![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure what happened to this article. The past versions seem decent, while the current version is written like an essay and in my opinion, shows clear bias. I am reverting to an older version. I suspect the edits that made the page so, well, terrible, were vandalism. If you have questions, just look at the article before I reverted it. That will clear things up.
By an anon: "But what did the ancient Greeks mean by pederasty and eromenos?Your examples refer to the modern Greek glossa and not to the ancient one.Also treating a wound isn't a homoerotic act!You say that the men on the sculpture are erected but none is!None of your references of ancient scholars proves any of your claims,and making laws against homosexuality should make you think that even if there was any it wasn't the rule but the exception to the rule,making laws against thieves,murdereres doesn't mean we are all thieves,murdereres.
Your reference of Percy, William A is a joke!this is from your link to his book,don't think that's copywriting.: "The book also has some serious imperfections. It is inconsistent to distinguish sharply and plausibly between (ancient) ‘situational’ or (modern) ‘androphile’ ‘homosexuality’ on the one hand, and (ancient) ‘pederasty’ on the other, while simultaneously declining even to take part, let alone take sides, in the intellectual debate between ‘essentialists’ (a gay is a gay is a gay) and ‘social contructionists’ (there were no gays before the later nineteenth century at the earliest). The appearance of his article ‘Greek Pederasty’ in the Journal of Homosexuality (1987) does nothing to clarify matters. To classify and explain the intellectual court of the tyrant Polycrates of Samos as diagnostically ‘pederastic’ seems hugely reductionist, not to mention parti pris, a criticism that applies in spades to Percy’s unconscionable coinage ‘pederastic democracy’ for the Athens of Aristeides and Themistocles. If pedersastic pedagogy was, as Percy claims, what most accounted for the cultural greatness of early Greece, why, despite is alleged persistence as an institution, did it cease to have that effect during the Classical (post-500) and subsequent ages?
Finally, inevitably, Percy’s non-specialist inexperience does occasionally deserve palmary punishment. For example, Pausanias the character in Plato’s Symposium is confused with Pausanias the second-century CE travel writer (Index s.v. to p. 29). The idea that the ‘Lelantine War’, itself probably a factoid, ‘lasted almost two centuries’ is ludicrous, not to mention the belief that ‘Brelich (1961)’ represents the ‘latest scholarship’ (p. 212 n. 4). More seriously, the proposition that ‘Chrimes’ argument that Sparta preserved its agoge (rigorous training for the Spartiates) with only insignificant changes and brief interruptions from Archaic to imperial [Roman] times is convincing’ (p. 82) is not cogent. A reading of especially A. Spawforth’s contribution to P.A. Cartledge and Spawforth’s Hellenistic and Roman Sparta (1989), not cited, would presumably have been enough to convince him otherwise. Now Nigel Kennell’s Gymnasium of Virtue (1995) must surely complete his re-education.
Nevertheless, this is not a book to be despised, and especially outside Classical circles it may well have some deservedly positive impact.
Clare College, Cambridge P. A. Cartledge " Azxd 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The list should probably be a separate page. Also, I note that reference is not made to the Greek god Apollo, despite an unambiguous statement in Bulfinch's Mythology regarding his relationship with Hyacinthus (I think that was the name?) Badbilltucker 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
not only hyacinthus/hyakinthos, but Apollo had many other male lovers too, like cyparissus, branchus and admetus. some sources even suggest that Apollo might have even liked Adonis but decided not to pursue it, because two goddesses were already at war over him. apart from that, the patron god of homosexuality, Ganymede, who enraptured even zeus, was not mentioned. Also, hercules' two male lovers, hylas and iolcus were also not mentioned. Astubbornsmudge ( talk) 05:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Aside from Williams, which doesn't constitute very investigative analysis in my opinion (I point to reviews done on the book in the American Historical Review, History of Education Quarterly, etc.), exactly what sources say that the relationships between men in ancient Greece, in any significant way, may be classified as pederasty. The writers of these sections ie. 'social aspects' should cite the sources they use to come to these conclusions within the next week, or else I am re-writing every article I find about ancient Greek military history that is non-POV in regards to pederasty.
An example is found in the image caption, "The mythological warriors Achilles and Patroclus. Patroclus' (left) penis is exposed in a reference to the sexual aspect of their pederastic relationship." The actual definitions of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is subject to intense academic debate.
