alan peatfield

5 Minoan and Mycenaean Warfare

Key One of the clichés of Greek Bronze Age civilization is that Minoan Crete was peaceful,
K E Y DA T E S
Events while the Mycenaean civilization of the Greek mainland was warlike. Such cliches
6000 BC
(All Dummy text, dummy
oversimplify the human reality. In order to discover the reality of Minoan and
dates text, dummy text, Mycenaean warfare and conflict, we should first examine our own preconceptions
are dummy text, dummy what ‘warfare’ means.
text, dummy text,
approx In his History of Warfare, John Keegan persuasively argued that western civilization’s
dummy text
imate understanding of warfare was essentially derived from the ancient Greeks. The Greek
and way of war was the meeting of two opposing groups of armoured soldiers on a
conve 5500 BC defined field of battle. Victory or defeat was measured by the holding of or retreating
ntional B,Dummy text, dummy from this field of battle. With the additional ‘nuances’ of invasion, siege, and
) conquest, through the imperialism of Alexander and the Romans, this rather formal
5000 BC expression of warfare dominated western civilization until the 20th century.
3000- Dummy text, dummy Contemporary military technologies have rendered such warfare impossible without
2000 text, dummy text, threatening the planet’s, not just humanity’s, very survival. Thus we witness the
dummy text, dummy text
BC – emergence of a more circumscribed expression of warfare as limited but pervasive
Early regional conflicts, guerrilla actions, and ‘peacekeeping’ missions. This fragmentation
Minoan/ 4500 BC of the previous rather monolithic meaning of ‘warfare’ does now allow us to perceive
Dummy text, dummy the expression of war and conflict in ancient and non-western societies as a more
text, dummy text, complex and varied phenomenon of violent interaction between communities.
dummy text, dummy text

MINOAN CRETE – EARLY HINTS OF CONFLICT

4000 BC
Dummy text, dummy
text, dummy text,
dummy text, dummy
text, dummy text,
dummy text, dummy text
Opposite Mycenaean ivory plaque
(from Mycenae Chamber tomb 27, 13th
century bc), portraying a warrior
wearing a helmet made from boar’s
tusks. This type of helmet is
mentioned by the poet Homer.
Right Early/Middle Bronze Age double-
edged dagger. Note the rivets for the
handle attachment. Separate handles
riveted like this are intrinsically weak.
Hints of the social significance of violence emerge in the
appearance of double-edged bronze daggers within the
assemblage of finds in the communal tombs of Early and Middle
Minoan Crete (3000 to 1800 bc). These occur in such large numbers
that they are used to calculate burial numbers and community
populations. The increasing complexity and wealth of these tombs
is often cited as evidence of emerging social hierarchy, part of the
process of the development of the complex ‘palace’ states, such as
Knossos, which characterise Minoan civilization.
The bronze daggers are of limited design. Double-edged, thin
blades reinforced by a midrib, they are mostly relatively short. Wooden
handles were attached by rivets to the shoulder of the blade. This
method of attachment creates an inherent weakness, because handles
will easily snap away if put under pressure. The shortness of the overall
dagger, however, meant that this was probably not a major problem.
Defining these daggers as tools or as weapons is also important to their
understanding. Anyone who regularly uses knives for commonplace

