Theban Sacred Band

[Marshal Murat]

I was reading a novel on Alexander, and it was talking about Charonea and the Theban Sacred Band.
I always thought "The Ancient Greeks were more liberal about their sexual orientation and accepting others for their hetero- or homo-sexuality."

However, the author raised a good point, saying if that was true then why don't all armies do that. And it sounded logical. If you kept men in line by mating them with other men, then why don't the rest of the Greek hoplites do the same?

What is your opinion on this matter??

[The Spartan (Returns)]

we all know they are gay.

[orangat]

The 82nd airborne thinks its good for camaraderie.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...SUU80&apc=9009

[Papewaio]

Each fighter has to be elite, and then he also has to have an elite mate.

The odds of getting an elite fighter would be low, having a mate as well of elite status would be statistically lower still.

IFF elite is 10% and the soldiers were all gay and only dated within the army then there would be only 1% who would be an elite paired couple... much less if they aren't all gay, all dating other army blokes or indeed all aren't dating...

This is more a maths exercise not a 'They are all gay.' they might just be good friends.

[edyzmedieval]

The modern society, every time when they see 2 very good and close friends, they think they are gay.

It might be this:

1.) They are very close friends but both have their own girlfriends and they lead a normal life.

2.) They really are gay.

Most of the times, 1 is the actual thing. But, 2 tends to be more and more present.

[Conqueror]

I always thought "The Ancient Greeks were more liberal about their sexual orientation and accepting others for their hetero- or homo-sexuality."

For what it's worth, I've been reading the Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization and the impression I get is that the Greeks weren't more "liberal", they just had different rules and norms than modern society. Whether a sexual relation between two men (or between a man and a woman) would have been considered "normal" would depend on the details of such relation. I quote:

Any sexual relation that involved the penetration of a social inferior (whether inferior in age, gender or status) qualified as sexually normal for a male, irrespective of the penetrated person's anatomical sex, whereas to be sexually penetrated was always potentially shaming, especially for a free male of a citizen status.

And:

In Classical Athens, by contrast*, free boys could be openly courted, but a series of elaborate protocols served to shield them from the shame associated with bodily penetration, thereby enabling them to gratify their male suitors without compromising their future status as adult men.

*by contrast to Rome, which was discussed just before the quoted text

And:

The conventional use of the term 'boy' to designate a male in his capacity as an object of male desire is somewhat misleading, because males were customarily supposed to be sexually desirable to other males mostly in the period of life that extended from around the time of puberty (which probably began quite late in the ancient Mediterranian) to the arrival of the full beard; the first appearance of down on a boy's cheeks represented to some the peak of his sexual attractiveness, whereas the presense of more fully developed hair on the male face, buttocks and thighs typically aroused in men intense sexual distaste.

And:

Whatever a boy might do in bed, it was crucial that he not seem to be motivated by passionate sexual desire for his lover, because sexual desire for an adult man signified the desire to be penetrated, to be subordinate - to be like a woman, whose pleasure in sexual submissiveness disqualified her assuming a position of social and political mastery. A boy who indicated that he derived any enjoyment from being anally receptive risked identifying himself as a kinaidos, a pathic, a catamite; no modern english word can convey the full force of the ancient stigma attached to this now-defunct identity. Similarly, a man who retained as his beloved a boy on the threshold of manhood thereby cast doubt on his own masculinity, for if the grown boy was not himself a kinaidos, then the man who continued to love him must be.

While this is not directly related to the Theban Scared Band, it is nevertheless an interesting point of view if we consider that those elite soldiers must have been grown men...

[Marshal Murat]

So why weren't the Macedonian Phalanx, Companion Cavalry, Athenian Hoplites, whoever else, made up of homosexual couples?

[The Spartan (Returns)]

hey! let them decide, if they wanna be gay or not. dont force them!

[Silver Rusher]

hey! let them decide, if they wanna be gay or not. dont force them!

I think military success was a bit more important than human rights in the armies of those days. Saving your own life is one thing, but if men in the army are forced to save the lives of their partners as well it adds a huge boost to their determination.

And I think the reason why less people used that 'tactic' was because homosexuality (or the love of somebody with equal social status) was frowned upon by society.

[matteus the inbred]

I think at the time they were more famous for being brave warriors than for anything else...although perhaps there is evidence that they were frowned upon by some...Philip II's comment on seeing them all lying dead together was supposedly:
'Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly'
Which suggests that he thought it likely that some men did indeed have criticism of this style of elite unit 'bonding'. Of course, it worth noting that Philip had himself stayed in Thebes previously and probably had relationships with several men. Perhaps, if he thought the Sacred Band idea was a good one, he didn't create his own because he preferred the Theban one to be unique, or possibly because it would have been too difficult to find enough appropriately inclined soldiers.

