganization of Athenians into ten tribes through the Cleisthenic

' Cavalryservice was also by conscription:see esp. Bugh (1988), 52-5. Crewsfor the fleet weresometimes conscripted: see Amit (1965), 48-9; Jordan (1975), 101-3; Hansen (1985), 21-4;Rosivach (1985 [1992]),41, with 56-7, n. 3; Gabrielsen(1994), 105-10, 248-9, n. 6.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 399reforms (508/7 B.C.)probably altered how it was administered. Henceforth, hoplitesserved within ten tribal contingents (Hdt. 6.111.1; Thuc. 6.98.4, 6.101.5; Lys. 16.15),and they were probablyconscripted as well on the basis of these tribes.2Conscriptionby katalogos, which was carried out by Cleisthenic tribe as we shall see, may havebeen initiated at this time. While the first contemporary evidence for this type ofconscription dates to the time of the Peloponnesian War,several later sources suggestit was operating before this. The problematic 'Decree of Themistocles', recorded inTroizenin the thirdcentury B.C., peaks of the generals enlisting (KaraX-eat) marines,who wereconceivably hoplites, in 480 B.C.M.L. 23.23-5; cf. Hamel, 1998a, 26, n. 74).The Aristotelian AthenaionPoliteia asserts that democratic reformwas possible in theaftermath of Ephialtes' reforms(462 B.C.)n part because conscription EK Ka-Tacoyovhad fallen disproportionately on the city's 'better men' and seriously reduced theirnumbers (26.1); this implies that hoplites were called up by katalogos in the wars ofthe Delian League (cf. Rhodes, 1981, 326-7). Diodorus Siculus speaks of Myronidesenlisting (Ka7a-e'as) hoplites in 457 B.C. 11.81.4), and of Tolmides doing so in 456B.c. 11.84.4-5).4The process of conscription was set in motion whenever the Assembly voted infavour of a military campaign. The Assembly normally specified how many hopliteswereto go on campaign and decided by vote which of the ten generals should lead it.5The general or generals selected, probably aided by the other generals, was/wereresponsiblefor assemblingthe force. Volunteers for hoplite service were welcome (D.S.11.84.4-5; Plu. Per. 18.2;cf. Ar.Av.1364-9), as they were for the otherwise compulsorytrierarchy,which the generalsalso administered.6Individualsmight volunteer to servefor a variety of reasons, including patriotism, lust for adventure,or desire for a wage.Some may have volunteered, however, because they reckoned that conscription wasimminent and they would have a greaterclaim to honour as volunteers (D.S. 11.84.4;cf. X. Eq. Mag. 1.11-12). We must not, however, overestimate the willingness ofAthenians to volunteer. Even when enthusiasm ran high, as for the doomed expeditionto Sicily in 415 B.C.Thuc. 6.24), conscription was still necessary(Thuc. 6.26.2, 6.31.3).Conscription by katalogos involved several distinct phases: (i) compilation of listsof conscripts;(ii) notification of conscripts;(iii) grantingof exemptions; (iv) muster.7

On hopliteswithin the developingpolis, see Raaflaub 1997);cf. id. (1996), 152-3. OnAthenianhoplites n the sixthcenturyB.C.,ee Manville 1990),86-7, 162-3. Raaflaub 1992[1995], 6,n. 69)collectsbibliographyn themilitarydimension f theCleisthenic eforms.Arist.Pol.1303a8-10makesasimilar laimabout hesociological mpactof conscription ykatalogos in connection with the Peloponnesian War.4 D.S. 11.84.4-5 describes the process thrice with forms of Kara-Ayw, once with 8Ld rJ-vKcraAo'ywv. Plu. Per. 18.2, recountinga differentversion of this episode, places it in 447 B.C..5 On the Assembly's authority over the number of hoplites, see Hamel (1998a), 24-5, with 25,n.68.Ontheappointmentf generalso commands,eeibid.,14-23.6 On hoplite volunteers, ee Kromayer nd Veith(1928),48; Pritchett 1974), 2.110-12;Andrewes1981),2. Onconscriptionf trierarchs,ee[Arist.]A h. Pol.61.1;on voluntarism ndthetrierarchy,ee Gabrielsen1994),68-73.7 In reconstructinghe phasesof conscription y katalogos, drawprimarilyon evidenceconcerningheperiodbefore386B.c., ince-as I arguebelow-conscriptionbyage-groupswasinstituted ometime n the period386-366 B.C.Where drawon evidence oncerning rrange-mentsafter386B.C.,do so becausenmyviewthe shift to conscription y age-groups-thoughit altered fundamental aspects of its predecessor-probably did not change the specific practicein question.



4/26

400 M. R. CHRIST1. Compilationof listsThe first task of the generals was to compile lists (katalogoi) of conscripts, one foreach tribe. Each tribe's taxiarch was involved in compiling his tribe'slist.8 Secretariesprobably assisted in the process (MacDowell, 1994, 158). The entire board ofgenerals may have been active in compiling lists, with each of the ten supervising atribal list (MacDowell, 1994, 155). The fact that our sources often attribute the actof conscription to an individual general does not necessarily contradict this: acampaign's general(s) may have been primarily responsible for carrying outconscription even though aided by the other members of the board.' Lysias 9 (For theSoldier) may provide evidence of collegial involvement: the speaker describes how hebrought his claim for exemption before one of the generals (9.4), who turned it down,and how later 'the ones with Ctesicles the archon'(9.6) fined him when they heardthat he was abusing them. Ctesicles is probably the general who turned down hisclaim; those 'with Ctesicles' are most likely generals, though it is not clear whetherthis refers to the entire board or a subset sharing a joint-command.10 Collaborationamong the generals, working from their shared office (the strategeion) in or near theAgora, however, would have been sensible." If each general, assisted by a tribaltaxiarch, supervised one tribe's ist of conscripts, this would make the compilation oflists less cumbersome. 2 Furthermore, their participation in this process would placethe generals remaining behind in a good position to carry out any furtherconscription called for later in the same year.Scholars have disputed what records were availablefor making lists of conscripts.A. H. M. Jones (1957, 163; cf. Dover, 1970 = HCT IV, 264) argues that the generalscould draw on a permanent, central register (katalogos) of hoplites. Hansen (1985),however,argues that the central registeris 'a modern fabrication'(83) and that 'kata-logos invariablydenotes a roster drawnup for a particular campaign' (89) (cf. Hansen,1981, 24-9). While Hansen has persuaded many scholars,13 Burckhardt(1996, 21, n.31; cf. id., 1999) has recentlydefended the position that there was a central registeronthe grounds that many of the ancient testimonia could refer to this, since they areambiguous, and that a central registerwould have made conscription much simpler.In my view, however,the testimonia are not so ambiguous-their use of katalogos in

8 For the generals' involvement, see X. H.G. 1.1.34, 1.4.21; Lys. 9.15, 14.6; D.S. 11.81.4,11.84.4-5, 15.26.2;cf. Plu. Phoc. 10.3-4. On the supportingrole of taxiarchs, ee Ar. Pax1179-81;Lys.15.5; f.Poll. 8.115.Similarly,ormuchof theclassicalperiodeachtribe's hylarchprobably ssisted he twohipparchswith lists of members f thecavalryromhis tribe cf.Lys.16.6-7);by Aristotle'sime,however,en katalogeiswereelectedto helpmaintain he cavalrykatalogos ([Arist.]Ath. Pol. 49.2). On these arrangementsfor the cavalry,see Bugh (1988), 53-5,169-73.9 Conscriptions attributedo individualgenerals n X. H.G 1.1.34, 1.4.21;D.S. 11.81.4,11.84.4-5,15.26.2;f.Plu.Phoc.10.3-4.0oForarchonsstrategos,eeLys.15.5,16.16; f.Ael. VH.13.12;MacDowell1994),157. ampersuaded by Dreher (1994, 166-7) that those 'with Ctesicles' are generals-not secretaries asMacDowell (1994, 157-60) suggests. For other possible clues of collegial involvement, see Lys.9.15, 14.6,15.7." On the strategeion, see Wycherley (1957), 174-7; Thompson and Wycherley (1972), 73;Wycherley (1978), 46; Camp (1992), 116-18.12 Throughout he period when one generalwas selectedfrom each tribe,each generalnaturallywould havesupervisedhis tribe's own list. It is controversialhow long this period lasted:see Hamel 1998a),85-7.

