Elite Units of the Ancient World

Sacred Band of Thebes, Praetorian Guards, Persian Immortals....... These are just few of the elites armies of the ancient world. Many great empires all had units of elite soldiers, but what is the most powerful and prestigious. There are many units that are still unknown to most people. I only know a few of them but hope to be enlightened by other people's opinion who have more knowledge in this field. Anyhow I personally favour Persian Immortals for their bow and arrows (Not to be confused with the ones in the movie 300), and is it true that Sacred band of Thebes is made of homosexuals? Many thanks.

Not that I'm any great expert, but wasn't there a Sacred Band of Carthage as well?

And (although its a completely different period), would you consider the Hospitallier Order of St. John, an elite unit? lol.

Gaesatae. Big nasty Kelts fighting naked and drugged up so they can't feel pain.

Personally, I have what approaches a rabid hatred for these "which XYZ was Tha Best" things. At least the Ninjas vs. Pirates vs. Samurai vs. Knights vs. Jedis vs. Shaolin monks vs. Little Green Men With Death Rays things is funny.

I'm personally skeptical about the Theban Band's homosexuality, but they would be an elite group.

I would say Alexander's Companion cavalry and the Hypastist were elite units. The cavalry were extraordinary in a period without stirrups. The Hypastist grew to almost 60, and were still fighting in the early Diodachi periods.

Stirrups are way overrated. Anyway, the Hetairoi were a bunch of tossers compared to the later elite royal guard cataphracts of the Parthians and Sassanids - now those were some "dead killy" mofos.

Elite units, which is a flawed TW induced concept anyway, are relative and time-bound. The Sacred Band may be considered elite in Greek sources, but what does that mean in a time when armies consisted largely of part-timers? The Praetorians were largely considered elite due to their position surrounding the emperor rather than skill - and that could depend quite strongly on personal background, on who could pull strings. And so on, and so forth.

They may be shiny, they may sound intriguing. But I doubt they regularly changed the course of battles/wars.

Quote:

---

I'm personally skeptical about the Theban Band's homosexuality, but they would be an elite group.

---

What I've seen on this ("The Greeks at War", can't remember the author...) suggests that the Sacred Band of Thebes was comprised of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers based on the theory that "a man would not abandon his lover in battle" and hence would fight better. However, whether this makes them an 'elite' is debatable. The Theban variant of hoplite warfare was more one of brute force than any particularly superior training / methods - ie they massed in bodies of 50 shields depth as opposed to the more traditional 8 or 12 ranks, using the extra momentum to break the enemy centre before they themselves became flanked. Not really 'elite' material, even though it might well be very effective :bow:

In Greece I would accept the Spartan hoplites as an elite due to their being (a) full-time soldiers, (b) more thoroughly trained than their contemporaries, (c) selected from a limited social class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Stirrups are way overrated

---

Heretic!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:2thumbsup: Actually I quite agree, plenty of cavalry forces have been very effective despite the lack of stirrups (both before and after their invention), and this is a point I feel is way over-laboured. It's not as though stirrups are the only way to achieve a firm seat, witness the Celtic four-horn saddle for one.

And Geoffery S also raises a very valid point - what do we mean by "elite", anyway? In some cases (eg Praetorian Guards) it probably just reflects a prestigious unit, rather than a particularly battle-worthy one. The Immortals I think cover both definitions - certainly it was a prestigious arm of the Persian forces, but also its members were selected for their valour / individual skills.

I'd also like to add the agrianes for an honourable mention in dispatches, Alexander did use them for quite a few special missions, and often placed them with the hypaspists in a pitched battle AFAIK :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

In Greece I would accept the Spartan hoplites as an elite due to their being (a) full-time soldiers, (b) more thoroughly trained than their contemporaries, (c) selected from a limited social class.

---

Didn't the Sacred Band of Thebes defeat a numberical superior army of Spartans at the Battle of Tegyra. also at Leuctra against the Spartans as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

Not that I'm any great expert, but wasn't there a Sacred Band of Carthage as well?

