Sacred Band of Thebes - Criticism

Criticism

The historicity of the Sacred Band was challenged in 2002 by the classical scholar David D. Leitao who believes that it "rests on the most precarious of foundations". Leitao is especially critical of the accounts of the Sacred Band that describes it as being composed of lovers, and believes that the Sacred Band's role in the battles of Tegyra, Leuctra, and Chaeronea were all exaggerated. Of the eleven surviving ancient accounts that mention the Sacred Band by name, he separates them into two groups: The five "non-erotic" accounts that do not mention that the Sacred Band was composed of lovers (e.g. Diodorus); and the six "erotic" accounts which do (of which Plutarch's is the most complete). He argues that the latter six were all "moralistic" texts, with the exception of Polyaenus, deriving from an early 4th century BC tradition on writing about eros (romantic love). He believes Plutarch's account ultimately derives from Plato's works, and not from local Boeotian historians. He particularly focuses on Plutarch's use of distancing language like "as they say" and "some say" (ὤς φασι, ἔνιοι δέ φασι) which implies that Plutarch was himself unwilling to vouch for the historicity of the Sacred Band. Thus the account of the Sacred Band being composed of lovers (or the account of the Sacred Band itself) were likely to be merely part of the panegyric traditions surrounding Pelopidas and were not based on reality.

He also blames Ephorus and Callisthenes (particularly the latter) for embellishments on the roles of the Sacred Band in the battles of Tegyra, Leuctra, and Chaeronea; pointing out that the two have been ridiculed by other ancient scholars for their poor grasp of military affairs. He argues that Xenophon's account was more accurate and "sensitive to the tactical realities of fourth-century warfare", dismissing other scholar's views that Xenophon was anti-Theban. He views the silence of Xenophon and other contemporary Athenians on the roles of Pelopidas and the Sacred Band as an indication that they weren't involved in any special manner (if at all) in those battles. Where they do mention an elite Theban infantry unit, they do not call it by name, and thus they were likely to be merely an ordinary elite corps of picked troops common to Greek armies during that period. Though instances of homosexual relations in such units are common, they are not systematic. And finally he dismisses the number of modern scholars who identified the Lion of Chaeronea as the burial site of the Sacred Band. He points out that Plutarch, a native of Chaeronea, makes no mention of the monument; while Pausanias simply refers to it as the graves of Thebans in the Battle of Chaeronea and do not mention the Sacred Band by name.

The historian William Armstrong Percy III argues that Leitao fails to admit that the Sacred Band rests on "authority less shaky than many things accepted from ancient historiography." Noted classical historians like John Kinloch Anderson and George Cawkwell also accept Plutarch's Life of Pelopidas, which contains the most detailed account of the Sacred Band, as a highly reliable account of the events, in contrast to Xenophon's patchy treatment of Theban history. Other noted classical scholars like Frank William Walbank and Felix Jacoby have also defended Callisthenes' descriptions of land battles in the past. Walbank commented that his depictions of the Battle of the Eurymedon, Gaugamela, and Tegyra (all surviving through Plutarch) are quite adequate. While Jacoby, responding to claims that Callisthenes was unreliable in accounts of land battles in contrast to Xenophon, pointed out that Callisthenes did accurately describe the details on the Battle of Tegyra. He summarized his opinion of Callisthenes' account with "Sie ist panegyrisch gehalten, aber sachlich nicht unrichtig. " This is echoed by the historians John Buckler and Hans Beck who conclude that "In sum, Plutarch's description of the battle of Tegyra does justice both to the terrain of Polygyra and to the information gleaned from his fourth-century sources. There is nothing implausible or unusual in Plutarch's account, and every reason to consider it one of the best of his battle pieces." They also had the same opinion of his account on Leuctra, dismissing assertions that his accounts were confused or rhetorical.

The historian Gordon S. Shrimpton further provides an explanation for Xenophon's silence on much of Theban history. He notes that all the surviving contemporary accounts of Thebes during the period of Theban hegemony between 371 to 341 BC were often highly critical; with their failures ridiculed and their accomplishments usually being downplayed or omitted altogether. For instance, the Athenian Isocrates (436–338 BC) in his Plataicus (which details the destruction of Plataea by the Thebans), makes no mention of the Theban victory in Leuctra, and harshly reviles Thebes throughout. His later work Archidamus mention Leuctra briefly, and only to criticize Thebans as being incompetent and incapable of capitalizing on their rise to power. The same sentiments are echoed by the Athenians Demosthenes (384–322 BC) and Antisthenes (c. 445–365 BC). Xenophon, another Athenian, is the only contemporary who grudgingly notes some Theban accomplishments, and even then, never in-depth and with numerous omissions. His only mentions of Pelopidas and Epaminondas by name, for example, were very brief and shed no light on their previous accomplishments. Indeed, the historians Bruce LaForse and John Buckler have noted that the character and accomplishments of Epaminondas were so unassailable that there is no known hostile account of him in ancient sources. The worst unfriendly writers like Xenophon and Isocrates could do was omit his accomplishments in their work altogether.

Shrimpton believes that the apparent indifference of earlier authors was due to the general hatred by other Greeks against the Thebans who had medized (i.e. allied with the Persians) in the second Persian invasion in 480 BC and again in 368 BC. Athenians, in particular, held a special contempt for Thebes due to the latter's actions in the Peloponnesian War; as well as the Thebans' destruction of Plataea in 373 BC, and her invasion of the Athenian-allied Boeotian city of Oropus in 366 BC. Demosthenes records this sentiment very clearly in a disclaimer in his speech On the Navy (354 BC): "It is difficult to speak to you about, because you have such a hearty dislike of them that you would not care to hear any good of them, even if it were true."

This sentiment changed in 339 BC, when Thebes abruptly severed her alliance with Philip II (after being convinced by a speech from Demosthenes) and joined the Athenian-led Pan-Hellenic alliance against Macedonia. The result being the annihilation of the Sacred Band in Chaeronea and the destruction of the city of Thebes itself in 335 BC by the Macedonians. In light of these actions, Athenians eventually changed their opinions on Thebes, now regarding her in sympathetic light as a fallen ally. It was during this period that much of the accounts favorable to Thebans were at last written. Works by authors like Anaximenes of Lampsacus, Aristoxenus, Callisthenes, Daimachus, Dinarchus, and Ephorus are believed to have been written between 330 to 310 BC. Except for Dinarchus, almost all of them have been lost to history or survive only in fragments. Among them are Ephorus and Callisthenes who were contemporaries of the Theban hegemony and the Sacred Band. The works of the latter two, however, survived long enough for later authors like Plutarch, Diodorus, and Polyaenus to base their works on.