13 Those following Hansen include Hornblower (1991), 256; MacDowell (1994), 158, n. 10;Hamel 1998a),24,n. 67.



5/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 401the singular,as I will argue below, does not even hint at the existence of a centralregister. Furthermore, while it is true that a central register would have facilitatedconscription, the Athenians and their generals at this time may have been daunted bythe difficulties involved in establishingand maintaining such records.At the outbreakof the Peloponnesian War,a register would have had to keep track of as many as18,000-24,000 potential hoplites, a group with considerable turnover due to death ordisability from natural causes or warfare.14 The bureaucratic challenge would havebeen formidable,requiringthe general'soffice to act throughout the year as a censusbureauof sorts in addition to carryingout its numerousother duties: it was one thingto maintain a permanent katalogos of the 1000 members of the cavalry, as theAthenians may have done at this time, but quite another to keep track of the muchlargergroup of potential hoplites in this way.5sIt is quite plausible, therefore,that the generalshad recourse to a method of collect-ing names that was less onerous-at least for them. When a campaign was voted, theyissued a call to the demarchs(cf. Dem. 50.6) to submit names of individuals eligiblefor service as indicated by the deme registers-the lexiarchikagrammateia. IG 13 138(c. 440 B.C.?) ndicates that these registers identified members of the cavalry andprobablyalso men liable to service as hoplites-'hoplites' is a restoration accepted bymost scholars.'6If the lists submittedby the demarchsalso marked, for example, thosewho werepermanentlydisabled,this could have savedthe generalsconsiderable troublein drawing up the katalogoi.'7The demarchsmay have submitted either complete listswith any annotations or shorter,screened lists of those actually able to serve. Whilesuch lists ideally would providean up-to-date pictureof qualified individuals based onlocal knowledge, there was some risk of abuse on the part of local officials (cf. Dem.57.58-60), especially if they submittedscreenedlists.After the generals had received lists of names from the demes, they were in aposition to make up their katalogoi for the current campaign. While the generals

'4 For these figures, see Rhodes (1988), 274, who is extrapolating from Thuc. 2.13.6. OnAthenian demography, see also Hansen (1985; 1988; 1991, 86-94); cf. Sekunda (1992), withHansen'sesponse1994)." Although a permanent cavalry katalogos is not unambiguously attested before thelate-fourthcentury (see above,n. 8), the administration of the city's long-term loan (katastasis) torecruits for purchasing mounts (see Bugh, 1988, 56-8) would call for central record-keepingofsome kind. Gabrielsen(1994, 68-73) arguesthat the katalogoi listing trierarchswere ad hoc ratherthan permanent.The Syracusans may have kept a central list of citizens at this time: according to Plu. Nic.14.6-7, the Athenians captured such a list, which the Syracusans had intended to use for'determiningand enrolling those who had come to military age'.

16 On the nature of the lexiarchikagrammateia, see Hansen (1985), 14-15 and Whitehead(1986), 35-6, n. 130. On their possible use in conscription, see Hansen (1985), 85; Bugh (1988),55; Sekunda (1992), 324; cf. Whitehead (1986), 134. The 'Decree of Themistocles' requires thegenerals to use these in manning the fleet (M.L. 23.27-31): see Jameson (1963), 399-400 andWhitehead(1986), 35-6, n. 130, 134, n. 79. On IGIV138, see Jameson (1980); Whitehead (1986),35-6, n. 130, 135;Bugh (1988), 55."7The city did not have a central registryof all disabled men; it kept track only of those whoreceivedfinancial support fromit becausethey wereindigent and could not work: see [Arist.]Ath.Pol. 49.4; Rhodes (1981), 570; cf. Dillon (1995). Hansen (1985, 20-1) argues that the lexiarchikagrammateiadid not exclude the names of the disabled.While it would havebeen useful for the generals o receive nformation romthe demesconcerning the ages of those on the registers, we have no evidence that the deme registerscontained this information. Whitehead (1986, 35-6, n. 130) is rightly sceptical of Effenterre'sspeculation that the deme registerswent so far as to list demesmen by age-groups for purposes ofconscription (Effenterre,1976, 15;cf. 11).



6/26

402 M. R. CHRISTprobablyhad to ensure that the same number of individuals was selected from eachtribe so that each of the ten tribal contingents would be the same size (cf. Sekunda,1992, 341), they had broad discretion in selectingwhich hoplites to conscript from eachtribe. Because most expeditions required only a fraction of all eligible hoplites, thegenerals, aided by the tribal taxiarchs, were free to select individuals they deemedespecially capable (Thuc. 6.31.3; D.S. 11.84.4; cf. [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 26.1; Arist. Pol.1303a8-10).18 When the generals and their staff had exhausted what they knew ofeligible hoplites personally or by report-as must often have been the case wherelargeexpeditions were involved (cf. Gabrielsen, 1994, 243, n. 15), they may have selectedmore or less randomly from among vigorous men.Our sources are clear that the generalsmade up lists (katalogoi) in the plural (Thuc.6.26.2, 6.31.3; D.S. 11.84.4), one for each of the ten tribes. There is no reason toassume, as Hansen apparently does (1985, 85, 89), that a single, campaign-specificroster was ever compiled from these katalogoi. A composite roster would have beenconsiderably ess useful than the ten tribalkatalogoi, since individualswere called up toserve and reportedfor musterby tribe(see below).19Consistent with this is the fact thatAthenians do not seem to have used katalogos collectively of either a composite rosterfor a particular campaign or a permanent register.When katalogos is used concretely,it can alwaysbe understood as referring o one of the ten tribalkatalogoi generatedfora specific campaign. While it is natural to take katalogos as a tribal list when sourcesspeak of a tribal taxiarch'sresponsibilityfor maintaining it (Lys. 15.5;cf. Poll. 8.115),the tribal katalogos also probablylies behind the use of katalogos in other contexts aswell.

The prepositional phrasecK KaTraAdyou,which is frequentlyused to explain how ahoplite came to serve on a campaign, is best taken as an adverb (cf. LSJ E'K111.8)derived from the fact that conscription was carried out through the tribal katalogos.Thus, when Thucydides describes the Athenian preparations for the Sicilianexpedition, he speaks first of the compilation of katalogoi (KaraAo'yovus E1TOLOOVrO:6.26.2; r SE TrEO'VKaraAo'yogrTE Prqaros EKKPLOE'v:.31.3) and later refers to thehoplites conscripted in this way as EK KaTaAdo'yov6.43; cf. 7.16.1, 7.20.2, 8.24.2).Thucydidesnaturallyconveysthe most precise nformationabout the processofconscription, amelythecompilation f katalogoi,whendescribinghe preparationsin progress; ater,when he succinctlylists the differenttroops going on the expedition,he describes the Athenian hoplites thus selected by the shorthand EK Ka-raTdyov.Thucydidesdoes not imply by the use of the singularthat Athenians,having made themultiple katalogoi, then combined them into a single roster for the campaign;nor is heprovidingnew information t this late stageabouta centralregister rom which the

8 Thuc.6.31.3saysof thehighqualityof thehoplites elected o go onthe Sicilian xpedition,rd 8sE7rE~8VKaTaAdyoLSEPEXProi7 ~KKplEO. In my view,Dover1970 HCT V,295) ismistaken in construing KaTraGAdyO~.. XPrIaTroL7s '"honest" registers', i.e. accurate ones. Incontext,Thucydides'oint s that he besttroopswere electedrom hekatalogoicf. 7.64.1), ustas earliern the samesectionheasserts hat thecity providedhe bestpossiblepettyofficers orthefleet;XprarofLan attribute f thehoplites oughtout,hassimplybeen ransferredo the listsonwhich heirnamesappeared.Andrewes1981,1,3, n. 2;cf.Hansen,1985,85)assumeshat,whenKaraAEyws used of thistypeof conscription,hisconveysts selective haracter.nfact,KaTaAdEywoesnotappearo beused in the activevoice to mean select'until later LSJs.v. B]1.4).It is therefore robably esttranslatedimplyas 'enlist', .e. to placean individual's ameona katalogos.'~ Likewise, hencasualtyistswere ompiled ndpostedaftera campaign,hey ook the formof tribal ists: ee Bradeen1969);Clairmont1983),1.48,50-1;Loraux1986),22-3.



7/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 403katalogoi werecompiled. Similarly,we hear that Athenians in connection with a navalexpedition in 362/1 B.C.voted that the members of the Boule and demarchs shouldmake katalogoi of their demesmen and list available sailors (Dem. 50.6); later theseconscripts are described as 'those who had come to the ships EK KaraAoyov'(50.16).Here, s nThucydides,KKaraAtoyous a conciseway odescribeonscriptionarlierspecified as being carriedout by katalogoi (cf. Hansen, 1985, 86).If &KKaraAoyovhas itsoriginsn thepractice f postingan individual's ameon atribal katalogos, once it entered common usage Athenians may have taken it asequivalento 'by thesystem f) conscription'ithoutdentifyingtvery loselywiththe tribal katalogos. Thus Xenophon's Nicomachides laments that the Athenians didnot elect him as general: 'I who have been worn down going on expeditions byconscription' (0g &KKraAoOdyoU 7rparEUVd0EV0~ararOTPtlpatL) (Mem. 3.4.1). In thisgeneralizingcontext, the idea of any particular ist is remote and EK KaraAodyov meanssimply that the speaker on each occasion had been conscripted; the same idea isfrequently expressed verbally, e.g. KaTEAE'yrV a7rpa7r;7?q (Lys. 9.4; cf. 14.7, 15.11,32.5).20As no abstractnoun had been coined to describethis system of conscription, itwas natural for Athenians to stretch the concrete noun katalogos, which was used toreferto the ad hoc tribal list, to designate this as well.2. Notification of conscriptsAfter the generals had compiled the katalogoi for a campaign, their next task was tonotify conscripts. The standard practice was to post the ten katalogoi on notice-boards (Ar. Av. 450) attached to the base of the Eponymoi-the statues of the teneponymous heroes of the tribes located in the Agora; each tribal katalogos wasdisplayed below the corresponding tribal hero (Ar. Pax 1183-4).21 Each list may havebeen subdivided by deme-the form in which lists came to the generals-to aid thoseconsulting it.22 Like other temporary notices, each list was probably written incharcoal on whitened wood.23Because this medium was readily erasable (cf. [Arist.]Ath. Pol. 48.1), the taxiarchs could adjust the katalogoi at any point in the process-hence the comic complaint that the taxiarchs arbitrarilyadd some names and eraseothers 'two or three times' (Ar. Pax 1180-1; cf. Eq. 1369-72). Once the katalogoi wereposted, the taxiarchs could delete names as exemptions were granted; to discourageindividuals from erasing their own or others' names, the generals probably kept acopy out of mischief's way in their office. The generals must have posted a notice inthe same location specifying when and where conscripts were to present themselvesfor muster (cf. D.S. 11.81.4-5) and what to bring with them (cf. Ar. Pax 1181-2)--thestandard order was to bring 'provisions for three days'.24

20 Andrewes 1981, 2-3) suggests hat K KaTraAoyov may referto 'the system by whichgenerals made up their own KardAoyotfor particular expeditions' in Arist. Pol. 1303a8-10,[Arist.]A h.Pol.26.1,and(3 n.2)X. Mem.3.4.1.21 On the originalmonument,whichwas erectedc. 430 B.c.,and its mid-fourth-centurysuccessor na differentocation, eeShear 1970);Wycherley1978),52-3;Camp 1992),97-100.22 Cf.the use of demecaptionsnephebicnscriptionsn the latefourthcentury:eeReinmuth(1971),83-4.23 Thiswas themediumnitiallyusedfor listsunder helaterarrangementf conscription yage-groups[Arist.]Ath.Pol.53.4).The Decree f Themistocles'equireshegeneralso postthenames of crewmemberson whitened ablets M.L.23.27-31).On the use of this medium ortemporary otices, eeRhodes 1981),555.24Ar. Ach.197;Pax311-12;Eub.fr. 19.3K-A;cf. Ar. V.242-3;Thuc. 1.48.1; ee Pritchett(1971), 1.33;cf. Olson(1998),134. For extendedparodyof a hoplite'sresponse o orderstomarch, see Ar. Ach. 1073-1142.