I have read Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch as well as Oxford's Classical and a number of books relating to the specific area in question. While certainly pederastic relationships did exist in a significant way in ancient Greece, it is disturbing to see so many articles - written by the same 8 or so wikipedians, pursuing such an unhistorical agenda.
Furthermore, in the subsection 'Social Aspects' I find that the sourced information is taken out of context to support this claim of the widespread practice of pederasty in the military. (Once again, yes it did exist, but it's practice was not as extensive as this article maintains) Nudas veritas 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, well, the caption has been changed on other grounds: male nudity is a standard feature of ancient Greek art, and the visibility of Patroclus' genitalia conforms to this convention, and says nothing (or at least nothing exceptional) about the nature of Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship. However, there really is no scholarly controversy about their relationship, as I've already said. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Haiduc, please also look at my comments on the talk page of Sacred Band Of Thebes which give a better idea of the NPOV I was talking about in regards to pederasty. Nudas veritas 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is not enough scholarship for an article dedicated to this topic. It seems yet one more article designed for tendentious arguments and original research. I note the large part played here by a banned editor. McOoee ( talk) 02:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this article should be deleted. Of the two main contributors, one left in 2005 and the other was banned in 2010. Of the two referenced books, neither is cited within the text. The only cited sources are primary sources and those are not suited to an encyclopaedia of anonymous contributors. The article is like a slyly groping hand. Here it soon ran out of material, so it moved on to explore other articles. If there are any useful modern sources, by all means the article should stay. But where are they? Perhaps it could be merged with some other article. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 08:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh it's promotional alright. The handiwork of a banned editor, thank you very much. I'm not stopping anyone rewriting it. I'm fed up with primary sources being misused in this way. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the secondary sources are meant to come first. They provide the context in which the primary sources are interpreted. This article only gives us primary sources. It's a personal essay. Anyone looking at this article may assume two things. First, original research is acceptable here at WP (it will be tagged as problematic but the tags on this article are over three years old and nobody does anything about them). Secondly, the article is protected by a group of individuals whose interests it apparently serves. That's not the sort of message we should be spreading. My edit alerts the reader to the fact that this is an article that needs some work done on it. Three years is long enough for this essay. If you think the listed refrences endorse the essay, then put in the citations. But you must know, that's not the case or the citations would already be there. What scholar would present primary sources in this stupid manner? I'm within my rights to continue deleting this essay. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 22:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There are now a couple of citations in the intro, which is a beginning. The rest of the article still embodies someone's personal interpretation of primary sources and that needs work. There is a new tag alerting the reader to multiple issues BUT it's dated today. Readers should be aware that the issues go back at least three years and that they are still present in the main body of the article. The intro ends with the 'catch-all' statement: Various ancient Greek sources record incidents of courage in battle and interpret them as motivated by homoerotic bonds. This seems to be an attempt to justify the ad hoc use of primary sources. It needs a scholar's comment on the reliability of these sources, advising us how to interpret them. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 23:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The improvements are still being made. One edit label makes this comment: additional citations for Pammenes from secondary sources; it's nearly as easy to verify as it is to delete. It refers to a discussion in Dover but doesn't tell us what the discussion is. Nice if we could know exactly what is said there! Just showing that these primary sources are mentioned in scholarly sources doesn't really fix anything. We need the scholar's comments. We need the context in which to interpret the ancient sources. Hopefully that will come. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 23:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. If the article is based on Crompton then it should include some overview of his arguments, if he has any. If he has just quoted ancient sources, it's hardly a scholarly analysis. So the problem is that the article is still an original essay featuring a largely uncritical use of primary sources. It's a strange way to construct an article, beginning with a collection of quotes from primary sources, apparently waiting for someone to come up with an interpetative context for them. I still think the best solution is to scrap most of the article, retaining only the parts supported by the scholarly sources added today. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have commitments off-Wikipedia which will take me away for a while, but I did locate the Xenophon source I mentioned. I remembered it as a balanced perspective on why Xenophon seems to contradict himself at points on homosexuality in the military. Because I don't have time to write and think through it for integrating into the article, I'm just going to give the reference in case someone else is interested in pursuing it. (Unlike Dover and Crompton and Cantarella, it isn't online unless you have JSTOR access.) But I'll take a minute to give some of his introductory and concluding material, since I type faster than I think (sometimes to my sorrow). This is from Clifford Handley, "Eros and Military Command in Xenophon," Classical Quarterly 44.2 (1994) 347–366, and info in square brackets is from Handley's footnotes:
p. 347 Xenophon's manifold writings contain an intriguing variety of anecdotes and narratives reflecting erotic relationships among men, and philosophical or ethical discussion about the nature of such affairs. … In military matters, a positive view of the relationship between erastes and eromenos is based on the belief that the presence of his eromenos will inspire a man to valor and, through shame, save him from cowardice. This explanation, put into the mouth of Pausanias' 'lover of Agathon' in the 8th chapter of Xenophon's Symposium, is immediately rejected by Socrates. Yet Xenophon himself evinces some sympathy for it, when, quite parenthetically, in the treatise On Hunting, [12.20] he takes it as self-evident that 'when any man is within sight of his eromenos he excels himself and avoids saying or doing things which are base or cowardly so that he may not be seen by him.' Moreover, elsewhere in the Symposium [4.15–16] Xenophon allows Kritoboulos to give an enthusiastic exposition of the principle, and go on to declare that it is madness not to elect handsome men as generals. No doubt some allowance must be made here for dramatic effect, yet the 'Sacred Band' of Thebes was famously organized on the basis of erotic relationships, and as Sir Kenneth Dover has pointed out, the story of Episthenes in Xenophon's Anabasis reflects the same belief in stiffening a fighting force with the powerful bonds of eros. … Even among the p. 348 Spartans, who did not as a matter of policy station lovers together in battle, we find a general, Anaxibios, being faithfully attended by his paidika as he courted death on the battlefield.[Hell. 4.8.39]
We may conclude that not only did Xenophon accept the practice of pederasty as a part of life, but that he also recognized the potential of the feelings it aroused to prompt nobility and valour. There is, however, a converse possibility—and one which alarmed Xenophon—that erotic desire might threaten to interfere with the performance of one's military or civic duty, particularly on the part of a man set in authority. Against this destructive eros he sets the virtue of self-control (enkrateia), and it is the relationship between these principles, particularly in the exercise of military command, which I wish to examine in more detail in Xenophon's writings.
Handley then goes on to do so, concluding
p. 365 The morality involved is a morality of military and political duty, not a morality of sexual acts per se. … The opportunities for homoerotic pleasure available to Greek armies and their commanders in the field must have been many, and the resulting relationships complex. … Xenophon recognised that such relationships might well be honourable, and motivate men to valour in battle. But experience also taught him that situations could well arise where to indulge in eros was fraught with military or political danger. In such situations, he had no doubt that the welfare of the city should take precedence over individual impulse, and for him the ability to resist p. 366 erotic desire where necessary ranked high among the qualities required by a military leader. Some failed the test, and, like Alketas and Thibron, brought military reverses upon their city. Others, like Agesilaos in his relations with Megabates, survived the test with honour, and this was not the least of Xenophon's reasons for according him high praise.
Sorry I can't help more at present. For a more balanced perspective, though, a careful treatment of Xenophon would help, so I thought a sample from the article might help another editor decide whether it was worth obtaining the whole thing. Cynwolfe ( talk) 04:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, Diodorus says nothing about the sexual orientation of Epaminondas or The Sacred Band, and I have added this observation to the article. I'll be happy to be proved wrong. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 14:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've done a bit of editing now, giving the key primary sources their proper literary contexts. The result is an inclusive article, featuring homosexuals, heterosexuals and women and it goes beyond the all-male ethic of the original essay. Don't want gays to feel lonely! There appears to be some more material in Xenophon that deserves to be added and I'll be interested to see how the article develops from here with material such as that. Hopefully a proper context will be established for all the primary sources. Reference to Victor Davis Hanson is intriguing since he's not only a military historian but a right-wing commentator and that side of the political spectrum isn't known for its acceptance of gays. From what I've seen of his book by googling, the reference to gays in the Spartan military is very brief but unequivocal. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 23:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I also deleted this statement: Another pair of warrior-lovers— Aristogiton and Harmodius—credited with the downfall of tyranny in Athens and the rise of democracy became the emblem of the city. They were famous as tyrannicides not warriors and their inclusion here looks like desperation. If someone can find a citation clearly linking them to militaries of ancient Greece, fine. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 09:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sodafloats,
Doesitreallymatter101 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bunny322 ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure what happened to this article. The past versions seem decent, while the current version is written like an essay and in my opinion, shows clear bias. I am reverting to an older version. I suspect the edits that made the page so, well, terrible, were vandalism. If you have questions, just look at the article before I reverted it. That will clear things up.