And (although its a completely different period), would you consider the Hospitallier Order of St. John, an elite unit? lol.

---

These two units were certainly considered elites in the Total War series. While I'm not sure about Sacred Band of Carthage The Knights of St.John probably isn't a elite unit. They were monks that were first meant to be caring for the pilgrims that made to the Holy land. but became a highly effective military order following the example of the Templars. Their most heroic battle are staged at Malta instead of the Holy land.

What about Berserkers, I know they were fictionlised in Rome:TW, but what was they like Historically?

Quote:

---

Didn't the Sacred Band of Thebes defeat a numberical superior army of Spartans at the Battle of Tegyra. also at Leuctra against the Spartans as well.

---

True :bow:

I'm not very familiar with Tegyra, but Leuctra is usually considered to have been a tactical innovation on the part of the Thebans. The details are disputed (was it an echelon formation or oblique line with refused right flank, for instance?) but the Thebans deployed on the left, rather than the right so they met the Spartans. This prevented the usual Spartan battle plan of routing their enemy's left then wheeling about to "roll up" the rest of the line (being the only hoplite army well-drilled enough to perform any complex manoeuvres in the field). It still seems though that the extra depth of the Theban phalanx was the crucial factor in breaking the Spartans, and once they'd gone down there was no way the rest of the army was going to stay in the field. Overall I still think this was more a victory of inspired generalship than a superior elite. :bow:

At the battle of Tegyra the Sacred Band of Thebes had exact 300. while the Spartans are numbered to be at least 1,000 or more. Even though the SB have a habbit of using dense formations to defeat their enemies I still think their status as elites is undoubtable. At the Battle of Chaeronea, where the Greeks were crushed by Philip II of Macedon. While the Theban army and the Athenians had fled once the battle was lost, but the Sacred Band, though surrounded and overwhelmed, refused to surrender. They held their ground and fell where they stood. All of 46 of them died that day and with the battle came the end of the Sacred Band.

The units considered to be elite in their times were not necessarily the ones most effective in combat.........I mean like it's been said, the people with higher ranks and status were elites even if they sucked at combat.
In medieval times, all barons/knights, were elites. In this instance they were actually very effective on the battlefield too.
Another example cited before, the Pretorian guard, they were chosen on the basis of their social status, not fighting ability.

silver shields, selected out of long serving vets.
spartans, already mentioned above.
immortals, definitly.
usually the royals guards of kings.

Spartan Hoplites have got to be the best unit ever up until the SAS :D

The Hoplites would definately be the unit i would most like to go to war behind, simply because of their effectiveness against large numbers, even in small groups. They were equipped with a seven and a half to nine feet spear, which was so sharp that it could apparently cut through a 10 inch thick iron shield :O. They were also armed with a Phalanx Sword, which was behind their shield to allow them to fight if the phalanx broke up. They also had a "slashing sword" upon them, which was used for charging. Altogether the Hoplites are the best cos they are armed to the teeth, and are the elite of the elite.

Pretorian Guard has not been elite unit. It was just a guard.
At the beginning they were better than normal soldiers but soon lazyness made them weak.

If we are talking about elite we could add hetairoi of Alexander the Great or Celtibero tribe - great light cav.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Foolish Horseman

Spartan Hoplites have got to be the best unit ever up until the SAS :D

The Hoplites would definately be the unit i would most like to go to war behind, simply because of their effectiveness against large numbers, even in small groups. They were equipped with a seven and a half to nine feet spear, which was so sharp that it could apparently cut through a 10 inch thick iron shield :O. They were also armed with a Phalanx Sword, which was behind their shield to allow them to fight if the phalanx broke up. They also had a "slashing sword" upon them, which was used for charging. Altogether the Hoplites are the best cos they are armed to the teeth, and are the elite of the elite.