8/26

404 M. R. CHRISTThe generals probably also took more active steps to ensure that individuals knewthey had been conscripted so that there would be no excuse for failing to appear forservice. In particular,the generalscould not assume that hoplites who lived outside the

city centre and up to a long day'swalk from it (cf. N. F Jones, 1999, 97-100) would bepresentin the city to consult the posted notices (cf.Ar. Pax 1181-6). Heralds, therefore,may have announced that katalogoi had been posted and should be checked by thoseeligible for hoplite service (cf. Ar. Pax 311-12, Ach. 1083;Plu. Phoc. 24.4), just as theysummoned citizens to arms in emergencies (And. 1.45). Another possibility is thattrumpet-calls,which were also used for summoning citizens in emergencies (Bacchyl.18.1;And. 1.45;cf. Polyaen. 3.9.20; Dem. 18.169), summoned Athenians to check thekatalogoi.25

3. Grantingof exemptionsWhile the generals probably found it expedient to incorporate some categories ofexemptions into the lists they posted, inevitably they listed some individuals whobelieved that they qualified for release from service. The burdenwas on an individualto assert and prove his claim to exemption.26The normal procedure for making aclaim was to approach the generals at their office before the time of mustering (Lys.9.4). If an individual could not come to the generals' office due to disability orabsence abroad, presumablya delegate could representhim (cf. Aesch. 2.94-5; Dem.19.124).Release from hoplite service could be granted on numerous grounds recognized bycustom or statute.27First, a conscript could assert that he did not meet the basiccriteria of age and wealth. In Aristotle's time, individualsaged 18-59 were eligible forhoplite service(Ath. Pol. 53.4;cf. Plu. Phoc. 24.4). The first two age-groups undergoingthe ephebeia,however, did not serve abroad and were kept separate from the others(Ath. Pol. 42.4-5; Hansen, 1985, 37, with 100, n. 125;cf. Rhodes, 1988, 271); men overthe age of 50 were probablynot normally conscriptedfor service abroad (cf. Lyc. 1.39;Hansen, 1985, 17).28 Although the evidence for earlier practice is not clear, theage-rangeof eligibility for hoplite servicemay have been the same, as well as the prac-tice of passing over the youngest and oldest hoplites for service abroad--Thucydidesspeaks of the 'oldest and youngest'as part of the home guard (2.13.7; cf. Lys.2.50-53;D.S. 13.72.5).29

25 The number f soundings oulddistinguish callto all citizens o appearwith arms n ageneral mergencyroma call to men of hoplitestatus o consult hekatalogoi.On the diversemilitaryusesof thesalpinx, ee Krentz1991).26 Thiswasalso the casewith ndividualseeking elease romcavalryervice [Arist.]Ath.Pol.49.2) or liturgies, ncludingthe choregia 56.3) and trierarchy 61.1)-cf. Gabrielsen(1994), 85-90.27 Seeesp.Hansen 1985),16-21; f.Sekunda1992),346-8.28 Men in their sixtieth year were called on to be diaitetai from 399/8 B.c. (see MacDowell,1971,267-73)and werepresumablyxemptduring heirterm(Hansen,1991,100).In Spartaeligibilityor active ervicealso extended orfortyyears:X. H.G 5.4.13,6.4.17.Platothuscouldbe thinking of Sparta or Athens in Leg. 785b6-7 when he proposes that men be eligible for

military service from the age of 20 up until 60 (i.e. through the age of 59: see below, n. 50), notnecessarilyAthens as Hansen (1985, 100, n. 125)suggests.29 A. H. M. Jones (1957, 163; cf. Rhodes, 1988, 271) may be right that by the 'youngest'Thucydides means those aged 18 and 19. I doubt, however, that Jones (163-4) is correct inbelieving that men between the ages of 40 and 49 wereusually part of the home-guard;this seemsrather young for automatic posting to the home guard--cf. X. H. G 6.1.5 on the use of oldersoldiers in citizen armies.



9/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 405The amount of wealth requiredfor hoplite service was less precise than the age-parametersfor it (cf. MacDowell, 1978, 160). In the fifth century,an individual had tobe wealthy enough to affordhoplite equipment(cf. Luc. Tim.51), which was expensive.In the fourth century, however, two factors may have made hoplite service moreaccessible to the less wealthy:hoplites came to use less equipment and at some pointthe state began providingshield and spear([Arist.]Ath. Pol. 42.4) (Hansen, 1985, 49).30Because it was difficult to know preciselyhow wealthy a man was in Classical Athens(Gabrielsen, 1986), it must have been hard to evaluate claims to exemption fromhoplite service-or cavalry service (cf. [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 49.2)--based on insufficientwealth. The best evidence that a man could afford to serve as hoplite was that he or hisfather had served previously; an individual seeking exemption probably had toconvince the generals that his financial situation had changed dramatically.31Individuals who met the basic requirements orhoplite servicecould seek exemptionon numerous other grounds. Many officeholders, including all 500 members of theCouncil (Lyc. 1.37), were exempt. So too were tax-collectors (telonai) (Dem. 59.27; cf.21.166), chorus members (Dem. 21.15, 39.16; MacDowell, 1989), and probably alsochoregoi (cf. Dem. 21.103, with MacDowell, 1990, 9).32 Members of the cavalry (Lys.16.13; cf. 14.14) and probablyactive trierarchs(Dem. 21.166, with MacDowell, 1990,385) wereexempt. Individuals ust back from a hoplite campaign could seek exemption(Lys. 9.4, 15:see below). Exemptioncould be granted on the grounds of temporary orpermanent disability, physical or mental. Extraordinary personal hardship mustsometimes have resulted in exemption. Athenians living or travelling abroad were

probably exempt from service.33In some cases the generals may have allowedindividuals exemption only temporarily, expecting them to join an expedition inprogress later (Dem. 39.16-17; cf. MacDowell, 1989, 71-2). The generals may haverequired a claimant to swear an oath that he indeed qualified for exemption; thispractice is attested for individuals before the Council seeking exemption from thes0 It is controversial, owever,whether heteseverbecame ligible orhopliteservice.Hansen(1985,48-9, 88-9;cf.Sekunda, 992,345-6)believesheydid;Rhodes 1981,503)doubtsthis.3' Thecity'spracticeof bestowing anoplieson hoplites'orphansat the age of 18(Pl. Mx.249a6-b2;Aesch.3.154)serveda practical, s wellas an ideological,unction-namelyensuringthatorphanswouldbeequippedo serveas hoplites.Whereasurviving oplitesmayfrequentlyhavepassed heirequipment n to theirsons,theequipment f deadhopliteswas often lost onthe battlefieldHanson,1989,205;cf.63-5).32 Hansen1985, 17)suggests1,000men s a suitablyautious stimate f thearchai nd otherofficalsof whom hose of draftage would be exempted'. n Spartatoo officeholderswerenormally xempt romservice: ee X. H.G 6.4.17.3 Disability. aldwin1967)discussesmedical xemptionsn Athensand elsewhere.Onbogusclaims, eebelow,n. 36.Hardship. ne'shouseburning ownmightqualifyasa hardship:ee the anecdotes oncerningMetonand his son in Plu. Nic. 13.7-8andAlc.17.5-6. Sekunda1992,347)believes hat 'thosecurrentlyngagednlitigation'were xempt,but theevidence ecites(And.4.22)does notspeakdirectlyto this. One clue that involvementn litigationmay have been groundsfor release,however,s foundin [Arist.]A h. Pol. 42.5:ephebeswerebarred rom most litigation o theywouldnothavean 'excuse orbeingabsent'romservice.Absenceabroad.Sekunda 1992,347-8) discussescleruchs,mercenaries, xiles,and tradersunder hisrubric.Whilethe rulesgoverning bsenceabroadarenot known, t was very likelygrounds orexemption rommilitary ervice ust as it wasfromother civicobligations Dem.14.16;Arist.]Ath.Pol.53.5).I amnotpersuadedySekunda348) hatAthenians broadmadeconsiderablefforts o join thearmy, venif theycouldhaveavoided onscription adtheysowished';Sekundadraws his inference romXenophon'sfforts n 362 B.C.o send his sons toAthens ojoinin theexpedition upporting parta D.L. 2.53),but thisismore ikelyevidence fXenophon's hilolaconismhanof typicalbehaviourf Athenians broad.