Carthage also had a Sacred Band, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they engaged in homosexual or pederastic relations, rather they were oath-bound to a particular temple and god.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

imo, im not gay, and id rather have the greeks be straight.


here's why:
they might just kiss each other on a line where you need to hold against cavalry, and they may get run over. and two they may get aroused standing next to each other, and feeling weird when they have to run and charge.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The Spartan I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense to me, if you're going to try to alter history to your liking could you please explain yourself better?

[The Spartan (Returns)]

not really. dunno much of Greek history.

[Silver Rusher]

imo, im not gay, and id rather have the greeks be straight.


here's why:
they might just kiss each other on a line where you need to hold against cavalry, and they may get run over. and two they may get aroused standing next to each other, and feeling weird when they have to run and charge.

Lol, being gay isn't all about kissing men and getting aroused by them, especially when certain death faces you if you don't concentrate. I should know, I'm not gay.

[Vidar]

Dont know much about greek history either but, didnt alexander destroy them anyway, so they cant have been that good - gay or straight - but then again they didnt call him "the Great" for nothing. It does occur to me that there probably were/are gay soldiers in most cultures, you dont have to be straight to be good at killing do you

[Marshal Murat]

the Theban Sacred Band was a group of soldiers who were partnered with a comrade, and fought together. They were the elite Theban force.

[Silver Rusher]

Dont know much about greek history either but, didnt alexander destroy them anyway, so they cant have been that good - gay or straight

The Theban sacred band consisted of 300 men, which according to Wikipedia is about one 1/117 of the Theban/Athenian army.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

Keep in mind that you probably need someone to help you wear your armor in that age. Plus that it is possible that more experienced soldiers would have a less experienced one under their protection, kind of like a tutor and a student. Added to that, Pindar writing in a poem of his that these men were totally indifferent towards women because they have wedded Battle, it is easy for some to reach a conclusion in favour of homosexuality. I disagree though.

[KrooK]

Yes they were homo.
Into ancient Greece homosexuality was something absolutely normal.
I know that into Athens it was a habbit that mature man, father of family, had younger "friend" for some years. The rule was that he should have given youngster gifts instead of sex and when youngster got married, romance must had been finished.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm not asking if it were normal or accepted. I'm asking why, if the Theban Sacred Band was homosexual, then why weren't the Spartans, Athenians, Corinthians, and every professional military force made up of homosexual couples?

[Redleg]

The answer to your question is that most likely Theban Sacred Band was not a warrior band of purely homosexuals.

Most likely it contain some homosexual warriors but in the most part they as a group would of followed the same sexual practices of the rest of the Army at the time.

I remember reading a describtions of Theban Sacred Band being one of friends and beloved.

Beloved could be family members versus lovers.

[conon394]

Added to that, Pindar writing in a poem of his that these men were totally indifferent towards women because they have wedded Battle

Pindar?

Pindar had been dead for over half a century when 4th century Thebes’ revived the Sacred Band under the conservative democracy of the Boeotian republic. If he wrote anything to about them he was either undead or an oracle…

[Horatius]

We know that the vast majority of ancient greek armies would have been gay from the accounts of the time, and from how Ancient Greek Society (Apart from Sparta which was unique) worked.

Ancient Greek women not unlike today's Arab and Muslim women were usually forced to stay inside the house at all times and completely isolated from any part of society. Ancient Greek Society was entirely male apart from the household, and in such a society homosexuality is common, the men where rarely with women, and you develop affection for the person you really spend your life with, not the person you see once a month (On top of being confined to the house women would also be confined to the womens quarters whenever there was company and that is where they usually slept to).

It is not an insult to say that Ancient Greek Society promoted homosexuality, if you have any doubt and don't feel like studying the society, just read Hypolytos.

The Romans on the other hand really where liberal, Roman Women where better of then women in most countries today in terms of laws and practices.

[Redleg]

It is not an insult to say that Ancient Greek Society promoted homosexuality, if you have any doubt and don't feel like studying the society, just read Hypolytos.

Once again that does not equate to a purely homosexual military. The Ancient Greek Military would have had a different view on male behavior when on campaign then our modern times. Part of the after-effects of many ancient battles was the wanted rape of women afterwards. To claim that ancient societs promoted homosexuality is a false conclusion. Its my belief that homosexual behavior was tolerated because of exactly what you mentioned within your post, but that men were still expect to couple with women to procreate and leave male heirs to continue the line.