---

Gah.
No.
Very no.
Do your damn homework, at least. :bigcry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero

These two units were certainly considered elites in the Total War series. While I'm not sure about Sacred Band of Carthage The Knights of St.John probably isn't a elite unit. They were monks that were first meant to be caring for the pilgrims that made to the Holy land. but became a highly effective military order following the example of the Templars. Their most heroic battle are staged at Malta instead of the Holy land.

What about Berserkers, I know they were fictionlised in Rome:TW, but what was they like Historically?

---

I know, about the Knights of St. John, it was more of a joke based on your title/location thingy. And I totally agree about the siege of Malta being their greatest triumph, although they were rescued in the end, rather than victorius alone (I wouldn't have expected them to win alone though).

In terms of 'elite' units for their time however, the Spartan army could be considered an elite unit due to its superior training (ie; most other greek city-states had minimal training) but thats not so much a unit as an entire nation so i'm sceptical due to the scope.

As to the sacred band of Carthage, I profess mostly ignorance. Except that they were among the few actual citizen soldiers that fought for the city. In this light you could consider them an elite unit. Its all a matter of perspective.

I'm going to have to go with the Band. From what I read, they had one of the strongest emotional attachments any fighting unit has had. Composed of gay lovers, each man fought for each other.

At least, thats what I've read.

The Sacred Band were the "epilektoi" ("chosen/picked") of the Theban hoplite force. Here is a brief discussion of several of and what such corps were like.

The Spartans were not an "elite" force. How could they ? They had their internal differences in troop quality like everyone else, and even full-fledged Spartiates put up a fairly poor showing often enough. What they were was long the about exact only more-or-less professional full-time force in a land of Sunday-soldier amateurs; once the other city-states began wielding increasingly better-trained forces (nevermind now way more versatile combined-arms ones than the Spartans had the resources or inclination to match), and the inherent weaknesses of the Spartan social order withered away the homoioi warrior class, that advantage obviously sort of went down the drain.

The Carthaginian Sacred Band was a kind of weird bunch. If I've understood correctly they were a sort of elite temple guard drawn from the sons of upper nobility (probably through a sort of replacement for the ancient and increasingly unused Canaanite child-sacrifice rite), and were just about the only ethnically Punic unit in the Carthaginian land army (emergency militias and the officer corps nonwithstanding). "Elite" in both meanings of the term then, as they were of both very high social standing and a highly trained and equipped combat unit.
Got wiped out in one of the wars with Syracuse though, and either never reformed or did so under a different name.

Medieval knights would incidentally count as elite troops, being a warrior class pretty well dedicated to warfare and normally by far the best armed and trained part of any period army. ('Course, you still had units of knights and better units of knights, typically crack squadrons forming royal bodyguards etc.) Plus socially pretty high ranked to boot. The former goes particularly for the Crusading Orders, as they were more disciplined and full-time affairs than run-of-the-mill chivalry. When you look at the numbers of full brother-knights they could actually put to field, and the military importance of those, it's obvious these were some pretty hard dudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Pretorian Guard has not been elite unit. It was just a guard.
At the beginning they were better than normal soldiers but soon lazyness made them weak.

---

Depends on your definition of elite. Notwithstanding that their decline is overstated, the played an influential part in Roman imperial politics and compared to their counterparts lived in relative luxury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

If we are talking about elite we could add hetairoi of Alexander the Great or Celtibero tribe - great light cav.

---

Do you mean the SacredBand Cavalry.

Quote:

---

The former goes particularly for the Crusading Orders, as they were more disciplined and full-time affairs than run-of-the-mill chivalry. When you look at the numbers of full brother-knights they could actually put to field, and the military importance of those, it's obvious these were some pretty hard dudes.

---

What about the Canon of the Holy Sepulchre? They do look cool in the game, but were they real, or just made up unit that's just about as real as Donald the Duck.:laugh4:

Great Siege of Malta

Like Hell would I know. I don't touch... stuff... like vanilla M2TW.

The Carthaginians apparently had a pretty good homegrown cavalry arm, but that had nothing to do with the Iberians who were a whole different bunch. Noted for their cavalry and often enough fighting under Carthie standards as mercenaries, clients and/or allies though.