10/26

406 M. R. CHRISTcavalryon the groundsof povertyor disability([Arist.]Ath. Pol. 49.2; cf. Dem. 19.124,with MacDowell, 2000, 256).The total number of individuals eligible for conscription on the basis of age andwealth but exempt on one of these groundswas probablyconsiderable.Hansen (1985,17-20) has estimated that some 5 percent of individualslikelyto be called up mayhavebeen exempt on the basis of office-holding or other service to the city, and at least 20percent on the grounds of physicalincapacity-to judge from comparative data frommodem states.34When the generals compiled their katalogoi, they had somehow totake into account the large number of exempt persons. They could call up many moreindividualsthan needed, anticipatingthat a largenumber would prove exempt, or theycould seek to produce higher-yield lists by leaving manifestly ineligible persons, forexample officeholders,off the lists. Even in the latter case, however,the generalscouldnot anticipateall who might claim exemption or who might not show up for service,sothey had good reason to list more conscripts than actually required.35The generals had little choice but to honour exemptions that were unambiguouslyestablished by statute, as was probably the case with those applying to officeholders.While they had greaterdiscretion injudging exemptions based on disabilities,they hadno reason to force service on the manifestly unfit: the rigours of service as hoplite andinterdependenceof the force demanded a high level of physical ability. Nonetheless,the generals probably looked closely at claims of disability, since these could befraudulent, as was widely recognized.36A possible strategy for the generals to adoptunder questionable circumstances was to allow the exemption only if the claimantcould providea substitute.37Just how hard it might be to win exemption is illustratedby the case of Lysias'clientPolyaenus,who was prosecutedfor failure to pay a fine that the generals imposed onhim for verbally abusing them after they denied his exemption claim. According toPolyaenus,when he was conscripted, he protested to one of the generals that he had

34Sekunda1992,347)argues nthebasisof hisanalysis f the AthenianmobilizationortheLamianWar hat the rateof military xemptionmayhavebeenas low as 8 percent,covering llcategories f exemption'. am more nclined,however,o trustHansen'somparativeatathanSekunda's alculationsbased on fragmentary phebicdocumentsand figurespreservednDiodorusSiculus18.11.3,with18.10.2).3 Cf.Demosthenes'uggestion14.16)concerninghetrierarchicummoriaihat one shouldstartwith2000 names f one seeks1200afterexemptionsregranted.36 Note,forexample,heproverb reservednAnt.87 B 57 D-K: ' "Illnessprovides owardswith a holiday"-for they do not march forthto action'('vdaosSELAolav Eop7"7'-oiv ydpdE7ropEUovTral7L7pav). Feignedmadnessfiguresprominentlyn Athenianreflectionondraft-evasion.ophocles'OdysseusMainomenospparentlyreatedOdysseus'ailedattempt oevadeservice n the TrojanWar n thisway;cf. A. Ag. 841-2;S. Ph. 1025-8. Metonallegedlypretendedo bemadto winrelease rom he SicilianxpeditionAel. VH.13.12;Plu. Nic. 13.7-8;Alc. 7.5-6).37 Cf.how,whenAeschines laimedhe was too sick to serveon anembassy o whichhe hadbeennamed, he Council enthis brothern hisplace Dem. 19.124; f.Aesch.2.94-5).As faraswe know, however,conscriptedhoplites in Athens were not routinelyallowed to providesubstitutes s wascommon, orexample,n the AmericanCivilWar Chambers, 975, 171-81;Cohen, 1985,138-40,145-6).Designatedrierarchsometimes rranged rivatelyorothers oserve in theirplaceon ship(Gabrielsen, 994,181).Antidosisprovideda legalprocedureorreluctant rierarchs nd otherliturgists o formally ransfer heirobligations o others:seeGabrielsen1987)andChrist1990).Oursources peakof substitution s anoption n a varietyof contexts:X. H. G 3.4.15,Ages.1.24, Plu. Ages.9.3-5 (all in connectionwith Agesilaus'recruitment f cavalry);Pl. Leg.878c5-d3 proposinghata manwhoinjures nothermustserve n hisplace);H. II.23.294-9 ahorsesubstitutedora man!).



11/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 407been called up within two months of returningfrom another military expedition (9.4).This, he asserts,violated the generals'oath that 'they would enlist individuals who hadnot served' (-70ro;darpare4'ov9SKa'TAE6ELv9.15); presumably,this means that theyswore to enlist first individuals who had not served recently or perhaps within thecurrentyear (MacDowell, 1994, 155). The generals,however,justified their action onthe groundsthat 'Polyaenushad not been in the city forless time than Callicrates'(9.5),who apparently had also been conscripted to serve in the current campaign(MacDowell, 1994, 155).38 Whilethe generals' argument may not have been flawless-Callicrates' presence on the katalogoi does not prove that they had fully met theirobligation to seek conscripts first from among the astrateutoi-Polyaenus probablycomplied ratherthan face imprisonment(9.5) (MacDowell, 1994, 156).4. MusterWhile almost any area of sufficient capacity could be used for mustering troops,locations close to the city centre were probably favoured, since many hoplites livednear the centre and the Agora was available for provisioning. The Agora, whichserved in emergencies as a collecting point for citizens in arms (And. 1.45; Polyaen.3.9.20), was probablyused sometimes as a place of muster for hoplites setting out onexpeditions. One advantage of mustering here was that the generals could makedirect use of the katalogoi posted at the Eponymoi by having conscripts line up infront of their tribe'sheroes to be checked off against each tribe's list. The Lyceum,however, is attested as a location for mustering hoplites and may have been usedfrequently.The Pnyx, with its large capacity and elevated platform (bema) from whichgenerals could reviewthe troops, may also have served this purpose on occasion.39At muster the generals had to ensure that all conscripts not granted exemptionsappeared for service. Each tribe's taxiarch was responsible for marking down on histribe's katalogos any no-shows (Poll. 8.115: o0 IfvTrot rat'apXot avayeypacpevovg0XovT4E 70TOv K T70 KaTaAoyoU, 7TapEaq7patLVOVTo d 7rv )aUU7Epov-POWV oVO6pLaTaKal TOTO 7TapaacTLELV EKaAEEr70o). fragment from Sophocles' The Gatheringof theAchaeansdescribingthe 'conscription'of Greeks for the TrojanWar is probablybasedon this phase of Athenian conscription:'But do you on yourchair who hold the tabletswith the writingmarkoff (vYp) any who has sworn the oath but is not present'(fr. 144R).41The generalscould also grantlast-minuteexemptions at this point, to judge from

38 W R. M. Lamb Lysias Cambridge,MA, 1930],186)suggestsa differentnterpretationfLys.9.5: 'ApparentlyPolyaenushad complained that a man named Callicrates,who had not beenenlisted, had enjoyeda longer leave at home than himself.' While this is possible, Polyaenusmakesno mention of Callicrateswhen describinghis initial complaint to the general, as one might haveexpected him to do if this had been an integral part of it.3 Agora. See Siewert (1982), 58-9, 150-3. The horoi with names of tribes and trittyes foundhere may have been used when citizens assembled for mustering and other purposes: seeRaubitschek (1956), 282 and Siewert(1982), 10, 142. Those found in the Piraeus may have beenused for assembling citizens servingin the fleet: Gabrielsen(1994), 72, with 243, n.10.Lyceum.Ar.Pax 355-6;X. H.G 1.1.33;Hsch. s.v.AiKELOV (A 1380);Phot. s.v. (A 234); Suda .v.(A801); cf. Jameson (1980), 224-7; Siewert(1982), 59, n. 13;Olson (1998), 144.Pnyx. Plu. Phoc. 10.3-4 (Phocion apparently oversees the muster of troops from a bema,perhapsthat of the Assembly);cf. 15.1-2, 24.3-5.Other ossibleocations.Agoraof Hippodamusn Piraeus:And. 1.45.Anaceum:Thuc.8.93.1;Polyaen. 1.21.2; cf. And. 1.45 (for cavalry).Theseum: And. 1.45 and Thuc. 6.61.2; [Arist.] Ath.Pol. 15.4 (but probablyan error:see Rhodes, 1981, 210-11).* The translation is that of H. Lloyd-Jones(Sophocles: Fragments [Cambridge, MA, 1996]).

vl' could perhapsmean 'readoff' (Hsch. s.v.v4tpw= v 290).



12/26

408 M. R. CHRISTan anecdote concerning Phocion and the much-maligned orator Aristogeiton: whenAristogeiton 'approachedthe place of muster(bv 8~ T Ka-raho'yp)eaning on a staffand with both legs bandaged', Phocion cried out, 'Write down Aristogeiton too aslame and worthless' (Plu. Phoc. 10.3-4).41 Once the generals knew how manyconscriptshad appearedfor service,they may have needed to make some adjustments.If the generals had underestimated the yield from the katalogoi, more individualsmight appear than the Assembly had authorized and some would have to be senthome. If they had overestimated the yield, they could make last-minute efforts to filltheir ranks; they might, however,determine to march without a full contingent (D.S.11.81.4-6; cf. Plu. Mor. 185f6-186a3).42Any conscript who failed to appearat muster was liable to indictment (graphe)fordraft-dodging (astrateia) (Lys. 14.6-7). Such cases, if pursued, were heard later by aspecial jury composed of the soldiers who had gone out on the campaign in question(Lys. 14.5, 15, 17; cf. Dem. 39.17), with the generals presiding (Lys. 15.1-2).43 Thepostponement of such trialsmade sense not only because this kept the departingarmyfrom being delayed but because the returning army could efficiently judge these suitsalong with closely related ones alleging misbehaviour on campaign-abandoning theranks or cowardice-over which they also had jurisdiction (Lys. 14.5). The generalsremaining at home, however, may have exercised their authority to 'bind', that isimprison,draft-dodgers (Lys.9.5) until the army returned from campaign.