87
 warfare in bronze age greece
Right Map showing Crete, mainland
Greece and the main sites mentioned
in this chapter.
Below Male clay figurine offered at the
peak sanctuary of Petsophas on Crete,
around 1800 bc. The model dagger with
rivets, displayed prominently at the
waist, resembles contemporary actual
bronze daggers.
activities such hunting, skinning, whittling wood, preparing and eating food, will
recognise that a double-edged blade is much more likely to cut you accidentally. By
contrast the ability to cut in either direction makes them ideally suited to weapons.
That these daggers were not merely functional, but had a more complex symbolic
dimension, is suggested by small clay figurines of men, with modelled daggers
placed prominently at their waists. These clay figurines, mostly Middle Minoan in
date (2000–1700), were offered on mountain peak sanctuaries to memorialise
participation in the rituals there. They portray worshippers rather than deities.
The prominent display of the daggers does suggest that association with a
weapon was a significant symbolic element in the Minoan conception of
masculinity. Judging by the figurines alone, this may have been limited to a particular
elite social class, as it is often the best made and most fully painted figurines that
have the daggers. But the sheer ubiquity of the daggers in the tombs does suggest
that this association was more pervasive in Minoan society.
Beyond the symbolic there is more pragmatic evidence that Minoan Crete was
less peaceful than conventionally thought. One element cited to ‘prove’ Minoan
peacefulness is the lack of fortifications at Knossos and other palaces. This is true,
but we should be wary of applying such a perception as a generalisation about the
whole of Minoan civilization. A change of settlement pattern to strategically located
and defensible mountain refuge sites is well-known for Crete at the end of the Bronze
Age, but scholars have variously argued for a similar choice for defensible settlements
at the beginning of the Bronze Age, and even for small citadels in the dynamic run-
up to the founding of the palaces in the EM III-MM I period (2200–1900).
Choosing defensible locations can be more the result of a perception of threat
rather than actual threat. But we can glimpse the consequences of actual conflict at
another key moment in Minoan history, the transition from Protopalatial to
Neopalatial. The main event was an earthquake which destroyed the first palaces,
88
Type A and B swords
(from Mycenae Grave
Circle A, Shaft-grave V,
16th century bc). The
rounded shoulders of the
Type A sword (left, 95 cm
(371⁄2 in)), similar to earlier
daggers, suggests origin
of swords arises from
elongated daggers. The
elongated tang of the Type
B sword (right, 43.2 cm (17
in)) eliminates the
weakness of the handle
attachment.
warfare in bronze age greece
but social continuity was preserved in that they arose from the ruins to achieve the
high-point of Neopalatial civilization. Possible conflict, however, at this troubled
time is suggested by destruction and abandonment of the Protopalatial palace of
Monastiraki in the Amari valley of western Crete. In the adjacent Ayios Vasilios valley,
there is a clear break in settlement pattern at the same time. Both areas in the
Protopalatial period are satellites of Phaistos, whereas evidence from the Neopalatial
period suggests that Knossos was extending its interests in the area.
How should we interpret these sparse but persistent hints of conflict? Certainly
this is not warfare as conventionally interpreted. Perhaps what we see here is a
practice well-known to anthropologists, intercommunity raiding. This sort of low-
key conflict offers opportunity for masculine posturing, small territorial changes,
and resource exchange, but it minimises actual casualties and destruction, and thus
is rarely culturally destabilizing.
NEOPALATIAL CRETE – GROWING CONFLICT
Neopalatial Crete represents the high point of Minoan civilization, with its artistic
‘treasures’, the palaces, the frescoes, the sculpted stone vases, the miniature
masterpieces of stone seals and gold rings. And yet in ended in violence and
destruction. A growing militarism is apparent in the development of the first swords.
Minoan and Mycenaean swords are given a standard characterisation based on a
typology of sword hilts. The type A swords are the earliest. With their rounded
shoulders and almost non-existent tang, they clearly resemble the earlier daggers.
Indeed it is quite likely that they are essentially an elongation of the dagger shape.
The earliest type A swords are found in religious contexts, mostly famously a MM
II-III shrine at Mallia. This again emphasises the symbolic nature of weaponry in
Minoan civilization.
Once swords were developed, the Minoans rapidly developed their functional
technology. Although the type B sword, which is the first to remedy the weakness
of the handle by elongating the tang, was probably developed by the early
Mycenaeans, it has been convincingly argued that the main workshop of the types
C and D swords was based at Knossos. Even with their ornate handles, as blades
these swords are highly functional. What also makes the two swords interesting
is that they were designed for different fighting styles. The Type C handle favours
a ‘sabre’ grip, which also allows the forefinger to be wrapped
naturally around the ‘horned’ guard; this grip presents the point
of the blade forward to the opponent, a more fencing style of
Type D sword with ornate gold hilt (from Knossos,
Zapher Papoura cemetery, 16th–15th century bc). The
blade is functional, suggesting the gold handle was
added for the sword’s final use as a grave offering.
89

