Historical overview: Between 2000 and 1900BC the Greek-speaking peoples who would come to dominate the area entered the peninsula of Greece. To the south on the island of Crete a great culture based around marvellous palaces was just developing along Egyptian lines. In Anatolia the Hurrians were setting the seeds for what would become the Hittite Empire and merchants from the Old Assyrian culture were setting up trading posts.
The Cretan Palace Culture (referred to as Minoan) set the standard in the Aegean Sea and their power seems to have been absolute to the extent that they needed no walls to defend their beautiful palaces and the riches therein. This Palace culture has survived in the form of clay tablets that tell us in incredible detail (for the Minoans seem to have invented red tape) the daily and seasonal life of Crete.
While Minoa maintained her sea power and prestige the more barbarous and adventurous natives of mainland Greece (Myceneans) were on the rise setting up several colonies in Asia Minor and raiding down the coastline. Then around 1500BC Crete and the Palace Culture was overtaken by some cataclysm probably natural which snuffed out their society in a very short period of time. Although a few cities may have held to the Palace Culture it was the Myceneans who would now make their mark on history, and what a mark it would be...
The Trojan War: That Troy existed and violent actions took place around the city identified as such is now pretty much accepted as truth. That it happened as written in Homer's Iliad is definitely debatable. What is certain is that Myceneans began to push out from the Greek mainland into Anatolia and down the Aegean coast formerly guarded from such piracy by the Minoans. So why Troy? Because it is the one written about is the simple answer, the scenario was probably enacted up and down the Aegean coast for centuries. The raid on Troy is probably remembered because it was one of the last in a long line of such actions that deflected criticism of a king at home, gave his army something to do, gained prestige, booty and slaves(in many cases there was no differnce
) and would provide a good song for winter nights. The raids on Troy are dated to the mid-13th century BC and archaeological evidence shows civil war and unrest in the Mycenean homelands dating to 1230BC so attention may have been turned inwards just after this last great raid.
The Minoan and Mycenean range is divisible into three main historical periods, the Palace Culture of Minoa between 1600 and 1250BC, the period of change 1300 to 1200BC when the Minoans were declining and the early Myceneans gaining a foothold in Asia and, finally, the later Mycenean period encompassing the Trojan War period. I have also made some mention of the Trojans as, naturally, they were as important to the war as the Myceneans.
The Minoan Military System 1600 to 1300BC: Minoan forces were divided into three main groups chariotry, infantry and ships, the first two are detailed below. I will only give a brief outline of the maritime forces as they really require a section to themselves but do not play a central role in the hsitory of the time, as Minoan sea dominance was complete, with no (known) major sea battles at the time
Chariotry: Known as the eqeta or `followers' this arm of the Minoan field force developed along typical Bronze Age lines from around 1600BC. The chariots themselves were usually drawn by teams of two horses (a `span') and crewed by a charioteer and a warrior. The chariots themselves were heavier and stronger in construction than contemporary Egyptian and Syrian examples having more in common with Hittite and Anatolian types. This was probably due to the nature of the terrain they fought over where a much more robust vehicle was necessary.
There is strong evidence that the chariot corps was organised centrally as clay tablet records of the charioteers supplying vehicles have been found alongside lists of chariot parts and their state of repair. This has led to the belief that the owners of chariots could not always provide a complete vehicle so a record of parts available was needed to match up wheels, cabs and horse teams. It is amusing to imagine that the owner's had a rota for crewing this composite vehicle, "Monday, Wednesday and Friday Telemachus, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday Agamemnon while Cleomenes gets Sunday because he only brought the wheels"
.
The crew had varying degrees of defensive equipment that became lighter as time went on. The most famous and distinctive panoply is the Dendra armour comprising large sheets of bronze skilfully worked to form complete protection from mid-thigh to chin (The other parts of the body being covered by the chariot cab and a helmet respectively). The effect is not unlike a menacing, bronze garbage can! Scale and linen armour was also favoured, with the charioteers having the lighter varieties due to the need for mobility.
It has been possible to reconstruct the size of chariot corps from the tablet records and they could be considerable with cities fielding between 100 and 400 at a time(quite a bit, when you consider that the chariots in question used AT LEAST 2 horses).
Infantry: While the chariotry was the "glamour" component of Minoan armies it was the footmen who made up the majority troop type. The infantry spearmen made up the bulk and while they were simply equipped and dressed they were also very distinctive in appearance.
Two pieces of equipment stand out, the tall shield and long spear, The shield was of two types, the "tower" and "figure-of-eight". These were tough, flexible and yet light covering the entire spearman from chin to toe negating the need for body armour. An impressive shield wall could be formed using these items. From between the shields would poke the 12' plus spears, with a foot-long blade of bronze tipping them they must have been an impressive sight en masse.
