Elite Units of the Ancient World

[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?