The phenomenon of the sacred band.

While the issue of women in the millitary is has largely fallen of the radar recently, I find myself wondering about a certain argument that came up when I was trawling through old threads: Supposedly in a combat situation if a man sees a woman on his side getting injured there is a high risk of the man's instincts overwhelming him, making him reckless and putting at risk himself and everyone around him.

To me this makes some sense as what little I know about human behavior corroberates this prediction. However that same lack of knowledge has made me start to think that homosexuals would have the same problems in a millitary situation when seeing those of the same sex wounded.

This is confusing to for several reasons: First, not once do I remember seeing any of the proponants for keeping gays out of the millitary ever trundeling out this argument. Second, history has a rather famous example of the opposite being true: the Sacred Band of Thebes.

For those who dont know; the sacred band was a troop of soldiers in antiquity grouped together because they were gay with the idea that if they fought along side thier lover they would fight all the harder to keep thier lover safe. Apparantly they were very effective before getting destroyed by Alexander the Great's dad.

I suppose my question is if the sacred band was so effective why was the idea never used again? For that matter if inducing protective instincts was indeed so effective why arent the proponants for mixed sex combat groups using it as a leading argument?

Short answer:

It's not about "love", it's about an inherited reflex to protect the WOMEN (and children) in society.

Children > Women > Men



Homosexuality thus plays no part in this line of reasoning. It's the natural instinct to protect what is most valuable to society that is the reason behind why men would take stupid risks, not sexual interest or because of love.

Pfff, if an inherited reflex to protect WOMEN would exist, it would prevent mass rapes (or even not mass) during war or in peace.

Nope, it will be the same reason that a Medic risks in life to go to fallen soldiers, the reason why the French paratroopers (and others) jumped on Dien Bien Phu even when the battle was known as lost, or the wounded evacuated in priority: Courage, self-sacrifice, esprit de corps and sheer stupidity. Some can laugh at the concept of Brothers at Arms, but it does exist, it does work in units.
Don't try to find external reason for soldiers to rescue other soldiers. We know yet why they are doing it...

Not really my question.

Quote:

---

the reason why the French paratroopers (and others) jumped on Dien Bien Phu

---

Many of them were soldiers going on reprieve, with no prior training in para-jumping. Yet hundreds of them volunteered to return to battle, to jump. The casualty rate was enormous in those drops...

I think the argument that men will do something foolish and/or heroic because the other person is a woman is more weighted towards a strawman argument than a valid one.

Men do foolish and heroic things for other men. The real issue would be if they only did it for one gender.

Also the mateship factor is one that is part of recruit training in the Australian army:
"To inculcate soldierly qualities including: a will to win, dedication to duty, honour, compassion and honesty, mateship and teamwork, loyalty, and physical and morale courage"

EDIT: I'll come again when it's not stupid o' clock and I'm not this drunk...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

For those who dont know; the sacred band was a troop of soldiers in antiquity grouped together because they were gay with the idea that if they fought along side thier lover they would fight all the harder to keep thier lover safe. Apparantly they were very effective before getting destroyed by Alexander the Great's dad.

---

So now we know the name of the first homophobe in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

For those who dont know; the sacred band was a troop of soldiers in antiquity grouped together because they were gay with the idea that if they fought along side thier lover they would fight all the harder to keep thier lover safe. Apparantly they were very effective before getting destroyed by Alexander the Great's dad.

---

Not sure from where did you get that, but it's wrong.
Sexual relations between soldiers were rather common in ancient Greece and the Sacred Band was no exception. Spartans, Macedonians and Greeks had no problem casually mentioning their homosexual affairs, with the couple of Alex and Hephaestion being the most famous.

Xenophon, in his sycophantic work about Cyrus, casually describes the relation between a young Persian and his rather hairy and manly comrade. Probably, that was an experience based on his own campaigns and not the Persian military tradition, but it gives you an idea about the subject. Finally, I'd recommend you to read the Conspiracy of the Royal Pages, it's basically a history of aristocratic young homosexuals snitching each other.

To conclude, the Sacred Band had nothing special concerning their sexual tendancies, it was an elite force, formed by noble men, owning his success at the unique way of its deployment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Supposedly in a combat situation if a man sees a woman on his side getting injured there is a high risk of the man's instincts overwhelming him, making him reckless and putting at risk himself and everyone around him.

---

Sounds like pure conjecture. Now if they were romantic partners, on the other hand; I guess things could happen (and would go both ways). Similar with those who are really good friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Not sure from where did you get that, but it's wrong.
Sexual relations between soldiers were rather common in ancient Greece and the Sacred Band was no exception. Spartans, Macedonians and Greeks had no problem casually mentioning their homosexual affairs, with the couple of Alex and Hephaestion being the most famous.