By an anon: "But what did the ancient Greeks mean by pederasty and eromenos?Your examples refer to the modern Greek glossa and not to the ancient one.Also treating a wound isn't a homoerotic act!You say that the men on the sculpture are erected but none is!None of your references of ancient scholars proves any of your claims,and making laws against homosexuality should make you think that even if there was any it wasn't the rule but the exception to the rule,making laws against thieves,murdereres doesn't mean we are all thieves,murdereres.
Your reference of Percy, William A is a joke!this is from your link to his book,don't think that's copywriting.: "The book also has some serious imperfections. It is inconsistent to distinguish sharply and plausibly between (ancient) ‘situational’ or (modern) ‘androphile’ ‘homosexuality’ on the one hand, and (ancient) ‘pederasty’ on the other, while simultaneously declining even to take part, let alone take sides, in the intellectual debate between ‘essentialists’ (a gay is a gay is a gay) and ‘social contructionists’ (there were no gays before the later nineteenth century at the earliest). The appearance of his article ‘Greek Pederasty’ in the Journal of Homosexuality (1987) does nothing to clarify matters. To classify and explain the intellectual court of the tyrant Polycrates of Samos as diagnostically ‘pederastic’ seems hugely reductionist, not to mention parti pris, a criticism that applies in spades to Percy’s unconscionable coinage ‘pederastic democracy’ for the Athens of Aristeides and Themistocles. If pedersastic pedagogy was, as Percy claims, what most accounted for the cultural greatness of early Greece, why, despite is alleged persistence as an institution, did it cease to have that effect during the Classical (post-500) and subsequent ages?
Finally, inevitably, Percy’s non-specialist inexperience does occasionally deserve palmary punishment. For example, Pausanias the character in Plato’s Symposium is confused with Pausanias the second-century CE travel writer (Index s.v. to p. 29). The idea that the ‘Lelantine War’, itself probably a factoid, ‘lasted almost two centuries’ is ludicrous, not to mention the belief that ‘Brelich (1961)’ represents the ‘latest scholarship’ (p. 212 n. 4). More seriously, the proposition that ‘Chrimes’ argument that Sparta preserved its agoge (rigorous training for the Spartiates) with only insignificant changes and brief interruptions from Archaic to imperial [Roman] times is convincing’ (p. 82) is not cogent. A reading of especially A. Spawforth’s contribution to P.A. Cartledge and Spawforth’s Hellenistic and Roman Sparta (1989), not cited, would presumably have been enough to convince him otherwise. Now Nigel Kennell’s Gymnasium of Virtue (1995) must surely complete his re-education.
Nevertheless, this is not a book to be despised, and especially outside Classical circles it may well have some deservedly positive impact.
Clare College, Cambridge P. A. Cartledge " Azxd 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The list should probably be a separate page. Also, I note that reference is not made to the Greek god Apollo, despite an unambiguous statement in Bulfinch's Mythology regarding his relationship with Hyacinthus (I think that was the name?) Badbilltucker 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
not only hyacinthus/hyakinthos, but Apollo had many other male lovers too, like cyparissus, branchus and admetus. some sources even suggest that Apollo might have even liked Adonis but decided not to pursue it, because two goddesses were already at war over him. apart from that, the patron god of homosexuality, Ganymede, who enraptured even zeus, was not mentioned. Also, hercules' two male lovers, hylas and iolcus were also not mentioned. Astubbornsmudge ( talk) 05:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Aside from Williams, which doesn't constitute very investigative analysis in my opinion (I point to reviews done on the book in the American Historical Review, History of Education Quarterly, etc.), exactly what sources say that the relationships between men in ancient Greece, in any significant way, may be classified as pederasty. The writers of these sections ie. 'social aspects' should cite the sources they use to come to these conclusions within the next week, or else I am re-writing every article I find about ancient Greek military history that is non-POV in regards to pederasty.
An example is found in the image caption, "The mythological warriors Achilles and Patroclus. Patroclus' (left) penis is exposed in a reference to the sexual aspect of their pederastic relationship." The actual definitions of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is subject to intense academic debate.