A helmet formed from sliced boar-tusks bound to a leather foundation protected the head. Atop this could be fixed a stiff crest of horsehair or tusk, alternatively the lacings holding the helmet together could be plaited decoratively. Most infantry wore only a loincloth or went naked. Richer individuals might wear colourful fringed kilts identical to those common throughout the region at this time. Swords were items of some worth and denoted status so would be confined to chariot crews and spearmen.
Archers: During this early period archers were relatively common and widely employed. They could operate in several different roles with varying levels of specialisation. The classic role was as a skirmisher, skipping around the battlefield pestering the slower or less agile enemy troops or driving off the enemy skirmishers to allow their own side a free hand. Secondly they could group together in an attempt (not always successful it must be said) to concentrate their shooting at vulnerable targets such as horses.
The last role for the archers was to directly support the spearmen, this could be by indirect shooting from the rear ranks of the shield wall in an attempt to disrupt an advancing enemy formation or in a more aggressive way which would see them shooting from between the shields of the front rank spearmen directly at the enemy. It is therefore possible to depict your spearmen with archers mixed into or behind the ranks.
Slingers: While not an important part of the army numerically the slingers would still perform a valuable service holding rough or broken terrain and harassing the enemy flanks.
Javelinmen: Again not numerically outstanding but interesting in that I have heard that a contingent of Libyan javelin have fought with Mycenaean forces, wich perhaps sets presedence for minoan use. The native javelinmen may even be entirely absent if Libyans were present, as the Lybians at this time were considerd master skirmishers(thats just a thought of mine, for the most part)
The Pylians: These inhabitants of Achaea make an interesting alternative to the more usual solid spearmen or skirmishing javelinmen. They appear wearing kilts, linen greaves and boar tusk helmets. They have no shield but are shown carrying swords (rapier-like affairs) and, sometimes, javelins. Although not a common troop-type, they seem to have had their fare share of engagements
Minoan Tactics: The foundation of the battle line was the wall of shields with the spearmen up to 8-deep backed up and interspersed by archers. Other skirmishers would operate on the flanks as described above. The only real decision for the Minoan and early Mycenean chieftains seems to have been the placement of his chariotry.
The chariot combats between the noble champions would most likely decide any battle so it depended upon how confident the chariot corps felt as to the formation it took up. If both sides were eager for battle and both sides were equal in numbers or one side felt more confident than the other did then the chariots formed up in front of the spears. If a side were outnumbered or reluctant to face their adversaries then they would form up on the flanks and between spear blocks. This would enable "downed" charioteers to retreat to the safety their shield walls.
The Cretan Palace Culture (referred to as Minoan) set the standard in the Aegean Sea and their power seems to have been absolute to the extent that they needed no walls to defend their beautiful palaces and the riches therein. This Palace culture has survived in the form of clay tablets that tell us in incredible detail (for the Minoans seem to have invented red tape) the daily and seasonal life of Crete.
While Minoa maintained her sea power and prestige the more barbarous and adventurous natives of mainland Greece (Myceneans) were on the rise setting up several colonies in Asia Minor and raiding down the coastline. Then around 1500BC Crete and the Palace Culture was overtaken by some cataclysm probably natural which snuffed out their society in a very short period of time. Although a few cities may have held to the Palace Culture it was the Myceneans who would now make their mark on history, and what a mark it would be...
The Trojan War: That Troy existed and violent actions took place around the city identified as such is now pretty much accepted as truth. That it happened as written in Homer's Iliad is definitely debatable. What is certain is that Myceneans began to push out from the Greek mainland into Anatolia and down the Aegean coast formerly guarded from such piracy by the Minoans. So why Troy? Because it is the one written about is the simple answer, the scenario was probably enacted up and down the Aegean coast for centuries. The raid on Troy is probably remembered because it was one of the last in a long line of such actions that deflected criticism of a king at home, gave his army something to do, gained prestige, booty and slaves(in many cases there was no differnce
) and would provide a good song for winter nights. The raids on Troy are dated to the mid-13th century BC and archaeological evidence shows civil war and unrest in the Mycenean homelands dating to 1230BC so attention may have been turned inwards just after this last great raid. The Minoan and Mycenean range is divisible into three main historical periods, the Palace Culture of Minoa between 1600 and 1250BC, the period of change 1300 to 1200BC when the Minoans were declining and the early Myceneans gaining a foothold in Asia and, finally, the later Mycenean period encompassing the Trojan War period. I have also made some mention of the Trojans as, naturally, they were as important to the war as the Myceneans.