[Horatius]

I agree with you, and believe that the Ancient Greeks where bisexual, and at very least many would be heterosexual had they lived in a more liberal society not all ancient societies removed women from life, Ancient Rome had a better record on womens rights then any 20th century Arab Country, and almost all 19th century countries.

[Kraxis]

Once again that does not equate to a purely homosexual military. The Ancient Greek Military would have had a different view on male behavior when on campaign then our modern times. Part of the after-effects of many ancient battles was the wanted rape of women afterwards. To claim that ancient societs promoted homosexuality is a false conclusion. Its my belief that homosexual behavior was tolerated because of exactly what you mentioned within your post, but that men were still expect to couple with women to procreate and leave male heirs to continue the line.

Agreed, I think we should look at the differences.
Homosexual behaviour, having sex with men, attracted to men.
Homosexual, does the previous but not with women.

The society accepted (and promoted) a certain degree of homosexual BEHAVIOUR, but the society was highly heterosexual in actual stance (the importance on getting children ect).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Agreed, I think we should look at the differences.
Homosexual behaviour, having sex with men, attracted to men.
Homosexual, does the previous but not with women.

The society accepted (and promoted) a certain degree of homosexual BEHAVIOUR, but the society was highly heterosexual in actual stance (the importance on getting children ect).

Nice point here.

The English language -- and to a goodly extent our cultures as well -- would like to have a neat label to put on a clearly delineated category.

If we look at homosexual as a descriptor for one's basic sexual orientation -- one's preference, then...

Could the Greeks have fielded armies that were exclusively "manned" by homosexuals?

Of course not! The percentage of those characterizing themselves as "homosexual" in modern, relatively "open" societies is rather small when set against the larger population. How likely is it that a substantial percentage of the free males of a society would all be homosexual, allowing the polis to field its army? Are modern societies really chock-a-block with latent homosexuals constantly repressing themselves? What evidence would lead you to conclude that classical Greece had such an overwhelming percentage of homosexuals?

If however, we look at homosexual as a descriptor of behavior....

Then we are presented with a culture wherein homosexual behavior -- at least where it does not conflict with societal procreation or stability -- is condoned and sometimes encouraged. Under such a social structure -- no stigma, "everybody's doing it," "it's all in good fun" -- the instance of homosexual behavior would likely be much higher. Moreover, as noted above, in settings where the company of women is notably absent, situational factors would enhance this trend.

Tough to get some things into neat little packages....

[conon394]

Ancient Greek women not unlike today's Arab and Muslim women were usually forced to stay inside the house at all times and completely isolated from any part of society. Ancient Greek Society was entirely male apart from the household, and in such a society homosexuality is common, the men where rarely with women, and you develop affection for the person you really spend your life with, not the person you see once a month (On top of being confined to the house women would also be confined to the womens quarters whenever there was company and that is where they usually slept to).

It is not an insult to say that Ancient Greek Society promoted homosexuality, if you have any doubt and don't feel like studying the society, just read Hypolytos.

The Romans on the other hand really where liberal, Roman Women where better of then women in most countries today in terms of laws and practices.

Pap, Rot, the residual of Victorian scholarship (and bias) and the construct of Feminist and Foucault inspired historians fitting selected facts into their pre-conceived ideological framework.

First which Greeks are you talking about Athens, Boeoetia, the Western Greeks in Italy, Ionia? Greece was hardly a unitary and monolithic entity, laws and morality varied widely in both time and space.

Second if Hippolytus(a fictional work of drama) is an argument for Greek homosexuality, why not argue that Lysistrata or the Eccleesiazusae demonstrate female emancipation in Greece?

Homosexuality was common and pervasive? Well aside from the fact that homosexuality as such is a modern construction that fits not all that well on any particular Greek situation; consider the testimony of both Plato and Xenophon; they suggest rather a more variable situation – with outright homosexuality (as the modern definition would have it) legal and accepted in Elis and Boeoetia, outlawed in Ionia and ambiguous in places like Sparta and Athens.

Ancient Greek women not unlike today's Arab and Muslim women were usually forced to stay inside the house at all times and completely isolated from any part of society.

A completely ridicules statement.

Sure maybe in some ideal aristocratic fantasy (as conveyed by some literary evidence) women were secluded. But I have to wonder how Socrates’ midwife mother carried out her profession in oriental seclusion? What about all the women attested in Athenian curse tablets: Shop Keepers, Tavern Owners, Smiths, etc, they do not seem to have languished in seclusion. How about all those women at the theater? Mentioning seclusion where is the archeological proof anyway, no Athenian house yet excavated has provided much support for a secluded women’s partition. What about the wives and daughters of the not rich Athenians Aristotle notes who worked in the fields since their families could afford neither slaves nor hired help; hardly secluded…

What about women’s role in Religion? One could hardly be segregated from men while being the Priestess of Athena at Athens and providing pivotal input into events like the Democratic revolution or the decision to trust in Themistocles’ wooden wall (of ships).
One did not become the butt of Arstophanes’ jokes by being out of the public eye, yet two women Priestess managed to become the basis for his characters in the Lysistrata.