I have read Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch as well as Oxford's Classical and a number of books relating to the specific area in question. While certainly pederastic relationships did exist in a significant way in ancient Greece, it is disturbing to see so many articles - written by the same 8 or so wikipedians, pursuing such an unhistorical agenda.
Furthermore, in the subsection 'Social Aspects' I find that the sourced information is taken out of context to support this claim of the widespread practice of pederasty in the military. (Once again, yes it did exist, but it's practice was not as extensive as this article maintains) Nudas veritas 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, well, the caption has been changed on other grounds: male nudity is a standard feature of ancient Greek art, and the visibility of Patroclus' genitalia conforms to this convention, and says nothing (or at least nothing exceptional) about the nature of Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship. However, there really is no scholarly controversy about their relationship, as I've already said. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Haiduc, please also look at my comments on the talk page of Sacred Band Of Thebes which give a better idea of the NPOV I was talking about in regards to pederasty. Nudas veritas 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is not enough scholarship for an article dedicated to this topic. It seems yet one more article designed for tendentious arguments and original research. I note the large part played here by a banned editor. McOoee ( talk) 02:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this article should be deleted. Of the two main contributors, one left in 2005 and the other was banned in 2010. Of the two referenced books, neither is cited within the text. The only cited sources are primary sources and those are not suited to an encyclopaedia of anonymous contributors. The article is like a slyly groping hand. Here it soon ran out of material, so it moved on to explore other articles. If there are any useful modern sources, by all means the article should stay. But where are they? Perhaps it could be merged with some other article. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 08:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh it's promotional alright. The handiwork of a banned editor, thank you very much. I'm not stopping anyone rewriting it. I'm fed up with primary sources being misused in this way. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the secondary sources are meant to come first. They provide the context in which the primary sources are interpreted. This article only gives us primary sources. It's a personal essay. Anyone looking at this article may assume two things. First, original research is acceptable here at WP (it will be tagged as problematic but the tags on this article are over three years old and nobody does anything about them). Secondly, the article is protected by a group of individuals whose interests it apparently serves. That's not the sort of message we should be spreading. My edit alerts the reader to the fact that this is an article that needs some work done on it. Three years is long enough for this essay. If you think the listed refrences endorse the essay, then put in the citations. But you must know, that's not the case or the citations would already be there. What scholar would present primary sources in this stupid manner? I'm within my rights to continue deleting this essay. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 22:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There are now a couple of citations in the intro, which is a beginning. The rest of the article still embodies someone's personal interpretation of primary sources and that needs work. There is a new tag alerting the reader to multiple issues BUT it's dated today. Readers should be aware that the issues go back at least three years and that they are still present in the main body of the article. The intro ends with the 'catch-all' statement: Various ancient Greek sources record incidents of courage in battle and interpret them as motivated by homoerotic bonds. This seems to be an attempt to justify the ad hoc use of primary sources. It needs a scholar's comment on the reliability of these sources, advising us how to interpret them. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 23:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The improvements are still being made. One edit label makes this comment: additional citations for Pammenes from secondary sources; it's nearly as easy to verify as it is to delete. It refers to a discussion in Dover but doesn't tell us what the discussion is. Nice if we could know exactly what is said there! Just showing that these primary sources are mentioned in scholarly sources doesn't really fix anything. We need the scholar's comments. We need the context in which to interpret the ancient sources. Hopefully that will come. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 23:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. If the article is based on Crompton then it should include some overview of his arguments, if he has any. If he has just quoted ancient sources, it's hardly a scholarly analysis. So the problem is that the article is still an original essay featuring a largely uncritical use of primary sources. It's a strange way to construct an article, beginning with a collection of quotes from primary sources, apparently waiting for someone to come up with an interpetative context for them. I still think the best solution is to scrap most of the article, retaining only the parts supported by the scholarly sources added today. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have commitments off-Wikipedia which will take me away for a while, but I did locate the Xenophon source I mentioned. I remembered it as a balanced perspective on why Xenophon seems to contradict himself at points on homosexuality in the military. Because I don't have time to write and think through it for integrating into the article, I'm just going to give the reference in case someone else is interested in pursuing it. (Unlike Dover and Crompton and Cantarella, it isn't online unless you have JSTOR access.) But I'll take a minute to give some of his introductory and concluding material, since I type faster than I think (sometimes to my sorrow). This is from Clifford Handley, "Eros and Military Command in Xenophon," Classical Quarterly 44.2 (1994) 347–366, and info in square brackets is from Handley's footnotes:
p. 347 Xenophon's manifold writings contain an intriguing variety of anecdotes and narratives reflecting erotic relationships among men, and philosophical or ethical discussion about the nature of such affairs. … In military matters, a positive view of the relationship between erastes and eromenos is based on the belief that the presence of his eromenos will inspire a man to valor and, through shame, save him from cowardice. This explanation, put into the mouth of Pausanias' 'lover of Agathon' in the 8th chapter of Xenophon's Symposium, is immediately rejected by Socrates. Yet Xenophon himself evinces some sympathy for it, when, quite parenthetically, in the treatise On Hunting, [12.20] he takes it as self-evident that 'when any man is within sight of his eromenos he excels himself and avoids saying or doing things which are base or cowardly so that he may not be seen by him.' Moreover, elsewhere in the Symposium [4.15–16] Xenophon allows Kritoboulos to give an enthusiastic exposition of the principle, and go on to declare that it is madness not to elect handsome men as generals. No doubt some allowance must be made here for dramatic effect, yet the 'Sacred Band' of Thebes was famously organized on the basis of erotic relationships, and as Sir Kenneth Dover has pointed out, the story of Episthenes in Xenophon's Anabasis reflects the same belief in stiffening a fighting force with the powerful bonds of eros. … Even among the p. 348 Spartans, who did not as a matter of policy station lovers together in battle, we find a general, Anaxibios, being faithfully attended by his paidika as he courted death on the battlefield.[Hell. 4.8.39]
We may conclude that not only did Xenophon accept the practice of pederasty as a part of life, but that he also recognized the potential of the feelings it aroused to prompt nobility and valour. There is, however, a converse possibility—and one which alarmed Xenophon—that erotic desire might threaten to interfere with the performance of one's military or civic duty, particularly on the part of a man set in authority. Against this destructive eros he sets the virtue of self-control (enkrateia), and it is the relationship between these principles, particularly in the exercise of military command, which I wish to examine in more detail in Xenophon's writings.
Handley then goes on to do so, concluding
p. 365 The morality involved is a morality of military and political duty, not a morality of sexual acts per se. … The opportunities for homoerotic pleasure available to Greek armies and their commanders in the field must have been many, and the resulting relationships complex. … Xenophon recognised that such relationships might well be honourable, and motivate men to valour in battle. But experience also taught him that situations could well arise where to indulge in eros was fraught with military or political danger. In such situations, he had no doubt that the welfare of the city should take precedence over individual impulse, and for him the ability to resist p. 366 erotic desire where necessary ranked high among the qualities required by a military leader. Some failed the test, and, like Alketas and Thibron, brought military reverses upon their city. Others, like Agesilaos in his relations with Megabates, survived the test with honour, and this was not the least of Xenophon's reasons for according him high praise.
Sorry I can't help more at present. For a more balanced perspective, though, a careful treatment of Xenophon would help, so I thought a sample from the article might help another editor decide whether it was worth obtaining the whole thing. Cynwolfe ( talk) 04:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, Diodorus says nothing about the sexual orientation of Epaminondas or The Sacred Band, and I have added this observation to the article. I'll be happy to be proved wrong. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 14:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've done a bit of editing now, giving the key primary sources their proper literary contexts. The result is an inclusive article, featuring homosexuals, heterosexuals and women and it goes beyond the all-male ethic of the original essay. Don't want gays to feel lonely! There appears to be some more material in Xenophon that deserves to be added and I'll be interested to see how the article develops from here with material such as that. Hopefully a proper context will be established for all the primary sources. Reference to Victor Davis Hanson is intriguing since he's not only a military historian but a right-wing commentator and that side of the political spectrum isn't known for its acceptance of gays. From what I've seen of his book by googling, the reference to gays in the Spartan military is very brief but unequivocal. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 23:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I also deleted this statement: Another pair of warrior-lovers— Aristogiton and Harmodius—credited with the downfall of tyranny in Athens and the rise of democracy became the emblem of the city. They were famous as tyrannicides not warriors and their inclusion here looks like desperation. If someone can find a citation clearly linking them to militaries of ancient Greece, fine. Sir Gawain McGarson ( talk) 09:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sodafloats,
Doesitreallymatter101 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bunny322 ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)