Type C sword (top, replica) with
characteristic horned guard. The
design of the horned guard naturally
allows for grip with the forefinger over
the guard (technical term: ‘fingering
the ricasso’), presenting the point
forward, and suitable for duelling and
thrusting actions. This contrasts with
the Type D sword (above, replica). The
small handle and characteristic T-
shaped guard favour a ‘hammer’ grip,
which presents the edge forward,
better for cutting actions and rapid
changes of direction in a melee where
there are multiple opponents.
Three gold seals showing combat
scenes (all from Mycenae Grave Circle
A, Shaft-grave III and IV, 16th century
bc). (Left) The swordsman overcomes
the better protected shield-man by
pushing the top of the shield and
making an overhand thrust, a killing
blow. (Middle) The swordsman
dominates a group of enemies,
including a shield-man, and uses the
overhand thrust. (Right) Man and lion
combat – the warrior uses an overhand
thrust to attack the lion.
warfare in bronze age greece warfare in bronze age greece
fighting. By contrast, the Type D handle is created for a ‘hammer’ grip, which
presents the edge of blade forward – suggesting more cutting actions. Such form
and function distinctions strongly suggests a social context in which specialised
skill sets were valued and supported. This sort of formal one-on-one combat
certainly suits the elitist, hierarchical nature of Minoan society in the LM I-II period
(1600–1400). Most of the swords are found male tombs, which come to be called
‘Warrior Tombs’, accompanied by daggers and spearheads, and also by a distinctive
set of jewelry.
Although most of the pictorial art focuses on religious pageantry and ritual,
there are some combat images, portraying both man-to-man and man-to-lion
combat. It is significant how the sword is the dominant weapon, even allowing a
bare-chested swordsman, portrayed in some detail, to defeat a more anonymous
spearman with a tower shield. The consistent elevation of swords over other
weapons is clearly indicative of a hierarchical perception of combat skill. The
techniques too that we see in the images, a preference for long-range slashing and
thrusting, (which absolutely suits the design of the swords) also suggests a formal,
fencing type of combat, dueling one-on-one rather than fighting in a unit. A
favourite technique is a downward stab to the neck. As well as being a quick kill
technique, by cutting major blood vessels, the neck is difficult to protect with
armour and tends to be exposed.
Although not directly ‘Minoan’, the practice of ‘raiding’, hypothesised above, is Above Miniature fresco from West Knossos is excepted from this destruction, essentially because it was the only
portrayed on the famous “Ship Fresco” from the West House on the island of Thera. House at Akrotiri on Thera (15th palace not to suffer a major destruction, and its administration survived intact for
century bc). This section of the larger
Among scenes of towns, a ship procession, and a storm at sea, is one which shows ‘Ship’ fresco shows a raiding party of another generation or two, LM II-IIIa, down to about 1375 The nature of that survival,
men armed with large tower shields, boar’s tusk helmets and spears. They appear warriors with ‘tower’ shields, boars however, does suggest some changes. The ‘Warrior tombs’ at Knossos, coupled with
to be on a cattle rustling expedition. tusk helmets, and armed with spears the appearance of the Mycenaean Greek language used in the Linear B script, strongly
and swords.
The chronology of these ‘Warrior Tombs’ overlaps the period LM I-II. At the end suggests that Knossian survival was assisted by the presence of Mycenaean warriors
of LM I (1450) all the major sites, palaces, villas, and towns, except for the palace of from the Greek Mainland. Earlier scholarship had thought Mycenaeans invaded Crete.
Knossos, suffered destruction by fire, from which they did not recover. These It is much more likely that the evidence reveals a smaller, group of military specialists,
destructions were the result of human agency, war. Although the chronology of mercenaries in modern terms, who assisted Knossos and then took it over, by
these destructions is archaeologically contemporaneous, in human terms this may marrying into the Minoan ruling class – perhaps the elite women who are buried
have covered a generation. The interpretation of Crete in this period as a ‘troubled in the large, built tombs, at Knossos, Archanes, and Ayia Triadha, which overlap
island’, suggests that as a result of the ecological damage wrought on Crete by the the date of the ‘warrior tombs’.
earlier eruption of the Thera volcano, competition for scarcer resources pushed the
palace states into competition. This clearly took on a scale far greater than the EARLY MYCENAEANS
‘raiding’ of earlier generations, apparently resulting in a systematic destruction of This brings us to the Mycenaeans. The spectacular wealth of the Mycenae Shaft
the infrastructure of all the states, except Knossos. Graves in LH I (1600–1500) is a stark contrast to the relative poverty of Mainland
Greece in the previous Middle Helladic period. Various explanations have been put
forward for this sudden wealth, ranging from these are really Minoans, to these
are Greek mercenaries returned from Egypt with their loot. Whatever the narrative
behind the material, it is evident that this represents a group with military
specialization far more sophisticated than the Minoans. There are dozens of swords,
spears, daggers, and knives in the graves. The bones themselves tell a stark story.
Linear B tablet from Pylos (13th century bc). The script,
originally Minoan, records the early form of Greek used by
the Mycenaeans. The tablets are palace accounts itemising
production, from wool and oil to horses, chariots, and weapons.
90 91
 warfare in bronze age greece

