Elite Units of the Ancient World

[Quintus.JC]

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.

[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.

[woad&fangs]

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

[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.

[Marshal Murat]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[The Wizard]

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.

[Quintus.JC]

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?

[macsen rufus]

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

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.

[Quintus.JC]

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.

[rajpoot]

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.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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.

[KarlXII]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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...

[Watchman]

...certainly not all had sex with each other

Of course not. Just with their specific partner.

[rotorgun]

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.

[Jaume]

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.

[Spartan198]

*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?

[Seign Thelas]

Navy SEALS.

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