Yesterday my thread about ancient warriors' bodies was RT'ed w/ fairly reasonable criticism. Since then I have been inundated with abuse from literal fascists for daring to challenge their ideas about ancient Greece.
For any adults in the room here are the receipts🧵
Ancient Greek men obv. admired strength, venerated athletes & praised those who trained their bodies. But since the Archaic period there was tension between the needs of games and war. Athletes overspecialised & lost touch with practicality; they neglected what really mattered.
As the Spartan poet Tyrtaios says (fr. 12):
"I would not mention or take account of a man for his prowess in running or wrestling, not even if he had the size and strength of the Cyclopes (...) For no man is good in war unless he can endure the sight of blody slaughter..."
"...this is excellence; this is the finest prize for a young man to win."
Similarly Archilochos (fr. 114) does not like the well-groomed and sculpted rich man as commander, but "one who is short and bandy-legged, stands firmly on his feet, and is full of courage."
This is a constant. Euripides' lost Autolykos:
"Of all the countless evils infesting Greece, there is none worse than the tribe of athletes (...) how, indeed, when a man is slave to his jaw, and a victim of his belly, could he acquire wealth to increase his father's store?"
"...Again, they cannot endure poverty, nor adapt themselves to misfortunes. Accustomed as they are to ignoble habits, they find it hard to change them when difficulties come (...) What succour to his native town does a man bring who has won a crown for clever wrestling?"
"Will they fight the enemy with discus in hand, or through the line of shields smite with the fist and cast the enemy forth from their native land? No man, when standing close to cold steel, commits such foolishness."
Epameinondas (Nepos 15.2.4-5):
"As soon as E. attained military age and began to interest himself in physical exercise, he aimed less at great strength than at agility; for he thought that the former was necessary for athletes, but that the latter would be helpful in warfare."
Philopoimen (Plut. Philop. 3.2-3) is another famous general credited with this insight:
"He was also thought to be a good wrestler, but when some of his friends urged him to take up athletics, he asked them if athletics would not be injurious to his military training..."
"They told him (arid it was the truth) that the habit of body and mode of life for athlete and soldier were totally different, and particularly that their diet and training were not the same, since the one required much sleep, continuous surfeit of food..."
"...and fixed periods of activity and repose, in order to preserve or improve their condition, which the slightest influence or the least departure from routine is apt to change for the worse; whereas the soldier ought to be used to all sorts of irregularity and inequality..."
"...and above all should accustom himself to endure lack of food easily, and as easily lack of sleep. On hearing this, Philopoimen not only shunned athletics himself and derided them, but also in later times as a commander banished from the army all forms of them..."
"...with every possible mark of reproach and dishonour, on the ground that they rendered useless for the inevitable struggle of battle men who would otherwise be most serviceable."
Xenophon (Sym. 2.17) has Sokrates declare that it is better to do mild general exercise (ie. dancing), "not like the long-distance runners, who develop their legs at the expense of their shoulders, nor like the prize-fighters, who develop their shoulders but become thin-legged"
The soldiers in the army of Alexander the Great mocked the boxer Dioxippos, calling him a "useless, bloated animal" (Curtius 9.7.16). He could win a 1v1 fight easily, but soldiers did not respect him, and shame finally drove him to suicide.
There is plenty more in Aristotle, Plutarch, and the medical authors to this effect, that athletic training is not good for your health and not suitable for soldiers. It is important to be fit, tough & enduring, but not to take it too far. As the poet Xenophanes says (fr. 2):
"Neither if there were a good boxer among the people, nor one good at the pentathlon or in wrestling, or again in the swiftness of his feet (...) would there for that reason be better law and order in the city."
A lot of people who presume that my view has anything to do with my identity or career should probably know that all of this same evidence is gathered in W.K. Pritchett, "The Greek State at War" II (1974), pp. 215-7. He was a classicist and captain in the USAAF from 1941-1945.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A lot of the internet seems to think ancient warriors were ripped like the actors in "300". Ancient Greeks actually thought bulked-up athletes made useless warriors: sluggish, indulgent, dependent on strict diets, and unable to bear toil and deprivation
This is related to the misconception that an ancient warrior would mostly be doing close combat all day (like the comment on Marv in Sin City, "He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swingin' an axe into somebody's face"). In reality? Marching, cooking, keeping watch
...digging ditches (take a shot!), building fieldworks, maintaining equipment, building siege machines, and more marching and keeping watch. "Work hard and run risks," as the veteran Xenophon summed up the life.
I did a tweet earlier about the Corinthian War and no one asked me to elaborate but I will anyway because it's the wildest war you've never heard of. It has the largest hoplite battle in history and it ends with Persia winning the Persian Wars.
A little earlier (404 BC) the Spartans secured Persian funding to build a fleet and defeat the Athenians. They claimed they were fighting the war to liberate the Greeks from Athenian imperialism but instead they just took over the empire.
I have been asked for my thoughts on the 'battle' part of @BretDevereaux' wildly successful blog series on the myth of Sparta. With his permission, I shall now proceed to apply pedantry to his pedantry. 1/help acoup.blog/2019/09/20/col…
I should point out first of all that this series is really good overall. It's well-read, incisive and funny. It's really helpful to see someone make an informed assault on a massive pop-history chimera. Kudos &c.
But.
2/
Of course, our main disagreement is one of interpretation: BD favours the 'orthodoxy' on hoplites. Yes, when he says in the blog there are a handful of people who care - that's me! I'm a handful.
The myth of Thermopylai and the Greek resistance is built on some... strange ideas about the Persians and their armies.
Don't worry though, @reeshistory and I are here to clear some stuff up.
1/many
Our view on Persia is weird. It was the largest empire the world had ever seen. Its king claimed to rule the whole planet. But our best sources for it are Greek.
Imagine if we knew Rome mostly through clay tablets from Babylon.
2/
But for the Greeks this was not some foreboding new presence in the East. By 480 they'd seen Great Kings come and go. Greeks had been living under Persian rule for generations. Mingling, learning the language, trading goods, skills and ideas.
2499 years ago, approximately #OTD, the pass at Thermopylai in Central Greece became the site of one of the most famous land battles in history.
You've probably heard a bunch of tall tales about it. @reeshistory and I are here to tell it a little differently.
1/lots
It was a heroic struggle and a moral victory for the Greeks: 300 Spartans gave their lives for the Greek cause, killing innumerable enemies and teaching the arrogant Persians to fear the indomitable hoplite phalanx. Right?
RIGHT???
Wrong.
2/
"300 Spartans"? Nope. There were 1000 Spartans. Probably 300 of them were full Spartan citizens, the rest perioikoi (freeborn non-citizens). There were also an unknown number of helots (possibly thousands).
Being on the academic job market for more than 5 years has taught me an important lesson, which was driven home for me again yesterday, and which I'll share in case it may be helpful. It runs counter to all received wisdom, and and it is simply this:
Nothing you do matters.
Only 2 things determine whether you will get a particular job or not, AND YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER EITHER OF THEM:
- Does the department need teaching in your specific subfield?
- Does the department like you?
Nothing else meaningfully affects your chances.
To put it another way: the choice is made on the basis of who you ARE (which subfield? learned where and with whom? what do you bring to the dept?) not what you DO (publications, networking, citizenship, outreach). The latter cannot change the former.