Conscription by katalogos appears to have workedrelativelywell. Under this system,Athens successfully fielded large hoplite forces during the Peloponnesian War. Whilethe generals may sometimes have set out without full contingents, as far as we knowthey were not forced to cancel any expedition because of this. If the system worked,however,it had two shortcomings: it was difficult to mobilize troops quickly; and thediscretion exercised by the generals in selecting troops could appear arbitrary andunfair.

Conscription by katalogos was not designed to work with great speed: it must havebeen time-consuming to gather lists of eligible hoplites from the demes and then toselectconscripts fromthese. Athenians may haveaccepted this defect becausenormallyspeedy mobilization was not essential. As long as the Assembly voted well in advanceof the summer campaign season to launch an expedition, this left the generalssufficienttime to conscript troops."44 heremilitary objectiveswarrantedit, moreover,

41 I follow B. Perrin(Plutarch'sLives VIII [Cambridge,MA, 1919])in translating7rcKaraAo'ypas 'placeof muster'.The locationmaybe thePnyx: eeabove,n. 39.42 A. H. M. Jones 1957,178)suggestshatthe Atheniansmayhave et out for Delium n 424B.C. ithouta fullcontingentince manyhoplitesn outlyingdemesmaynot havereceivedheirsummonsn time'.43 On indictment or draft-dodging,ee Lipsius 1905-15),452-4. Oursourcessometimestendentiously haracterize strateiaas lipotaxion:ee Hamel (1998b), 362-85. Dem. 39.17suggests hattaxiarchs ould receive hargesand 'bring heminto court'(eisagein).Thismaymean that undersome circumstancesaxiarchs resided verthecourt(CareyandReid, 1985,180;butcf. Harrison,1971,2.32-3, with33, n. 1);if so theywereprobably ctingunder heultimate uthority f thegenerals.ndividualsonvicted f draft-evasion eresubjecto atimia,thoughthismaynot havebeenstrictlyenforced:ee Dem. 21.58-60,with MacDowell 1989),72-4,77,and id. (1990),278-81.44 On the timingof the summer ampaign eason,see Osborne 1987),13-14;cf. Rosivach(1985 1992]), 3-5.



13/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 409hoplites (Thuc. 2.31.1, 3.91.4; Lys.3.45;cf. D.S. 15.26.2) or all able-bodied men (Thuc.4.94.1) could be called upon to take the field en masse.45A further problem with conscription by katalogos was that the generals' discretionin selecting hoplites could lead to the impression of inequitabletreatment-a sensitivematter within Athenian democracy.One possible complaint was that young men werepassed over while 'old men' served (And. 4.22; cf. Ar. Ach. 598-614; V. 1114-21, with1099-1101). Behind this hyperbole lies an important reality.While the generals musthave drafted younger men frequentlysince they were especially likely to be vigorous(D.S. 11.84.4), they could draft any man they deemed fit, regardlessof age. In fact, toensure a good mix of veterans within the ranks, the generals must sometimes haveselected an 'older'-relatively speaking at least-man over a younger and less experi-enced one. It was thus almost inevitable under this system of selectiveconscription thatsome younger men remained behind while older men served. Another source offriction was the impressionthat the generalsgavepreferentialtreatmentto their friendsand influential persons: indeed, it lay within the generals' authority not to put anindividual on the katalogoi in the first place, or, if the individual had already beenlisted, to strike his name from the liston the grounds,forexample, that he was qualifiedto serve in the cavalry (Lys. 15.5-6; cf. Ar. Eq. 1369-72)--a safer branch of service.Theremay be some truth to the common claim that politicians evaded military service(e.g. Cleonymus:Ar. Eq. 1369-72, with Storey, 1989; Peisander: X. Smp. 2.14; cf. Ar.Av. 1556-8; Eup. fr. 35 K-A): given their close relationships with generals, whoseelections they could help secure, they were in an excellent position to ask for andreceive preferential treatment. It is against this backdrop of suspicions and concernsthat we should read the frequenttreatmentof draft-evasion in Attic drama: tragedianstreated the problem of astrateia in connection with the Trojan War;46Aristophanesoften alludes to astrateia and Eupolis apparently focused on it in his Astrateutoi (cf.Storey, 1989). Whateverthe actual level of draft-dodging, Athenians were concernedabout it and the threatit posed to the city.While Athenians used conscription by katalogos for a long time, sometime in theperiod 386-366 B.C. hey altered fundamentally how conscription was carried out.After considering the features of the new system and the evidence concerning the dateof its inception, I will attemptto place it in its historic context by exploring the militaryand ideological considerations behind its introduction.

CONSCRIPTION BY AGE-GROUPSThe Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia digresses from its treatment of arbitrators todescribe the system of conscription operating at the time of its composition (c. 330B.C.):Men who are fifty-nine years old serve as arbitrators,as is clear from the arrangementsinvolving rchonsandeponymous eroes.While heeponymousheroesof the tribesare ten innumber,hereareforty-twoassigned o the age-groups ligibleformilitaryservice i.e. 18-59

45 A. H. M. Jones 1957,178)pointsout theflexibility f the terms rav8s~edand trava-rpa'ru,whicharesometimes ppliedo levies hatareclearlyess thanfullas in Thuc.2.31.1.46Sophocles,OdysseusMainomenosseeabove,n. 36);Euripides, kyrioi basedon Achilles'famouscross-dressing odge-see esp. fr. 683a N2 Suppl.). Cf. the apparentpopularityoftragediesconcernedwith recruiting: ophocles'Skyrioitreateddifficultiessurroundingherecruitmentf Neoptolemusfr.554 R, quotedat this article's pening, s from this tragedy);Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripideseach wrote a Philoctetesexploringthe problematic'recruitment'f thetitle hero.



14/26

410 M. R. CHRISTyearolds].Formerly,whenephebeswereenrolled, heirnameswerewrittenon whitened ablets(ypactpa-rea), andabove hem he archon n officewhen heywereenrolled nd theeponymoushero of the age-group hat had served as arbitrators n the previousyear.Now, however,ephebes'names are inscribedon a bronzestele,which s set up in front of the Bouleuterionbesidethe Eponymoi. . . Theyalso use the eponymousheroes n connectionwithmilitaryexpeditions:wheneverheysendmen of a certainageon anexpedition, hey post a noticethatindicates by archons and eponymousheroes the range of age-groupsthat must serve(7rpoypdcovuat drd t'vog pXOV70So aLtTwvcOU tuXptXpL 7rvOwv EL UtparTEEUaLat). (53.4, 7)The system described here divergesconspicuously from conscription by katalogos (cf.26.1; Arist. Pol. 1303a8-10) in maintaining permanentlists of men eligible for serviceas hoplites and in carrying out conscription solely on the basis of membership in anage-group.While a considerable effortmust havebeen required nitially to gatherthe names andages of all eligible hoplites so as to construct lists organized by age-group, once thiswas done each year'sgeneralshad only to keep theselists current.47This meant strikingfrom them individuals who had died or become physically unfit for service, andremoving the entire list of the oldest age-group, whose members had passed beyondthe age of eligibility. The eponymic designation of the retiring hoplites was thenavailablefor reassignment to the incoming eighteen year olds; the Council, which wasresponsible for reviewing the lists of new ephebes submitted annually by the demes(Ath. Pol. 42.1-2, with Rhodes, 1972, 172), probably provided their names to thegenerals.The new system not only kept track of the names of all eligible hoplites but alsoposted these near the Eponymoi. Individuals were listed by age-group and probablyalso by tribe within each age-group to facilitate consulting the list at the time ofconscription and at muster, wherehoplites continued to gather by tribe (D.S. 18.10.2;cf. Thphr. Char.25.6). Ath. Pol. 53.4 indicates that the currentpracticewas to devote abronzestele to each age-groupbut that previouslywhitened tablets had been used. Theshift to the more expensive and durablemedium of bronze suggests that beyond theirpractical function these stelai were meant to be striking monuments to the city'shoplite forces.48Because lists of eligible hoplites in each age-group were centrally posted, thegenerals could now initiate conscription simply by posting a notice in the vicinity ofthe whitened boards or bronze stelai that stated the years called upon to serve (Ath.Pol. 53.7). The monument of the Eponymoi was the natural place to post this notice.The bronze stelai were located 'next to these' (Ath. Pol. 53.4); bases for triangularbronze stelai have been found in this vicinity (Stroud, 1979, 49-57). Their predeces-sors, the whitened boards, wereprobablyin the same area.Ath. Pol. 53.7 suggests that the normal practice was to call up all those betweentwo ages.49Consistent with this are three references to call-up by age-group from(probably) those aged twenty to some upper limit: Dem. 3.4-5 speaks of an un-successful call-up in 352/1 B.C.of men aged up to forty-five for a naval expedition;Aesch. 2.133 of a decree in 347/6 B.C. or conscription up to the age of forty (readingerrapaKovr7a, with Dilts) for a naval expedition; D.S. 18.10.2 of a call-up to the

47 Thepractice f assigning eneralso particular osts ([Arist.]Ath.Pol.61.1),which s firstattested n the mid-fourth enturyB.C.see Rhodes, 1981,678-9), mayhave ed to one generalhavingprimaryesponsibilityorkeepingistsupdated.48 Rhodes 1981,592)suggests hatthisshiftmayhaveaccompaniedeformof the ephebeiac. 335/4 B.c.49InSpartaoo conscriptionwascarried utbyage-ranges:ee X. Lac.11.2; f.H.G 6.4.17.