If you are going to cite Euripides how his sentiment expressed elsewhere that “ And in matters concerning the gods, for I consider these matters to be most important, we women have the greatest share.” Religion was like politics at the very heart of the polis, women could hardly have had a central role if they were busy locked in their houses.


Don’t misunderstand me were women distinctly second class citizens/people, sure, but he same goes for just about any society before the modern western democracies of the last 50 years or so.

The Romans on the other hand really where liberal, Roman Women where better of then women in most countries today in terms of laws and practices.

I’m sorry to say I just don’t buy that. Perhaps you need to revisit the ‘Patria Potestas’, the very male head of a Roman household had power over the household’s women that an Athenian ‘Kyrios’ never approached.

[Horatius]

Pap, Rot, the residual of Victorian scholarship (and bias) and the construct of Feminist and Foucault inspired historians fitting selected facts into their pre-conceived ideological framework.

Victorian and Feminist are contradictions wouldn't you agree?

First which Greeks are you talking about Athens, Boeoetia, the Western Greeks in Italy, Ionia? Greece was hardly a unitary and monolithic entity, laws and morality varied widely in both time and space.

Most of Greece. I know Greece was never monolithic, I also know that the Greek City States constantly fought each other, I also know that many Greek Colonies developed very distinct ways of life, however there where points where the majority of the city states of Greece where more or less similar and the place of a woman was one of them.

Second if Hippolytus(a fictional work of drama) is an argument for Greek homosexuality, why not argue that Lysistrata or the Eccleesiazusae demonstrate female emancipation in Greece?

Because of how consistently popular Hypolytos was, especially in Athens.

Sure maybe in some ideal aristocratic fantasy (as conveyed by some literary evidence) women were secluded. But I have to wonder how Socrates’ midwife mother carried out her profession in oriental seclusion? What about all the women attested in Athenian curse tablets: Shop Keepers, Tavern Owners, Smiths, etc, they do not seem to have languished in seclusion. How about all those women at the theater?

Female Characters got played by boys not women, and women were never allowed to Comedies, no laws social or legal are followed completely universally I am pretty sure that there are a few women in saudi arabia who drive although it is against the societies wishes, so what I said was not completely rediculous, and you also forget that a lot of the women who did get out where slaves, ex slaves, and prostitutes so I admit there were a few classess of relatively emancipated women, however that would be like pointing out the few Saudi women who drive as proof that Saudi women are emancipated.

Mentioning seclusion where is the archeological proof anyway, no Athenian house yet excavated has provided much support for a secluded women’s partition.

Literary evidence

What about women’s role in Religion? One could hardly be segregated from men while being the Priestess of Athena at Athens and providing pivotal input into events like the Democratic revolution or the decision to trust in Themistocles’ wooden wall (of ships).
One did not become the butt of Arstophanes’ jokes by being out of the public eye, yet two women Priestess managed to become the basis for his characters in the Lysistrata.

If you are going to cite Euripides how his sentiment expressed elsewhere that “ And in matters concerning the gods, for I consider these matters to be most important, we women have the greatest share.” Religion was like politics at the very heart of the polis, women could hardly have had a central role if they were busy locked in their houses.

Some women did get through social pressure, however could the Oracle of Delphi have made independent decisions? No it couldn't, she needed the male priests to aprove first, that is why the oracle was a woman so she wouldn't have the real power.

I’m sorry to say I just don’t buy that. Perhaps you need to revisit the ‘Patria Potestas’, the very male head of a Roman household had power over the household’s women that an Athenian ‘Kyrios’ never approached.

Roman women could and regularly did divorce their husbands without penalties, that didn't happen in Athens, or Thebes, or Corinth, divorced roman women also got significant amounts of money from their ex husbands, it was also much easier for roman women to succeed on their own then Athenian Women, although if as you say recent evidence shows that the theoretical fantasies recorded isn't what was happening in Greece I will be glad to read about it, since this is what I was taught in school (A- final grade).

[Conradus]

Roman women were originally completely depend on the Pater Familias, but near the end of the Republic, the laws changed en women could divorce, own goods themselves... So they weren't free from the beginning.

As for Greek woman, again that depends on the region. Sparta had some of the most liberal imo. Their girls participated in sports unlike any other place in Greece.