Dendra Armour
No discussion of warfare in Bronze Age Greece engage in personal combat.
should neglect the full suit of armour found in an There have however been
early Mycenaean tomb at Dendra near Mycenae. The several modern attempts
suit comprises a simple corselet, breastplate and to replicate the armour
backplate. A large gorget covers the neck and lower accurately. Such
face. The shoulders are protected by curved shoulder experiments agree
plates. Hanging from the waist is a ‘skirt’ of that the armour was
overlapping plates, which allow movement of the made for a stocky
lower body and legs. It is crudely constructed of individual, with the ‘physique
semi-cylindrical bronze plates, curved to fit the of a rugby player’. Though it
body, but without the elegant anatomical detail is indeed difficult to rise
of the later Greek hoplite armour. from a prone position, and
The problem with interpreting this armour is running tires the wearer
that it is unique in the archaeological record; we quickly, the armour is not
have no idea whether it is typical of Mycenaean especially cumbersome to
armour, or was itself an unusual construction. wear. It compares in
Nothing like it has been found in other warrior mobility to Mediaeval
tombs, nor is portrayed on images. Clearly it was armour, and such
special to the owner with whom it was buried, and comparison may give
represented considerable expenditure in terms of a clue to its real use.
the amount of metal. ‘Tonlet’ armour is
Modern interpretations focus on the armour’s a tournament armour
cumbersome appearance. Illustrative reconstructions design of the early 16th
place the warrior wearing this armour in a chariot, on century, especially favoured for poll-axe duels. It has
the assumption that it was too heavy for its wearer to a distinctive skirt, and its curves are engineered to
prevent an opponent’s weapon getting a purchase
with edge or point. As a functional comparison, it
suggests that the Dendra armour was not battle-field
Decorated weapons, daggers, knives, gear, but rather was designed for duelling. Such an
and spearhead from Mycenae Shaft- interpretation would certainly support the model
graves. Each of the graves contained of Mycenaean society as dominated by an aristocracy
dozens of weapons, reflecting the
warrior ethos of the people.
whose prestige was measured by personal skill at
arms. In summary, the Dendra armour is more likely
to have been used for personal combat than for
Not only are there fatal head wounds, there are also healed wounds on the sword-
chariot warfare.
arms of the skeletons, indicating long fighting careers, and even training injuries –
bruises on the leg bones from running with large body-shields. Two types of such Above The Dendra Armour.
large shields are shown on one of the Shaft-Grave daggers, where warriors with both The first European suit of
‘figure-eight’ and ‘tower’ shields fight lions. armour known, its simple
design offers protection from
The images on the Shaft Grave treasures also celebrate military knowledge. the thighs up to the neck.
Perhaps most telling is the fragmentary Siege Rhyton, which demonstrates
that right from the beginning the Mycenaeans knew and valued the skills of Left Dr Barry Molly wearing a
siege warfare and group combat with specialist units of swordsmen, spearmen and replica of the Dendra armour,
archers, rather than just raiding and duelling – armies, not just bands of warriors. using it more accurately for
foot combat. Although heavy,
That this cultural value was not limited to Mycenae itself, is indicated by finds it offers sufficient mobility for
elsewhere. Contemporary tombs have not just weapons, but also pieces of armour, one-on-one foot combat, such
including fragments of real boar’s tusk helmets, and most famously the whole suit as a duel, rather than fighing
from a chariot.
of armour, the Dendra corslet (see box).