I don't mean Sacred Band Cavarly but Celtiberos. It was iberic tribe famous from riders skills. By elite I mean units that are more dangerous for enemies than normal soldiers. Not better equipped or paid but more dangerous.

Far as I've read of it, the Iberians in general were famed for their highly capable cavalry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

I don't mean Sacred Band Cavarly but Celtiberos. It was iberic tribe famous from riders skills. By elite I mean units that are more dangerous for enemies than normal soldiers. Not better equipped or paid but more dangerous.

---

There was no such distinct tribe. Celtiberians were the descendants from the early Celtic settlers mixed with the older population in the north-eastern end of Iberia - neither a political entity nor a distinct ethnicity.

Consider the Praetorian Guard for a moment. Were they really merely just a group of bodyguards only? This link provides some useful information:

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


Here is a bit from the article about thier organization, selection and training:

Quote:

---

Although the Praetorians have similarities, they are unlike any of the regular Legions of the Roman Empire. Their nine cohorts (one less than a legion) were larger, the pay and benefits were better, and its military abilities were reliable. They also received gifts of money called Donativum from the emperors. As conceived by Augustus, the Praetorian cohorts totaled around 9,000 men, recruited from the legions of the regular army or drawn from the most deserving youths in Etruria, Umbria, and Latium (three provinces in central Italy). Over time the pool of recruits expanded to Macedonia, Hispania Baetica, Hispania Tarraconensis, Lusitania and Illyricum. Vitellius formed a new Guard out of the Germanic legions, while Septimus Severus did the same with the Pannonian legions. He also chose replacements for the units' ranks from throughout the Roman Empire.

Around the time of Augustus (c. 5) each cohort of the Praetorians numbered 1,000 men, increasing to a high-water mark of 1,500 men. As with the normal legions, the body of troops actually ready for service was much smaller. Tacitus reports that the number of cohorts was increased to twelve from nine in 47. In 69 it was briefly increased to sixteen cohorts by Vitellius, but Vespasian quickly reduced it again to nine.[4] Finally in 101 their number was increased once more to ten, resulting in a force of 5,000 troops, whose status was at least elite.

The training of guardsmen was more intense than in the legions because of the amount of free time available, when a cohort was not posted or traveling with the emperor. The Guard followed the same lines as those elsewhere. Equipment and armour were also the same with one notable exception — specially decorated breastplates, excellent for parades and state functions. Insignia of the "Moon and Stars" and the "Scorpion" were particularly associated with the Praetorians. Thus, each guardsman possessed two suits of armor, one for Roman duty and one for the field.

The Praetorians received substantially higher pay[5] than other Roman soldiers in any of the legions, on a system known as sesquiplex stipendum, or by pay-and-a-half. So if the legionnaires received 225 denarii, the guards received 375 per annum. Domitian and Septimius Severus increased the stipendum (payment) to 1,500 denarii per year, distributed in January, May and September.

On special occasions they received special donativum from the emperor.

Upon retiring, a soldier of the Praetorians was granted 20,000 sesterces (5,000 denarii), a gift of land, and a diploma reading "to the warrior who bravely and faithfully completed his service." Many chose to enter the Evocati, while others reenlisted in the hopes of gaining further promotion and other possible high positions in the Roman state.

---

Evidently they were a much more capable force than a simple bodyguard, but one to be rekoned with both in the political arena or on the battlefield. I doubt that there were too many "Barney Fife" types in the Praetorian.

Didn't the Praetorian Guards traveled with Marcus Aurelius in his Germanian and Danube wars, or is it just the film Gladiator. I think they might of taken part in battles as well.

I personally don't believe the Theban Sacred Band was made of homosexual lovers. If gay lovers were such great warriors, wouldn't every city-state create a band of such soldiers? I think it was a gimmick for their dense formations. "They're so close, like lovers" sorta thing.

