Timeline is off. Hoplites existed well into the 2nd century CE I believe. Whereas their armor was quite varied. Only the rich upper class could afford bronze. Most hoplites were millitas that were conscripted by the state in times of need - the armor hoplites was nothing more than the clothes on their back. As city states grew richer, they could afford better equipment - thus most "middle class" hoplites in later times would've been equipped with linothorax (harded linen armor) or leather. Intranetusa 13:50, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Also added info about warfare & armor, and Roman maniples "Hoplite warfare often consisted of "pushing matches" when one hoplite formation would try to push back the opposing hoplite formation. During these realtively short pushing matches, causalities were usually light, and since the leaders/generals would often be in the front rank, the outcome of the battle would be strategically decisive. Heavy infantry hoplites were especially against the Persian army which contained no heavy infantry to speak of. Even the "heavy infantry" 10,000 immortals wore a light metal scale tunic, and wielded wicker shields not suited to hand to hand combat"
"The phalanx as a formation was adopted by the Romans. After suffering disastrous defeats by the hands of other Italian city states, the Romans adopted the maniple formation from their enemies - which was far more flexible than the phalanx." Intranetusa 13:58, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Intranetusa (please recreate your account with some resemblance to your real name), your use of CE shows that you are a liberal, and that you engage in deceit. Please remember this in the future. DavidCalman 14:39, 26 January 2013 (EST)
Van Wees (greek warfare: myths and realities) disagrees about the hoplites being named for their shield. He (and a number of others) derive it from the word meaning 'equipped'. But the interpretation here is pretty common too (I think it comes from Diodorus?) Cmurphynz 01:08, 21 September 2012 (EDT)