15/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 411age of forty of hoplites for the Lamian War.soBecause these call-ups involved massmobilization of about half the age-groups,however,they obscure an important featureof this system, namely how it allows for equitable turn-taking by age-groups onsmaller-scaleexpeditions.Mass mobilizations, in fact, are the exception rather than therule in Athenian military history; normally, the generals only needed a fraction ofeligible hoplites-a few thousand or less-to man an expedition. In such cases, thegeneralscould now call up a small numberof age-groups to serve and then, when thenext small-scale expedition was planned, they could enlist different age-groups. Thisrotation among age-groupswould ensure fair turn-takingwithin a given year and evenover a period of years if, as is likely,the generals kept track of which age-groups hadserved recently.5'When the generals were calling up a small number of age-groups for service,however,they probablytook care to avoid sending the youngest and least experiencedage-groupsby themselves.To achieve a desirablemix of ages that ensured the presenceof veterans, the generals could probably call upon multiple age-ranges at the sametime-for example, the age-ranges20-22 and 30-32. The Athenaion Politeia does notrule this out; in explaining succinctly how the system worked, it focuses on the moststraightforward use of it where only a single age-range is posted. The AthenaionPoliteia does rule out, however,the possibility that age-groupswere selected entirely bylot, as this would be inconsistent with the use of age-ranges.52 Although Athenianswere fond of lotteries, a lottery would have been problematicin this context. First, thismight lead to an unhappy preponderance of younger or older men. Second, therandom selection of age-groups might create confusion concerning those called up:while those consulting the notice-board in person could establishdirectly whether theywere among the conscripted age-groups, those hearing of the call-up by word ofmouth-for example, in the outlying demes-might well receive garbled informationsince a list of random numberscould easily be confused in transmission.While the new system probably retained some features of the earlier one-forexample, the way that exemptions were handled-the features highlighted here dis-tinguish the two arrangements clearly from one another.53Under conscription bykatalogos, the generals were free to consider age, along with other factors, in selectingtroops and could choose, for example, not to enlist eligible men over a certain age (cf.Hansen, 1985, 89). This featureof conscription by katalogos should not be confused,however,with the later arrangement,which kept track of men by age and conscriptedthem solely on this basis with others in their age-group:there is no convincing evidence

"oIneach of these hree asestheupperage-limits introduced y~pdXpL:hisprobablymeansthatconscriptiontopped ustshortof theupperage-limit, .g. conscriptionupto age40'means'through ge39'(seeHansen,1985,100,n. 126contraRuschenbusch,984,263).For the use ofage-rangesnconscription,eealso Plu. Phoc.24.3-5;cf.Apollod.Car. r. 5.19-20K-A.Whileboth Dem.3.4-5and Aesch.2.133speakof naval xpeditions,heindividualsalledupareprobably oplites,who couldrow hemselvescf.Thuc.3.16.1,18.3-4;Rosivach,1985 1992],54-5) to the locationsn questionand thencarryout the landoperationsplanned n eachcase.D.S. 18.10.2 peaksof conscriptionf hopliteswhose mmediateaskis to serveas a landforce;later heymayhavehelpedman thefleetmentioned nthe samepassage Sekunda,1992,348-51;butcf.Hansen,1985,38-9).5' I arguebelow hatAesch.2.168provides nexample f turn-takingn smallexpeditions.52 Tritle 1988, 79) is mistaken n takingDem. 39.17as evidenceof the use of the lot fordeterminingwhich age-groupswould be mobilized: n this passageA~~tSrefers to a legalcomplaint ota military ottery." Scholars requently onflatethe two arrangements,.g. Kromayer nd Veith(1928),47;A. H. M.Jones 1957),163;Effenterre1976),15-16.



16/26

412 M. R. CHRISTof record-keeping of this sort or call-up by age-group under conscription by kata-logos.54

Date of inceptionWhen Ath. Pol. 53.4 distinguishes between the past use of whitened tablets forrecording age-groups and the current use of bronze stelai for this, it indicates that thesystem of conscription by age-groups operating c. 330 B.C.had been in existence forsome time. Other sources suggest that the age-group system was operating for severaldecades before 330 B.C.This is the most natural interpretation of the conscriptioninvolving age-ranges attested in Aesch. 2.133 (347/6 B.C.)and Dem. 3.4 (352/1 B.C.).Aesch. 2.167-9 allows us to take the reform back at least to 366 B.C..Because thisproblematic passage is critical both to dating the reform and understanding itsnature, I will consider it closely.In his On the Embassy Aeschines defends himself at length against Demosthenes'snipes at his military service:?167 .. WhenI passedout of childhood c.372B.C.], becamea borderguardof thisland fortwo years.55 will callmy fellowephebes r70o auvcE0 ovU) and our officersas witnesses othis.?168The firstexpedition went on involved service n turns'as it is called(rptfr-qv 8'

,EOAhvvarpardav 477vEV roi9 pE4wtKaAoujLkV.v);was with the other men of myage-groupETrd rc3v .1AlKtwrwv)and Alcibiades'mercenaryroopson a missionto escortprovisionso Phlius[366B.C.].Whenwe fell into dangernear what is called(KaAoUvPl4v) theNemeanravine, foughtso wellthatI wonpraise rommyofficers. also wentouton the otherexpeditions n succession, those involvingage-groups andservice n turns] Ka' 7aWcAa 'is 9'K '&aSoX~jSo8ou Tds E'vroi TS TWV OLS [Ka' ro-/L 'pEULv]~AhOov).169I fought nthebattleof Mantineia362B.C.]onourablynd in a mannerworthyof ourcity.I wenton theexpeditionso Euboea 357B.c.; 49/8B.C.:f. 3.85-6],andatthe battleof Tamynae349/8B.C.]s one of the select roops Evr70o mAKros7I faceddangerwithsuchcourage hat I received crownonthespotand another rom hepeopleonmyreturnhome; orI broughtthe news of the city's victory,and Menites, axiarchof the tribePandionis,whoaccompaniedme as envoyfromthe camp, reportedhere how I had acted in the face of thedanger hat hadarisen. (2.167-9,followingDilts'sTeubnerext[Stuttgart ndLeipzig,1997])

In my view, Aeschines refers throughout this passage to conscription carried out byage-groups. If I am correct, the system was in existence by 366 B.C., he date of thefirst expedition that Aeschines mentions.This interpretation goes against Andrewes'sreading (1981) of this passage, whichmany scholars have accepted (e.g. Rhodes, 1981, 327; Hansen, 1985, 88; cf. Carey,2000, 151, n. 219). Andrewes (1981, 1-2) takes arpar Eav rT7)vEV 70'TOrepEatKaAovULEvv asa referenceo turn-takingnder onscriptiony katalogos,itinghegenerals'oath To70- rTpaTE'rovU KaTaAE"'ELVLys.9.15) as evidence of this feature ofthe earlier system. Andrewes (1981, 2) suggests in addition: 'It perhaps accords withthis that Aischines adds the qualification KaAovUk/.rlv o service Ev T70Lg pEatL, s ifthat were the system less familiarto his hearers.'54 Hamel(1998a,26, n. 74)calls attention o theproblematicatureof someof the sourcesthatmightbeadduced s evidence f call-upbyage-groupn the fifthcentury.Andrewes1981,2) points out that when Philochorus speaks of arpae-ra E'v -70L '7WV"OLt in his fourth book(FGrH328 F 38, preservedn Harp.s.v.,279.6 Dindorf)-probablyin connectionwith theoutbreak f thePeloponnesianWar-he is probably ontrastingaterpracticewithconscriptionbykatalogos." Aeschinesprobablywas bornc. 390B.C.Harris,1988)andbeganhisephebic erviceat theageof 18.



17/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 413Significant bjections anberaised o Andrewes'snterpretation." irst,as Hamelobserves1998a,27,n.75),it is odd to takeCrpacrdavdTv Ev 0rots LEpEcrL aAov/LE'v)qvas a referenceo conscriptionby katalogos, ince Aeschines mmediatelytatesthatunderthisarrangement e went on an expeditionwith men of his age.Indeed,thenatural nterpretations that Aeschines s referringo the age-group ystem.In thiscase,whenhespeaksof serviceinturns',he is probably eferringo theturn-taking yentireage-groups hat was possibleunder the new systemas suggestedabove.Theexpedition o Phliusapparently id not require full levyof troops-only a partiallevysupplementedy Alcibiades'mercenaries.57Aeschines' ge-group, robablywithothersas well, sufficedon thisoccasion;otherage-groupswouldtake their turn thenext time troopswereneeded. Aeschinesmay use the plural n the phraseE'v 70o9