The Praetorian Guards don't really have alot of campaigning or battles to rely on. The only battle that the Praetorian Guards participated in (off the top of my head) was Milvian Bridge.

:dizzy2: All hoplites fought in very dense formation you know... sort of the whole point of that huge-ass shield.

I know that Germanicus the younger employed praetorians during the campaigns against the Germans, and IIRC there were used as assault troops on one occasion. I don't know of any other instances were they were used in combat, though.

I recall reading of them having been involved in a couple of battles here and there, especially later on when they became sort of the Emperors' attached army corps.

Anyway, while having not too much better to do in their metropolitan barracks in all likelihood meant they were trained and drilled to a rather higher degree than the troops in the provinces (who could be real slackers if the CO didn't run a really tight ship), they on the other hand would have been rather lacking in practical campaigning and "soldiering" experience...

Quote:

---

I personally don't believe the Theban Sacred Band was made of homosexual lovers. If gay lovers were such great warriors, wouldn't every city-state create a band of such soldiers?

---

IIRC Polybius is the primary source on this, although he was writing after the event, it was still recent enough for the tradition to be widely known. Don't forget even the Spartans institutionalised pederasty within the agoge, so the practice was hardly unusual amongst Greek fighters. The Thebans may well have recognised long-term partnerships between men, but a Spartan, pederast though he may be, was still expected to produce more little Spartans.

I don't think it's that much of a coincidence that the major colonial powers in Greece (ie those suffering population pressure) would be more willing to accept long-term male partnerships than those with a chronic manpower shortage such as Sparta. :2cents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero

Didn't the Praetorian Guards traveled with Marcus Aurelius in his Germanian and Danube wars, or is it just the film Gladiator. I think they might of taken part in battles as well.

---

Sorry, but it took a little time to get back to the discussion. First, let me refer you to the proper link as the first one I inserted in my previous post had one too many http:// in it:

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

There is only one small paragraph concerning the campaigns and battles of the Praetorian Guard in the article.

Quote:

---

While campaigning, the Praetorians were the equal of any formation in the Roman Army.[citation needed] Seldom used in the early reigns, they were quite active by 69. They fought well at the first battle of Bedriacum for Otho. Under Domitian and Trajan, the guard took part in wars from Dacia to Mesopotamia, while with Marcus Aurelius, years were spent on the Danubian frontier. Throughout the 3rd century, the Praetorians assisted the emperors in various campaigns.

---

Evidently they did go on the Danubian campaign with Marcus Aurelius as depicted in Gladiator, but to what extent this is accurately depicted is highly conjectural. A more detailed history should no doubt be consulted before we all pass judgment on the fighting skills of this "Elite" organization. I am certain, from my own experience in the modern day military, that few "slouches" probably made it into the Praetorian. Patronage had its role in selection I'm sure, as this was a normal part of Roman life and culture. Skill, or a reputation for competence were probably also matters for consideration, and a posting to the Praetorian was a way of rewarding good performance and loyalty.

It probably varied in time. While I'd be surprised if their wasn't some way of ensuring soldiers who had been on active duty ended up in the praetorian guard, their practical skill probably depended greatly on the activity of those they were meant to protect.

Originally simply intended as (camp) protection of ranking men on campaign, appropriated as the personal guard of the emperor and his family, as emperors withdrew into their palaces and went out on campaign less often the role of the praetorians changed accordingly, evolving into more of a political elite than the original military elite - certainly when the emphasis of the empire came to be more on garrisons and borders.

Other types of Elite units in the Roman Army were referred to as antesignani (before the standard), and lancearii (spear warriors). Does anyone have information about them? I understand them to have been used for "special ops" situations. I found one source, but it doesn't elaborate much.

http://history-world.org/roman_army.htm

This is all that it had to say about them:

Quote:

---

In addition to the regular organisation of cohortes, manipuli and centuriae of the legionary heavy infantry there were other subunits for the equites legionis, the legionary cavalry, and the antesignani or lancearii, the elite legionary light infantry. The exact details of their organisation are as yet not very clear.

