Talk:Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece

What happened?

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.

Comment posted in article

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)

Comments

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)

Pederasty in military institutions.

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)

Nudas veritas, you raise some interesting issues here. I have to disagree with one thing you say, though--there isn't "intense academic debate" about the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus. Classicists generally agree that Homer doesn't depict them as lovers (although a few classicists think that the Iliad shows them as lovers). However, it's an indisputable fact that most ancient Greek sources after Homer treat Achilles and Patroclus as lovers. We've got an article on this, Achilles and Patroclus. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, perhaps I can clarify my comment. I meant that the sexual nature of their relationship was subject to academic debate, and that sentiment wasn't translated adequately into the image caption (which asserted that the relationship was pederastic, which is misleading given the lack of academic consensus on the issue). Nudas veritas 23:52, 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)

I think it is important to bear in mind that our purpose here is to arrive at an accurate description of current knowledge by a process of collegial consensus. "Or else" statements are not the best way to enter the discussion. I do appreciate, on the other hand, your courtesy, Nudas Veritas, in informing me of the debate. Please do point out any specific statements which you feel are inaccurate and I will do all I can to confirm or deny their veracity. And by the way, we all think we are contributing here the naked truth.

As for Achilles and Patroclus, we can all agree that their myth always depicted an exceptionally intimate friendship, one of legendary proportions, and was seen by many in antiquity as pederastic. There is nothing to debate here, unless you think that there was ONE myth and it had only ONE form. But this is a tale that was told over a span of one thousand years at least, by people on three different continents. There are many naked truths here, and some of them are quite sexy. Haiduc 01:25, 25 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)

I looked at your comments on that page and did not find them particularly clarifying. I have also been struck by that apparent contradiction, between same-sex relationship being essentially pederastic and the need for warriors to be physically mature. For an indirect answer, look at the life of Epaminondas, who had several lovers, one of which fell with him at Mantinea. My own understanding is that these were boys who had grown up enough to have reached fighting age. There is no obligation for them to have sexual relations in order to still be lovers, since pederasty was not necessarily of a sexual nature and then not for long. Haiduc 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nudas Veritas, a basic problem with your position is that in ancient Greece, every male homosexual relationship is described as a relationship between an erastes and an eromenos. In other words, every male homosexual relationship is described as a pederastic relationship. This same language is used of the pairs of lovers who composed the Sacred Band. To claim that these relationships were not pederastic, you need to cite a secondary source, rather than your own interpretation. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This silly article

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)

Delete this promotional article

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)

This is not inherently "promotional," but seems to be a collocation of primary sources taken from the secondary sources at the bottom of the page. In my edit summary, I made a typo: I meant to say that while secondary sources are given, page numbers aren't. It needs footnotes. Wikipedia explicitly permits the summary of primary sources. Although an article shouldn't be a grab-bag of quotes, I don't feel this material should be deleted, as it gives editors interested in developing the article clues about where to start. Knowing the primary source passages can help you find appropriate secondary sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 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)

See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#AfD?. Constructive editing will require checking the secondary sources given at the bottom of the page and giving footnotes, not deleting wholesale. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:54, 18 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)

A reasonable point, and one that will hopefully be addressed. Just FYI for whoever actually decides to polish this all up: I believe that the Plato, Symposium 178e–179a quote ultimately derives from J. Boswell, "Battle-worn", The New Republic 10 May 1993, though a GoogleBook search makes it look likely that subsequent handbooks followed him on whatever the topic was. I have no idea.  ^davidiad_.: 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So far, the summaries of the primary sources I've looked at are, as I suspected, paraphrased from Crompton, who gives them as exempla. They aren't the editor's/editors' own summaries, nor do they represent any original research on their part, since the primary sources are collocated by the secondary source that's always been cited at the bottom of the page. This is why they're so easy to verify. Crompton himself seems to be relying on Dover and possibly Cantarella, as his summaries of the primary sources are remarkably like theirs. So Crompton, who's more a comp list/history of sexuality scholar, draws on various specialists. All the information here is therefore well-established in the scholarship. In the early days of Wikipedia, there was less emphasis on footnotes. Some editors are unaware that WP:V still says they're needed only for quotations and material that's been challenged or is likely to be challenged; I try to footnote everything as a prophylactic measure. (However, a summary sentence in the intro that is supported by the body text per WP:LEDE requires no footnote.) Many, many articles used to be summaries of a very few major sources, which were merely listed at the end, as in conventional print encyclopedias. That's one reason plagiarism became an issue, because some editors weren't skilled at 'digesting' the secondary scholarship, and moreover were used to lifting public domain entries wholesale. So there's nothing original about this article at all. It was written and put together inexpertly, though not exceptionally so at the time. Wikipedia has just overall improved. Daniel Ogden's "Homosexuality and Warfare in Ancient Greece" sounds like it would be an excellent overview source for this article, since it's part of a book on Battle in Antiquity. It runs about 60 pages, so it's a significant treatment of the subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:39, 19 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)

Xenophon

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)

Diodorus Siculus

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)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality

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)