92
 warfare in bronze age greece

Above Bronze dagger with Lion Hunt MYCENAEAN DOMINATION

scene (from Mycenae, Grave Circle A After the elimination of Knossos, in the LH IIIb period (1350–1200) Mycenaean
Shaft-grave IV. 16th century bc). Both
Figure-8 and “tower” shields are civilization grew to dominate the whole of the eastern Mediterranean. At home in
portrayed. The shields are supported Greece, this is the time of the great walled citadels. With their huge ‘cyclopean’
by body-straps. Note the two-handed masonry, they demonstrate considerable knowledge of architectural engineering.
overhand thrust action of the spears.
At Mycenae and nearby Tiryns in particular, the military dimension to this knowledge
is revealed in the way that gates are set at angles to the main walls, so that the flanks
of potential attackers would be exposed to fire from the defenders. Both those sites
also incorporated within their layout access to nearby springs, for water in times of
siege, and postern gates for the defenders to either flee or to mount surprise
ambushes on attackers.
Regrettably we have no contemporary literary or historical texts, which would
reveal the narrative to explain these cultural phenomena. Were the Mycenaeans
constantly at war with one another? The Linear B texts preserved in the destructions
of the main Mycenaean sites are, of course, primarily the administrative accounts
of a highly organised economy. The Mycenaeans may have been warriors, but they
were also bureaucrats. Amid the sheep, and the wool, and the olive oil, however, are
the records of large numbers of weapons, armour, horses, chariots and chariot wheels.
Above Silver ‘Siege’ Rhyton (from Given the rocky Greek terrain, it is debatable whether the Mycenaeans ever really
Mycenae Grave Circle A Shaft-grave fought with chariots. Only the Boeotian plain, dominated by Thebes and the massive
IV. 16th century bc). There appears to
be some form of ranking co- fortress of Gla, has sufficient open land. Nevertheless these are indications of a huge
ordination of the attacking force arms build-up. Dare we say an ‘arms-race’?
using swordsmen, archers, and It is possible too that there was a decidedly military nature to Mycenaean social
shield-and-spearmen. This indicates
knowledge and use of battle tactics. and political hierarchy. The highest officials named in the Linear B texts are the
‘wanakas’ and the ‘lawegetas’ (literally the ‘leader of the people’). Both words survive
Left Helmet made from boar’s tusks
(from Spata in Attika, 13th century
into later Archaic Greek, the former as ‘wanax’ meaning king, and the latter referring
bc). Estimates up to 30 boars may to the leader of the warhost.
have been necessary to provide the Abroad this is also the period of Mycenaean economic and military adventurism.
tusks for these helmets. The danger
of the boar hunt required combat
First as trading outposts and later as colonies, the Mycenaeans established the first
skills appropriate to warfare training. Greek presence in what would later become the great Greek cities of Asia Minor,