---

Does anyone know a good reference, or have more to share about these units?

One type of unit that they might compare with in a modern infantry unit are the Pathfinder Companies in an Airborne Division. These soldiers are selected from within the regular regiments to man this unit. It has the mission to go in ahead during airdrops or airlanding operations to mark the landing areas. Only the best, from among what most consider Elite soldiers to begin with, are selected for this company.

"Antesigniani" originally referred to simply all the infantry that fought before the standards IIRC carried in the Triarii and Principes maniples, ie. the Hastati and Velites mostly. The junior arms of the triplex acies and a far cry from anything elite in other words. Not sure how the meaning of the term mutated later, but as AFAIK the standards were then carried by the front-ranks cohorts detached bodies of light infantry operating outside the main battleline certainly sounds sensible enough (and the demands of such duty would mean these would be picked men, already to make up for their lighter equipement).

The lanceari were AFAIK a Lete Roman thing, and what kind of soldiery exactly the term refers to is apparently not only quite unclear and disputed but also changed over time. One theory I remember reading was that these were originally a picked infantry bodyguard of the senior officers, their name coming from their distinctive piece of weaponry - a mid-sized dual-purpose spear, which could be used equally to take down an assailant before he got close to their charge by throwing it as well as making for a fine weapon already in hand if close combat suddenly erupted.

Of course, such proven men could also be sent off to act as a highly trained combat unit too if need be.

Fascinating Watchman. I appreciate your answer. It provides a clearer picture of what these soldiers were used for in the course of their normal duties. Perhaps they were chosen for such duties because of their initiative, physical prowess, inteligence, and above all loyalty. Those are charecteristics that I look for when I am choosing soldiers from among my Platoon for a particularly difficult, or ticklish mission.

I"ve got to agree with Watchman about different levels of elite status
The Roman military as a whole can be seen as elite- they were relatively selective about how they took until I think Marius removed the requirement for legionaries to be landowners. Within any legion there would be NCOs and veterans but there would also be veteran legions with special reputations. The 10th during Caesars time had one of these reputations, having fought with him through multiple campaigns and saved his army during multiple battles. The legion itself would have had different subunits with different purposes.

Any of the Orders during medieval time would have been seen as elite. I think Longbowmen as a whole deserve the title simply because England created Laws requiring peasants to practice the art weekly.

Er - that's not much of a definition for "elite". It's like saying all the Venetian citizen militia of the 14th century were "elite" because they were obliged to drill and practice regularly, or all ancient German tribal warriors were "elite" because they got so much practical experience in all those endemic inter-tribal raids and squabbles...

That's not what produces elite troops; it's the prequisite for competent regulars.

Some more of the selected guards units are the equites singulares augusti and the protectores domestici.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

I'm going to have to go with the Band. From what I read, they had one of the strongest emotional attachments any fighting unit has had. Composed of gay lovers, each man fought for each other.

At least, thats what I've read.

---

It doesn't mean that they were all gay. Concept of pederasty in Ancient Greece was more an emotional relationship between two men (one older, mature in his 30-ies and one younger, adolescent between 16-20). Sometimes that relationship involved sex but often it was strictly platonic, more resembling brotherly love.

It is a bit complicated. In modern western civilization it is inappropriate to say that a man loves another man, unless they are very closely blood related (ie father-son or brothers). In modern time, love between two men implies often homosexual relationship, while in ancient Greece it was quite normal for two men to say that they love each other in a totally platonic way. So, pederasty was employed in many aspects in Greek city states, often in the military, like the Sacred Band we're talking about. That implied that in the unit men were emotionally connected, they cared deeply for one another but certainly not all had sex with each other.

It is still not clear in how many polises pederasty involved sexual component and what's the basis for it. Some historians say that it was used as some way of "birth control", where mature men could vent their sexual desires without the danger of overpopulation, while others think it was the specific nature of polises (relatively small communities with limited contact with everything outside) that formed those close bonds between man. Also it probably had some important aspects in military training as mature men were supposed to teach younger how to fight. Two men who know each other and love each other and have trained with each other for an extended period of time definitly makes them very lethal on the battlefield.

