Early Iron Age Greek Warrior 1100 700 Bc

The period from 1200 BC onwards saw vast changes in every aspect of life on both the Greek mainland and islands as monarchies disappeared and were replaced by aristocratic rule and a new form of community developed: the city-state. Alongside these changes a new style of warfare developed which was to be the determining factor in land warfare in Greece until the defeat of the Greek city-state by the might of Macedonia at Chaeronea in 338 BC. This mode of warfare was based on a group of heavily armed infantrymen organized in a phalanx formation – the classic hoplite formation – and remained the system throughout the classical Greek period. This new title details this pivotal period that saw the transition from the Bronze Age warriors of Homer to the origins of the men who fought the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars.

Osprey's survey of Greek warriors of the period of the Bronze Age from 1600 to 1100 BC. More than a century has passed past since German archeologist Heinrich Schliemann discovered the treasures of Bronze Age Mycenae. The richly decorated artifacts of the entombed warriors, whose bodies still lay in their graves, confirmed that Homer's epic The Iliad was based upon true events, and that the Achaeans described in his poems probably did exist. Through a combined study of the mythical tradition, archeological findings, and written sources, this fascinating addition to the Warrior series explores the evolution of warfare in the Bronze Age Greek world. Covering weaponry, clothing, helmets, and body armor, it provides a richly illustrated guide to the warriors who have shone from the pages of Homer's poem for almost three millennia.

The mainland and islands of Greece were extensively settled by peoples moving from Asia Minor in c.5000 BC, while a further wave in c.5000 BC introduced bronze-working to the region. It is form this point on that it is possible to discern a distinct Cycladic or Aegean civilisation, developing at roughly the same time as the Egyptian and Persian civilisations. Further to the south, the Minoan civilisation based on Crete held sway, and this power – along with the Helladic Achaeans to the north gradually swamped the Cycladic civilisation in between. In common with most Bronze Age societies, the culture of the Aegean world was dominated by warfare, with the inhabitants living in organized settlements and small citadels with fortification walls and bulwarks, towers and gates to provide protection against invaders from the sea or internecine conflicts. Using the latest archaeological evidence, this title recreates the world of these peoples through a detailed examination of their material culture.

The mainland and islands of Greece were extensively settled by peoples moving from Asia Minor in c.5000 BC, while a further wave in c.5000 BC introduced bronze-working to the region. It is form this point on that it is possible to discern a distinct Cycladic or Aegean civilisation, developing at roughly the same time as the Egyptian and Persian civilisations. Further to the south, the Minoan civilisation based on Crete held sway, and this power – along with the Helladic Achaeans to the north gradually swamped the Cycladic civilisation in between. In common with most Bronze Age societies, the culture of the Aegean world was dominated by warfare, with the inhabitants living in organized settlements and small citadels with fortification walls and bulwarks, towers and gates to provide protection against invaders from the sea or internecine conflicts. Using the latest archaeological evidence, this title recreates the world of these peoples through a detailed examination of their material culture.

The Roman centurion, holding the legionaries steady before the barbarian horde and then leading them forward to victory, was the heroic exemplar of the Roman world. This was thanks to the Marian reforms, which saw the centurion, although inferior in military rank and social class, superseding the tribune as the legion's most important officer. This period of reform in the Roman Army is often overlooked, but the invincible armies that Julius Caesar led into Gaul were the refined products of 50 years of military reforms. Using specially commissioned artwork and detailed battle reports, this new study examines the Roman legionary soldier at this crucial time in the history of the Roman Republic from its domination by Marius and Sulla to the beginning of the rise of Julius Caesar.

Carthage, the port-city in Tunisia first settled by Phoenicians from Tyre, grew to extend a competitive maritime trading empire all over the Western Mediterranean and beyond, increasingly defended by the best navy of the period. In the 6th century BC this came into confrontation with Greek colonists in Sicily, starting major wars that lasted through the 5th and 4th centuries, and involved much interaction with different Greek forces. During the 3rd century Carthage first clashed with Roman armies, and in the course of three wars that raged over Spain, Sicily and Italy the Romans suffered the greatest defeats in their early history at the hands of Hamilcar, Hannibal and Hasdrubal Barca, leading multinational armies of North Africans and Europeans.

Since 500 BC the mainland Greeks had been threatened by the Achaemenid Persian Empire. They had suffered major invasions but subsequent attempts to take the offensive had been thwarted. With Alexander the Great’s invasion the rules changed. In Macedonia a new model army had been developed, taking the traditional hoplite heavy infantry in a new evolutionary direction and similarly transforming the heavy cavalry. These developments neutralized the Persians’ own efforts to modernize their troops, tactics and equipment. Despite the inclusion of a state-of-the-art siege train, the structure of the reformed Macedonian army allowed an unprecedented operational tempo. Manousos Kambouris’ detailed analysis explains that it was Alexander’s intelligent use of these forces, that allowed him to dictate the course of the campaign. His excellent strategic and operational decision-making, based on an intimate knowledge of geography and logistics, along with well-timed movements and clever feints, allowed him to choose his battles, which he then won by tactical brilliance and guts. The author does not neglect to assess the Persian capabilities and decision making, concluding that Darius III was not as inept as often thought. Indeed, he may have been the most militarily capable King of Kings but it was his misfortune to be pitted against the genius of Alexander, the great avenger.