94 95

Above Grave-stone with carving of
chariot iding down an armed warrior
on foot (from Mycenae Grave Circle A,
Shaft-grave V, 16th century bc). The
charioteer seems to be alone in the
chariot. The foot warrior seems to be
carrying a sword, possibly single-
edged.
Opposite above Reconstruction of the
Mycenae citadel at its largest, after
Grave Circle A was incorporated into
the citadel. The gate is set at right
angles to the walls and has an
additional rampart to the side, so
that the flanks of any attackers would
be exposed. This is a sophisticated
use of fortifications.
Opposite below Aerial photograph of
the citadel of Tiryns. The upper citadel
on the right has the thicker walls to
defend the palace. The thick double
walls allow for protected access to
water in case of a siege.
warfare in bronze age greece
Ionia and Cyprus. If Hittite references to the Ahhiyawa, accurately refer to the
Achaians, i.e. the Greeks, there is certainly recognition of the military capability of
the Mycenaeans, even if it was only an irritation to the Anatolian superpower. It is
very likely that these Mycenaean military adventures in Asia Minor were the roots
of the stories of the Trojan War, later compiled into Homer’s Iliad.
MYCENAEAN DEMISE
Given this apparent military might of the Mycenaeans, their total collapse at the
end of the Bronze Age seems surprising (LH IIIc, 1200–1050). Again in human terms,
it was rather drawn out over several generations. Various explanations have been
advanced, from barbarian invasion to drought to internecine warfare, probably all
of which may have been factors. Certainly the demise of Mycenaean civilization
should not be seen as an isolated event. The ‘main event’ of the period was the
migration of what the Egyptians called the ‘Land and Sea Peoples’. This enigmatic
dislocation and migration of populations overthrew the Hittite Empire, and
threatened Egypt from 1205 bc, until their defeat by Ramesses III in 1183 at Medinet
Habu. They then settled in Palestine, and became known to the writers of the Bible
as the Philistines. Philistine culture includes a strong Aegean component,
suggesting that the Sea Peoples may have included dislocated Minoans and
Mycenaeans.
Returning to the Mycenaeans, the nature of the threat clearly caused changes
in the weaponry and tactics. The Warrior Vase from Mycenae, shows a procession
of Warriors wearing horned helmets, armour of cuirass and greaves and carrying
round shields. In all this is a set similar to the later hoplite panoply, which suggests
the need to equip and field groups of soldiers in battle rather than only the
96 97
 warfare in bronze age greece warfare in bronze age greece

Top Bronze Type F sword from Trikala elite warriors of earlier periods.
in Thessaly (36.6 cm (141⁄2 in), 12th Supporting this suggestion is the fresco
century bc). A sword design as
functionally simple and brutal as a which decorates Hall 64 of the Palace of Pylos.
‘Warrior’ vase from Mycenae,
Roman sword. Note the integrated The fragmentary scene shows helmeted Mycenaean
c. 1200 BC). The armour of these later
pommel and the recurved edge. This is warriors fighting enemies dressed in skins (which may be a way
Mycenaean warriors has changed from
a weapon for close-quarter melee
that of their Shaft-grave ancestors.
battle. of indicating their ‘barbarity’), in a melee of individual combats, rather
They have lighter armour and smaller
than formal duels or ranks of warriors.
shields. Their depiction in procession
Above Bronze Naue II sword from Appropriately the swords shown in the fresco are short, and are used to stab
suggests too that they fought as a
Antheia in Achaia (65 cm (251⁄2 in). 12th
unit, an indication of group warfare,
century bc). This type of sword, with the opponents. As the Romans later discovered, shorter swords are better suited to
rather than aristocratic dueling.
its distinctive guard, was probably the chaos of battle, because they can be more quickly manoeuvred to change
introduced into Greece from central directions, when one is threatened by multiple enemies. Fittingly, the actual swords
Fresco from Palace of Pylos, Hall 64. Europe. It became the dominant sword
Mycenaean warriors in combat with design in Europe from Ireland to the of this troubled period (Types F, G and the Naue II) undergo rapid development.
‘barbarians’. The Mycenaeans, with Mediterranean in the latter stages of They are mostly shorter and little broader than the earlier types, but the two most
boar’s tusk helmets and greaves, are the late Bronze Age and throught the significant improvements are the replacement of the midrib by a flattened triangle
distinguished from their enemies Iron Age.
wearing skins. Note the thrusting use
(which makes the sword stronger), and the development of the recurved edge (which
of spears and short swords. makes a leaf-shaped blade). The particular advantage of the recurved edge is that it
improves the efficiency of the cutting action, especially the pull-cut (where one cuts
by pulling back rather than thrusting forward). This again is an advantage when one
fights multiple opponents in a melee. And it is these sword designs which look
forward from the Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age and the warfare of Archaic and
Classical Greece.

98 99