/iEpEaLatherhanthesingularo emphasizehatthisturn-takingwasby groups.58Furtherdoubts concerningAndrewes'sdentificationof iv 0roL- LEpEaTL ithconscription y katalogos re raisedbythe factthat,while hissystemof conscriptionis mentioned requentlyn our sources, t is nevercharacterizedn these or similarterms.Theonlyevidencehat Andrewes ites n favourof hisposition s thegenerals'oath ro70vS rpaTrEVroU KcLaAE LV(Lys. 9.15). But the vague prescription oconscript(first) men who have not yet gone on an expeditionfalls short of onemandating urn-takingby all hoplites.In fact, the reference o astrateutoi,which isfrequently ejorative,mayindicate hat this clausewas included n the oathprimarilyas a precaution gainstdraft-evasion.A passage n Plato'sLawssettingout rules ormilitary ervice,moreover,uggeststhatconscriptionby katalogosand service in turn'aredistinctalternatives:Amanwho hasbeenconscripted ykatalogos r calledupto serve n turn n somewaymustperform militaryservice'(arparEl'EaOaL-v KaT,aaAEyev-ra q 7~v Iv JEpEL 1TLVrTEraypLEvov43a3-4). Plato drawson Athenianlaw in his treatmentof militaryoffenceshatfollows59nd sprobablylsothinking f Athenswhenhespeaksof thesealternativerrangements:yr7vKa-raAEyv-trahe is probablyeferringo conscriptionby katalogos,by service v E'pELLVL',o conscriptionby age-group.The latter hadprobablyreplacedthe formerby the time Plato wrote the Lawslate in his career,sometimebeforehis death n 347 B.C.The factthatweonlybeginhearing f military ervice inturn',variously xpressed,in themid-fourthenturyE'vE'pErwvt:l.Lg. 943a4)or in referenceo thisperiod E'vTO7L 'pEcaL:Aesch.2.168)is in keepingwith the identification f this terminologywith thenewsystemof conscription.Consistentwiththis s Demosthenes' roposaln

56 Other nterpretationsf &v r70opipEaL are also not persuasiven myview.Kromayer ndVeith 1928,47-8; cf. Burckhardt, 996,21, with n. 33)take this as a referenceo the selectivecall-upof entire ribal ontingentswhen hewhole evywas notrequired. hispractice, owever,is unattested and cannot be inferred from the fact that tribal contingents were sometimesdeployed in different locations: such deployments took place only after conscription from alltribes had been carriedout, as is clear fromD.S. 18.10.2. C. D. Adams (The Speeches of Aeschines[Cambridge,MA, 1919], 287; cf. Carey,2000, 151, n. 219) suggests that 'Iv ro^S~1'pEaL referstoconscriptionf only partof anage-group,ut thispracticesalso unattested.57 Onthisexpedition,whichwas edbyChares,ee X. H.G 7.2.17-23;D.S.15.75.3;Thompson

(1983).58 Ev T70oL~ pErt doesnot,as far as I cantell,appearnthissensebefore hispointin Greekliterature;it appears earlier but in a different sense in Pl. Prm. 145c8. See LSJ pipos 11.2 forexpressionsconnoting 'turn-taking'formed from various prepositions, including Ev,in combina-tion with 1dpos in the singular.59While Plato does not follow Athenian law precisely here (cf. Hamel, 1998b, 385-6), heappearsto be influenced stronglyby it (see Saunders, 1991, 324-8).



18/26

414 M. R. CHRIST349/8 B.C.hat the Athenians should support Olynthusthrough an expedition in which'all should serve in turn (Kar7d l'pos) until all have taken part in the campaign'(2.31).If we accept that Aeschines' service in 366 B.C.Ev -rot^s/cpepEac was under theage-group system, this means that all of the service he describes subsequently in hismilitary autobiography was under the same system of conscription. This is truewhether we reject or accept Kat' roi9L EpEULVater in ?168 when-according to themanuscripts-Aeschines characterizes his service on expeditions in the period 362-349/8 B.C. s &v roi9 7Twv4POLO9SCa ro' /E'pEarw.Dilts, in his Teubneredition, followsHamakerin bracketingKat roi?9 E'pEatw,eavingus with a referenceto conscription byage-group in Elv roEsE7rwvvpotLs;his designation, as the lexicographers noted (e.g.Harp. s.v. arparda v To70girwT)vtotS = 279.6 Dindorf), is consistent with theconspicuous role of the forty-two eponymous heroes in the age-group system asdescribed in Ath. Pol. 53.4, 7.60

If, however, Aeschines actually wrote cv -o0i 7rowvV4LoLsaL TOL9S pEULVw,hiswould still mean-according to my interpretationof EvTros0 E'pecaLarlier in ?168-that he was conscripted by age-group in the period 362-349/8 B.C..In this case,Aeschines has designated the new system, for which there may have been no single,recognizablename in generaluse, by two of its attributes.Consistent with this flexiblenomenclatureis its designation earlier in the passage by one of these phrases (E'v ro70pE'peatL)qualified by KaAovpErl7vtaken in the sense 'so-called'.6' The form of thephrase4v 0rot^ETrrowv;pOLsKaLTrotgp/PEV also may support the view that Aeschinesis referring through two attributes to a single method of conscription: the omission ofa second&v ould make the two nouns '(whethersimilaror dissimilar in meaning) uniteto form a complex' (Smyth, 1667b);if Aeschines had meant to distinguish the two, ashe might have if they referred to different systems, he could have repeated thepreposition and linked them with, for example,7E .. Kal(cf. Smyth, 1667a).62If we accept the entire phrase E'v ro9wWovVtLOLsKatTroCslE'pEV as part of ourtext, as many have,and take the two components to be attributes of the same system ofconscription as I have argued, we can avoid an unhappy consequence of Andrewes's

' If KaLTO. iepEaLVsanintrusion,my interpretationf 'v -roiLpipEaearliernthepassageas a referenceo theage-group ystem ouldexplainhow t found tsway ntoourtext: tderivesfroma marginal losson E'v-70 WE'WvtwLotShatcorrectlyinks hisphrasewithEv -rols LE'PieaLsinceboth refer o the samesystem.61 Andrewes1981,2) is rightly autiousn attributinghis sense o KaAov/Etvr7v,since t couldsimply ndicate hat the prepositional hraseconstitutesa designation'called').Later n thepassageAeschinesuses the identical ormwhennamingthe Nemean ravine:assuming hatdittographys not behindthe repetition,n this case Aeschinesmaybe usingit in the sense'so-called' s the Nemeanravinemayhavebeenunfamiliaro some nhis audience.62Onemightwonder hyAeschines ould efero thesystemirstwithEiv oi7 ig c aL andthen aterwithIv-rog E~wrrwvItOLat iroi t~pEULV,ince t mightmakemoresenseto describeit firstbytwo attributes nd later n abbreviated annerbyjustone of these.Oneexplanationsthat AeschineshoughtEv -oLgIp.e' wasmoresignificant s an attribute ince t describesheprinciple n which he newsystemwasbased,whereasEvr70To^rr/oLS merelydescribeshemechanismof the forty-twoeponymousheroesby whichit was carriedout. A rhetoricalmotivationmayalso lie behindhishighlightinghis feature irst:becauseAeschines s defendinghimself againstDemosthenes' luragainsthis serviceas soldier(Aesch. 2.167),he wants toemphasizehatheserved in turn'.Thiswouldalsoprovide defenceagainst hepossiblechargethathedidnot go out on allexpeditionsftercompleting is twoyearsof ephebic ervice.Thispossibilitymakesme uncomfortableithDilts's nsertion f ircaar ater n?168whenAeschinesreferso his service ntheperiod362-349/8B.c.:Aeschinesmaywellbemakinghis claim omodelservicecarefully, sserting hathe wenton successive xpeditionswheneveralledup 'in turn'under heeponymicystem,notthathe wentonevery ingleexpedition uringhisperiod.



19/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 415interpretation of bIv -ro, LE'pEaearly in ?168 as a reference to conscription bykatalogos-namely that Aeschines was conscripted both under the age-group system( 'v -r70 ETWVUr/oos)and by katalogos (Kal r-TO-gE'pEv)in the period 362-349/8 B.C.Hansen (1985, 89), accepting Andrewes'sinterpretation, infers that the old and newarrangements must have overlapped for some time.63Once we take away this pivotalpassage, however, the other three pieces of evidence Hansen cites in favour of amixed-system carrylittle weight.1. Although Dem. 50.6 (cf. 50.16) speaks of the compilation of katalogoi in 362/1B.C., his is specifically for conscription of sailors (vaorsaL),most of whom wereprobably thetes (cf. Hansen, 1985, 110, n. 245; Rhodes, 1981, 327).64 The namesof thetes had to be gathered on lists based on the deme rolls-just as formerlythe conscription of hoplites had been carried out-because they did not appearon the lists of hoplites organized by age-group posted in the Agora by thistime.652. Dem. 13.4 in 354/3 B.C.proposes paying all those of military age for militaryservice, and paying rovs 8' 6r'Ep7 v KaTraAOyOVfor their non-military services.The fact that this is a proposal makes the relation of its elements to the statusquo uncertain;if r70os8' rrdp v' KacTrAoyovimplies making a list of those ofmilitary age, this would be a new list distinct from any existing lists of hoplitessince it would include thetes as well as hoplites (cf. Hansen, 1985, 86-7).3. Mantitheus protests in Dem. 39.8 (348 B.C.) hat there will be great confusion ifhis half-brother continues usurping his name, since it will not be clear which ofthe two is 'the one conscripted' (0 KaTIELAEyLOE'voS)n the event of an expedition.This need not be taken as a reference to conscription by katalogos. KaraAE'ywwas flexible-it was also used in speaking of conscription of men for the cavalry(e.g. Lys. 16.13) and of trierarchs([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 61.1)-and therefore prob-ably continued to be used under the age-group system to describe conscription;no new verb was coined to describe the new arrangementas far as we know.66

Since we have no compelling evidence of conscription of hoplites by katalogos after366 B.C.,and good reason to believe the new arrangementwas operating by this date,we should abandon the idea that the two systems overlapped for some time. Practicalconsiderations also favour a clean transition between the two. Once the names of63Hansen'snference, owever, oes not follownecessarilyrom Andrewes'snterpretation:Aeschines could mean a la Andrewes that he served first by katalogos and later by age-group intheperiod362-349/8B.c.(cf.Ober,1985,96).6 Unlike the navalexpeditions iscussedabove(n. 50) in whichhoplitesapparently owedthemselves o distantlocationsso as to fighton land, the expeditiondescribed n Dem. 50appearso havebeenprimarily naval ne(50.4-6)requiringailorsratherhanhoplites; swasnormaln suchsituations smallcontingent f epibatai ccompaniedachship(50.10,25,etc.).65 If theteseverbecameeligible orhopliteservice see above,n. 30), this probably id nothappenuntilafter the battleof Chaeronea338 B.C.), erhapsn conjunctionwith the ephebicreformsof c. 335/4 B.C.6

Hansen 1985,110,n.248)argueshatMantitheus'rgumentmakes enseonlyif conscriptswere isteddeme-by-demen katalogoi atherhanby age-group,inceunder he latterarrange-ment he twohalf-brothersf identical amecouldhavebeendistinguishedromoneanotherbytheirdifferent ges.Mantitheus'rgument, owever,ould still be validunderconscriptionbyage-groupince denticalnamescouldcauseconfusionat leastinitially.nanycase,Mantitheusmaywell assume hat hisassertion,which s partof a longlist of possible onfusionsresultingfrom he currentituation,willnot beputto suchclosescrutiny.