Also it was often considered that younger man shouldn't have any pleasure from sex cause he was always passive during intercourse, ie he was taking the role of woman in the act. If he was getting pleasure, he was losing his manhood, so to speak. But then again, there are paintings on Greek vases which show older men stimulating the genital area of their younger lovers which clearly implies that they were trying to give them pleasure. As I said it differed from polis to polis from period to period. IIIRC, in Sparta pederasty was strictly non-sexual...

Quote:

---

...certainly not all had sex with each other

---

Of course not. Just with their specific partner. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It is a bit complicated. In modern western civilization it is inappropriate to say that a man loves another man, unless they are very closely blood related (ie father-son or brothers). In modern time, love between two men implies often homosexual relationship, while in ancient Greece it was quite normal for two men to say that they love each other in a totally platonic way. So, pederasty was employed in many aspects in Greek city states, often in the military, like the Sacred Band we're talking about. That implied that in the unit men were emotionally connected, they cared deeply for one another but certainly not all had sex with each other

---

I tend to imagine that what Sarmatian writes here as the more likely type of relationship that the Sacred Band soldiers had with one another. It's much more in line with how soldiers feel towards thier comrades. The brotherly (Agape love) ties forged between people who go through traumatic and dangerous experiences such as war in particular, and military life in general involve are very strong emotionally. Some say even deeper than those with a spouse, mother, father, brother, etc. It is these ties that are responsible for some of the more extrodinary acts of courage on the battlefield. I have personally experienced these types of emotional bonds with other soldiers, and I can assure you there was no hint of sexual (Eros) desire. I have been moved to tears and felt the hieghts of joy that made my soul want to burst during some of the more sublime moments of my military life. All well run units take advantage of this bonding, but "Elite" units seem to bring this tendency to its highest pitch.

A study of the German Army in WWII, for instance will reveal that they understood this concept of bonding well. The whole organization of thier infantry squads was designed to emphisize it. The rule of 5 men to a group(this number derived from the maximum number of people that one leader may effectively supervise) was woven throughout the whole structure of their units, from division level down to fire team. Its purpose-to maximize the bonds of "comradschaft" at all levels of operational command. It doesn't suprise me that they were able to outfight the Allied infantry during the earlier part of the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Personally, I have what approaches a rabid hatred for these "which XYZ was Tha Best" things. At least the Ninjas vs. Pirates vs. Samurai vs. Knights vs. Jedis vs. Shaolin monks vs. Little Green Men With Death Rays things is funny.

---

Word up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It doesn't mean that they were all gay. Concept of pederasty in Ancient Greece was more an emotional relationship between two men (one older, mature in his 30-ies and one younger, adolescent between 16-20). Sometimes that relationship involved sex but often it was strictly platonic, more resembling brotherly love.

True. It is a bit complicated. In modern western civilization it is inappropriate to say that a man loves another man, unless they are very closely blood related (ie father-son or brothers). In modern time, love between two men implies often homosexual relationship, while in ancient Greece it was quite normal for two men to say that they love each other in a totally platonic way.

---

It is because they considered that women were absolutely inferior than men. For the greeks, men were the perfection, and the perfection can only love perfection (Plato explains that in their Symposium, one of the Socratics dialogues). Heterosexual relationship were only in order to procreate the race.
And I think I also had read about these homosexual unit in some Plato book. Can't remember which of them actually.

*Staying out of the Theban Sacred Band discussion*

Didn't both the Argives and the Corinthians have an Hippeis modeled on that of the Spartans, as well?

And there was also the Auxilia palatina (Auxilia of the Palantine Hill) of the later Roman Empire? Were they an elite unit, or was that just another historical inaccuracy?

Navy SEALS.

After all, we'll be ancient history one day...