The Minoan Military System 1600 to 1300BC: Minoan forces were divided into three main groups chariotry, infantry and ships, the first two are detailed below. I will only give a brief outline of the maritime forces as they really require a section to themselves but do not play a central role in the hsitory of the time, as Minoan sea dominance was complete, with no (known) major sea battles at the time
Chariotry: Known as the eqeta or `followers' this arm of the Minoan field force developed along typical Bronze Age lines from around 1600BC. The chariots themselves were usually drawn by teams of two horses (a `span') and crewed by a charioteer and a warrior. The chariots themselves were heavier and stronger in construction than contemporary Egyptian and Syrian examples having more in common with Hittite and Anatolian types. This was probably due to the nature of the terrain they fought over where a much more robust vehicle was necessary.
There is strong evidence that the chariot corps was organised centrally as clay tablet records of the charioteers supplying vehicles have been found alongside lists of chariot parts and their state of repair. This has led to the belief that the owners of chariots could not always provide a complete vehicle so a record of parts available was needed to match up wheels, cabs and horse teams. It is amusing to imagine that the owner's had a rota for crewing this composite vehicle, "Monday, Wednesday and Friday Telemachus, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday Agamemnon while Cleomenes gets Sunday because he only brought the wheels"
. The crew had varying degrees of defensive equipment that became lighter as time went on. The most famous and distinctive panoply is the Dendra armour comprising large sheets of bronze skilfully worked to form complete protection from mid-thigh to chin (The other parts of the body being covered by the chariot cab and a helmet respectively). The effect is not unlike a menacing, bronze garbage can! Scale and linen armour was also favoured, with the charioteers having the lighter varieties due to the need for mobility.
It has been possible to reconstruct the size of chariot corps from the tablet records and they could be considerable with cities fielding between 100 and 400 at a time(quite a bit, when you consider that the chariots in question used AT LEAST 2 horses).
Infantry: While the chariotry was the "glamour" component of Minoan armies it was the footmen who made up the majority troop type. The infantry spearmen made up the bulk and while they were simply equipped and dressed they were also very distinctive in appearance.
Two pieces of equipment stand out, the tall shield and long spear, The shield was of two types, the "tower" and "figure-of-eight". These were tough, flexible and yet light covering the entire spearman from chin to toe negating the need for body armour. An impressive shield wall could be formed using these items. From between the shields would poke the 12' plus spears, with a foot-long blade of bronze tipping them they must have been an impressive sight en masse.
A helmet formed from sliced boar-tusks bound to a leather foundation protected the head. Atop this could be fixed a stiff crest of horsehair or tusk, alternatively the lacings holding the helmet together could be plaited decoratively. Most infantry wore only a loincloth or went naked. Richer individuals might wear colourful fringed kilts identical to those common throughout the region at this time. Swords were items of some worth and denoted status so would be confined to chariot crews and spearmen.
Archers: During this early period archers were relatively common and widely employed. They could operate in several different roles with varying levels of specialisation. The classic role was as a skirmisher, skipping around the battlefield pestering the slower or less agile enemy troops or driving off the enemy skirmishers to allow their own side a free hand. Secondly they could group together in an attempt (not always successful it must be said) to concentrate their shooting at vulnerable targets such as horses.
The last role for the archers was to directly support the spearmen, this could be by indirect shooting from the rear ranks of the shield wall in an attempt to disrupt an advancing enemy formation or in a more aggressive way which would see them shooting from between the shields of the front rank spearmen directly at the enemy. It is therefore possible to depict your spearmen with archers mixed into or behind the ranks.
Slingers: While not an important part of the army numerically the slingers would still perform a valuable service holding rough or broken terrain and harassing the enemy flanks.
Javelinmen: Again not numerically outstanding but interesting in that I have heard that a contingent of Libyan javelin have fought with Mycenaean forces, wich perhaps sets presedence for minoan use. The native javelinmen may even be entirely absent if Libyans were present, as the Lybians at this time were considerd master skirmishers(thats just a thought of mine, for the most part)
The Pylians: These inhabitants of Achaea make an interesting alternative to the more usual solid spearmen or skirmishing javelinmen. They appear wearing kilts, linen greaves and boar tusk helmets. They have no shield but are shown carrying swords (rapier-like affairs) and, sometimes, javelins. Although not a common troop-type, they seem to have had their fare share of engagements
Minoan Tactics: The foundation of the battle line was the wall of shields with the spearmen up to 8-deep backed up and interspersed by archers. Other skirmishers would operate on the flanks as described above. The only real decision for the Minoan and early Mycenean chieftains seems to have been the placement of his chariotry.
The chariot combats between the noble champions would most likely decide any battle so it depended upon how confident the chariot corps felt as to the formation it took up. If both sides were eager for battle and both sides were equal in numbers or one side felt more confident than the other did then the chariots formed up in front of the spears. If a side were outnumbered or reluctant to face their adversaries then they would form up on the flanks and between spear blocks. This would enable "downed" charioteers to retreat to the safety their shield walls.