Xenophon, in his sycophantic work about Cyrus, casually describes the relation between a young Persian and his rather hairy and manly comrade. Probably, that was an experience based on his own campaigns and not the Persian military tradition, but it gives you an idea about the subject. Finally, I'd recommend you to read the Conspiracy of the Royal Pages, it's basically a history of aristocratic young homosexuals snitching each other.

To conclude, the Sacred Band had nothing special concerning their sexual tendancies, it was an elite force, formed by noble men, owning his success at the unique way of its deployment.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes


The Sacred Band of Thebes (Ancient Greek: Ἱερὸς Λόχος, Hieròs Lókhos) was a troop of picked soldiers, consisting of 150 pairs of male lovers which formed the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC. It is said to have been organized by the Theban commander Gorgidas in 378 BC and to have played a crucial role in the Battle of Leuctra. It was annihilated by Philip II of Macedon in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC. Other sources indicate that although it was Philip's army and tactics, the unit of his companion cavalry that defeated the Sacred Band was lead by his 18 year old son Alexander the III, better known as Alexander the Great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Sounds like pure conjecture. Now if they were romantic partners, on the other hand; I guess things could happen (and would go both ways). Similar with those who are really good friends.

---

They were picked because they were romantic partners, evidently I was an idiot for forgetting to mention it. And yeah, probably conjecture, the argument isn't mine I am just confused that if it is true why it came up in the women in the millitary debates but not in the dont ask dont tell debates.

If it isn't true I wonder why there was never an argument for recreating the same dynamic that made the sacred band so fomidable in modern armies.

I am also curious why there werent more sacred bands formed after they proved so effective against the spartans.

They weren't picked Becuase they were lovers. They became lovers after they were picked.

not to mention, trying to extrapolate a 21st century definition of "gay" back to the bc times doesn't work. Having sex with other men was not central to these men's identity like today's gays. They were simply banging. IIRC most of these super solider were still supposed to marry and produc a progeny.

i don't buy the male instincts stuff. Instinct tells you to run away from hot lead, if the military can beat that out of you, they can overcome manners

Quote:

---

They weren't picked Becuase they were lovers. They became lovers after they were picked.

---

Are you sure? Because my understanding is that the band relied on all thier members fighting along side their partners, if they just stuck any bunch of men together and told them to hook up the chances of all of them going along with it is remote. Seems like it'd be easier just to draw couples from other units and gather them together.

"Instinct tells you to run away from hot lead," And don't speak about jumping from a plane!!!!

Greyblades, do you happen to be gay yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Greyblades, do you happen to be gay yourself?

---

Is that in invitation Kadagar? :kiss2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Is that in invitation Kadagar? :kiss2:

---

Nah, I am perfectly secure in my hetero sexuality :)

I 100% support the gay movement though... I just wanted to check what agenda you had with the post so I know how to meet it.

But yeah, the Sacred band was EFFIN AWESOME :2thumbsup:

And let's push the norm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I suppose my question is if the sacred band was so effective why was the idea never used again? For that matter if inducing protective instincts was indeed so effective why arent the proponants for mixed sex combat groups using it as a leading argument?

---

The desire to protect one particular member of a unit would surely be a double-edged sword. For example, somebody might prioritise a lover over other members of a unit, and allow several other soldiers to die if it means saving their lover.

The dynamics to that would probably be a lot different in modern combat compared to ancient, closer-quarters melee fighting.

*nevermind*

There are few historical problems with the "Sacred Band were Homosexual" theory.

First off there is the age problem - most of the writing on the Sacred Band are from 100 to 200 years after their destruction at the hands of Philip (interestingly enough the Sacred band were destroyed by a Cavalry charge of Phillips Companion cavalry... led by his son - an auspicious start) - this doesn't exactly build confidence in the accuracy.

Secondly theres the "Propaganda" aspect - most of the accounts we have today were written by Athenians - the Thebans were Athens main rivals during the Sacred bands existence and so "slandering" their name is very much in keeping with the Athenians - especially when you consider they did the same thing to the Spartans, Spartan training used the same method as the Sacred band - one Veteran partnered with one Rookie - and the Athenian writing we have on Spartan training suggests the Veterans were encouraged to "use" the Rookies - where have we seen this before...

Lastly there is the language aspect - the Ancient Greeks had 6 words for Love - each with a different meaning. Eros is sexual love and this is "supposedly" where the Sacred Band drew its strength - however this could be a purposeful alteration by the Athenians from Philia - which is deep friendship or in Military terms Camaraderie. The Sacred Band simply could have been an elite unit with strong camaraderie and Athenian writers long after the unit was destroyed changed it to Homosexual.