20/26

416 M. R. CHRISTeligible conscripts were readilyavailableon the lists of the forty-two age-groups,therewas no reason for the generals to create further work for themselves by sometimesgeneratingthe old-style katalogoi.Thus far, we have established that conscription by age-group dates back at least to366 B.C.How much farther back can it be dated? Conscription by katalogos was stilloperatingat the start of the CorinthianWar(Lys. 15.5; 14.6;cf. Carey, 1989, 141) andprobably continued to be used throughout it (395-386 B.C.).67Although DiodorusSiculus speaks of the Athenian general Demophon conscripting (Ka-raM$aSg)5,000hoplites in 378/7 B.C. 15.26.2) and of the Athenians voting to conscript (Ka-raAt at)20,000 hoplites in 377/6 B.C.(15.29.7), we cannot rely on the precision of histerminology. Even if Diodorus' source used these terms, it may have been usingKa-raAE'yc ith referenceto conscription by age-group.On balance then, it is best todate the reformapproximatelyto the period 386-366 B.C.

SIGNIFICANCE OF REFORMWhy did Athenians abandon conscription by katalogos and replace it with con-scription by age-groups in the period 386-366 B.C.?While we do not know thecircumstances in which the Assembly approved this reform, its most striking featuressuggest that military and ideological considerations worked together to bring aboutthe change. The new system had two conspicuous advantages over its predecessor:itallowed speediermobilization and was more equitable.Athenians had good reason toseek both improvements at this time.Military considerationsIn the first decades of the fourth century B.C.,Athens sought to re-establish its powerand prestige after its defeat in the Peloponnesian War and in the face of new threatsfrom abroad. An integral part of this was innovation in the military sphere,includingreform of how hoplites were trained and conscripted.It was probably during this period that Athenians made two years of militaryservice and training obligatory for eighteen year olds of hoplite status. Aeschinessuggests in his military autobiography that this was the normal arrangement by thetime he began his two years of servicec. 372 B.C.with his fellow ephebes (2.167, quotedabove);he treats his service as routine and does not seek special credit for it, as he doeslater in the same excursus for his exceptional role as one of the epilektoi at Tamynae(2.169). While an ephebic system of some sort was probably in place already in thelate-fifth century,the new arrangement probablyinnovated in extending service to twoyears and in modifying the form of training during this period (cf. Ober, 1985, 90-5).68Concern over the city's military readinessin the aftermath of the Peloponnesian Warwas probably a primary motivation behind reform of the ephebeia; likewise afteranother greatdefeat-at Chaeronea in 338 B.c.-Athenians furtherrefined the ephebicsystem (Harp. s.v. 'E7TLKpadr= 126.2 Dindorf) (Hansen, 1991, 89; cf. Rhodes, 1981,494-5). Furthermore, the increasing professionalization of Greek military forces,including the rising use of mercenaries,may have made Athenians more conscious of

67 Conscriptiony katalogoswasoperatingn the timeof Lys.9 (FortheSoldier),whichmaydate o the CorinthianWaras MacDowell1994,153)suggests.68 Forargumentsn favourof anearly phebeia,eeesp.P616kidis1962),71-9 andReinmuth(1971),123-38.Fora surveyof scholarshipn theephebeia,eeRaaflaub1996),157,with172,nn.148-9.



21/26

CONSCRIPTION OF HOPLITES IN CLASSICAL ATHENS 417the importance of having a better-trainedhoplite force. The ephebes,moreover,couldgarrison the expanding network of rural forts in Attica during their second year ofservice ([Arist.]Ath. Pol. 42.4; Ober, 1985, 97-9).Complementary to the city's efforts to improve the quality of its hoplites bymodifying the ephebic system was its reform of conscription to allow speediermobilization of troops.69The new arrangementmust have speeded up considerablytheprocess of conscription and thus mobilization. The generalsno longer had to wait forlists to come in from the demes or spend time, once these arrived, in selectingindividual conscripts; because lists organized by age-group were already at hand andconscription was by group, the generals had merely to choose which groups toconscript. In an age of widespread military innovation in the Greek world, as thefourth centurywas, Athenian efforts to improvethe speed of mobilization may requirelittle explanation: any measure to improve the city's military effectiveness may havebeen welcome. A specific motivation behind the reform, however,may have been thedesire to providefor speedyresponseto enemy incursions into Attica so as to avoid thedamage and humiliation such incursions had brought during the Peloponnesian War(Ober, 1985, 13-66).These reforms of ephebic service and conscription shared not only the goal ofproducing a more effective hoplite force but also, notably, a reliance on age-groups.This is apparentin Aeschines' military autobiographyquoted above: the orator speaksof his service as borderguardwith his fellow ephebes-who werecertainlyof the sameage as himself (cf. 1.49)--and then immediately of conscription by age-group carriedout severalyears later in which he servedwith men of his age (2.167-8), as if the latterfollowed naturally upon the former. Although this affinity could mean that the tworeforms were instituted simultaneously, the fact that we do not hear of a singlefar-reaching reform may mean that one reform drew on the other in employingage-groups. Ephebic reform may have been the earlier of the two: the need to keeptrack of ephebes entering their two years of mandatory service could have promptedspecial measures for recording the names of each ephebic class, which consisted ofindividualsof the same age;whenconscription by age-groupwas initiated, it then builton this pre-existingarrangement.70This view of conscription by age-groupas an improvementover its predecessorandone well-suited to the city's changing circumstances is at odds with Tritle'snegativeassessment of it: 'Generals surely found in their ranks men called out for service whowere physically unfit, untrained, and/or unmotivated'(Tritle,1989, 56); to remedy theproblem of 'low grade troops', Athenians established 'a permanent elite force, theepilektoi' analagous to those attested in some other Greek states;7'thus (57) 'when anexpeditionary force was called out, the generals could expect to command not onlythose age groups summoned, but also the epilektoi, a veteran force of dependablefighters'. This reading of the new system of conscription and its consequences is,however,unpersuasive.First, we have no reason to believe that conscription by age-group lowered the

9 Onthepossible ink between eform f theephebeiand the newmethodof conscription,see Hansen 1985),89 andOber 1985),90-6.70 Anotherpossible nspirationor using age-groupsn conscriptionwas the requirement,startingn 399/8B.c. seeabove,n. 28),thatAthenians n theirsixtiethyearserveas arbitrators;this wouldmake t necessaryo keeptrackof at least older Atheniansby age-group.Note theclose connection n [Arist.]Ath. Pol. 53.4-7 betweenthe use of age-groups or designatingarbitratorsndconscripting oplites.7' Cf.Tritle1988),77-9. Oneliteforcesattested utsideAthens, eePritchett1974),2.221-5.



22/26

418 M. R. CHRISTquality of Athenian hoplite forces. The only evidence Tritle(1989, 56, with n. 16) citesfor this is an anecdote in Plutarch concerning poor discipline among Atheniantroops in 349/8 B.C. Phoc. 12.3).72 Disciplinary problems,however,were probablyalsocommon when conscription by katalogos was in use; discipline was a challenge incitizen armies in general (see Pritchett, 1974, 2.232-45; Hamel, 1998a, 59-64).Moreover,ephebic trainingwas probablyin place in some form from the inception ofconscription by age-groups as argued above, ensuring that conscripts had a commoncore of experience and were thus not 'untrained'. Since compulsion was integral toboth systems, both had to deal with the problem of 'unmotivated' soldiers. Con-scription by age-groups,however,may have been superiorto its predecessorin dealingwith this challenge: by making conscription fairer (see below), it may well haveimprovedmorale among the conscripted.Second, Tritle'sargumentthat Athenians responded to the alleged difficultiesposedby the new system with the establishment of a permanent force of epilektoi is notcompelling. The only evidence before 330 B.C. hat Tritle cites for such a force refers tothe Athenian use of epilektoi at the Battle of Tamynae (Aesch. 2.169, quoted above;Plu. Phoc. 13.5). The two passages cited, however,say nothing about this force beingpermanent,and Aeschines in fact appearsto rule this out:he generalizesthathe servedrepeatedlyunder the age-group system (2.168) and then immediatelysubstantiates thisby citing the expeditions he went on in the period 362-349/8 B.C. 2.169); the fact thathis service as epilektos is included within this list suggests that he had already beenconscripted by age-group before being selected to serve with the epilektoi. This isconsistent with the well-establishedpracticein Athens of selectingforces to be used forspecial purposes from those already conscripted:the fifth-centuryconvention was tolabel these forceslogades,the fourt

Documents

Classical Quarterly -'Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens' by Matthew R. Christ, 2001