War and the religious, social and political perceptions of the ancient Greeks

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2004, during a period when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although the quality of this article does not match that of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information for students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article is based, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academic historians. Despite the author’s best intentions to present this essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that readers consult the web for additional information on any unfamiliar words or specialised vocabulary.

The author apologises for the article's structure and the lack of proper academic referencing. In its original form, this essay was intended to be a synthesis of information from different volumes on ancient Greek history, all citing the same sources. The bibliography for this article is basic, matching the requirements of an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work into English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was consulted from translated Greek copies.

Introduction

War in Ancient Greece was common and part of everyday life. It affected the lives of people of all ages, particularly adult men, and served as a means of defending the freedom, autonomy, and self-sufficiency of city-states. In a context of intense economic, political and social competition among Greek-speaking city-states, confined in a geographical area constantly threatened by ‘barbarian’ peoples, the Greeks were fully accustomed to war and treated it as an everyday duty. It is perhaps no coincidence that the philosopher Heraclitus stated that “war is the father of everything”.

This article discusses the relationship between war and the religious, social and political perceptions of the ancient Greeks, at both theoretical and practical levels. The case studies and textual sources employed in this article primarily come from the Classical period, which provides most of the written evidence. The only source of information used from the Archaic period is the Homeric epics.

The discussion is divided into three sections. The first section presents the relationship between war and the religious perceptions of the ancient Greeks. It discusses moral and religious attitudes favoured by war; the role of religion in strategic decision-making in battle; the issues of faith and superstition on the battlefield; and, finally, the relationship between gods and people during conflict. The second section presents the relationship between war and ancient Greek social perceptions. It discusses the ethical obligation of ancient Greeks to defend their homelands, the virtues that warriors were expected to fulfil, and the importance of cooperation and solidarity during war. The second section also touches on the social values and social stratification of Greek city-states, which affected their military structures. Finally, the third section discusses the relationship between war and ancient Greek political perceptions. It presents the similarities and differences between civic and military institutions of city-states, and the role of different social groups in politics and war.

War and the religious perceptions of the ancient Greeks

The ancient Greeks combined war with religion from the early years of their history. Their gods and heroes were attributed warlike qualities, evident in mythology and the Homeric epics. God Ares (or Mars) was predominantly the god of war. Every attack of an infantry formation (with the exception of the Lacedaemonians) was accompanied by the sounds of flutes, paeanae and cries in honour of Enyalius Ares. Athena was primarily known as the goddess of wisdom, but in all ancient Greek representations, she was depicted in armour. In such depictions, she holds a shield and a spear, and wears an Attic helmet. Hercules was also a hero whose accomplishments were mainly related to war. Ancient Greek artists depicted him holding a warrior’s bat, while ancient myths regarded his name as a synonym of bravery, courage, strength, impeccable technique in battle and self-sacrifice.

In Homer’s Iliad, the gods stand by the side of both armies and often take part in armed conflicts. Zeus, Apollo and Aphrodite are helping the Trojans while Hera, Athena and Thetis are by the side of the Achaeans. During the conflict, Zeus strikes his lightning to boost the Trojans' morale; Hera protests to Zeus for his actions when she sees the Achaeans retreating; Athena actively helps Odysseus; Thetis praises Zeus to save Achilles from death; Apollo treats Glafkos’ injuries on the battlefield and discreetly damages Patroclus’ armour in order to expose him to Euphorbus’ spear.

War for the ancient Greeks was not just cold-blooded slaughter. It was subject to a set of rules defined by decency and justice, which emphasised respect for the gods and opponents. Any violation of these rules was considered an act of sacrilege (hubris) and was expected to be punished by the gods; therefore, in ancient times, the proclamation of the beginning and the end of armed conflict was subject to a series of legitimate procedures.

The beginning of the war was accompanied by sacrifices and dedications to the gods. In Homer, Agamemnon offers to sacrifice his own daughter to bring wind upon the sails of the Achaean warships, while in Rhapsody, H’ Poseidon is resentful because the Achaeans begin warfare by constructing fortifications without offering the slightest sacrifice to the gods. In addition to offering sacrifices, which remained a custom for declaring war until the Roman period, the Greeks followed a series of other religious acts, functions, and symbols.

There was respect for the enemy’s holy places, which were not to be destroyed or looted. Sacred individuals such as messengers, pilgrims and refugees were treated with respect and were never killed. The opponents always respected their vows in the name of a deity. There was a condemnation of sheer brutality, which unfortunately did not continue into the Classical period. An example of this adoption of sheer brutality was the destruction of Melos by the Athenians in 416 BC, where all Melian men were executed, while Melian women and children were sold as slaves. Finally, the enemy was offered the opportunity to collect the bodies of their dead soldiers and to perform all necessary religious ceremonies for their burial.

An important religious element in war was the consultation of oracles in making strategic decisions. Before fighting against the Persians, the Athenians and the Spartans visited the oracle of Pythian Apollo at Delphi to obtain favourable advice. The oracle spoke about the ‘wooden walls’ being the solution towards victory, and this advice was translated differently among the leaders of the Athenian army. Themistocles believed that the ‘wooden walls’, which were to protect Athens from its invaders, were not actual walls but warships; and indeed, Athens presented the most powerful fleet of the time. Whatever the oracle’s advice, it always played an essential role in leading the army into battle and also affected the morale of non-fighting civilians.

According to popular beliefs, performing all necessary religious sacrifices was not enough to guarantee victory in battle. A religious general, such as Nikias, always carried the sacred icons of the city’s protector-gods with him during his campaigns, including a portable hearth with the city’s ‘undisturbed flame’, a sacred fire that was kept burning throughout the year at the Prytaneion, which was one of the city’s most important administrative buildings. Furthermore, a group of oracles would follow the army in order to recognise any signs from the gods that could define the battle’s outcome. The Lacedaemonian army in the battle of Plataea, for example, suffered a rain of hostile arrows but remained silent in their positions with their shields to their sides until the oracles identified the right sign sent by the gods to commence their attack. Similar practices are also noted in the Iliad, which suggests the importance of this institution in warfare during earlier periods.

Prior to the beginning of battle, the generals and the oracles conducted a religious ceremony where the battle’s omens were read and the enemy’s spoils were dedicated to the gods in order to gain their favour. As it normally happened, after victory, the fortunes of the losing side were decided by the winning side. The winners would set up a tumulus to commemorate their victory, decorated with the enemy’s weapons. The most valuable spoils were gathered from the battlefield and were dedicated to the gods. For example, the temple of the Pythian Apollo in Delphi was decorated with large quantities of golden spoils, which the Greeks gathered from dead Persians after their victory at Plataea in 479 BC. At the end of a battle, the enemy’s prisoners and injured soldiers were killed in a form of human sacrifice to honour the gods. This practice was gradually abandoned during the Classical period, as evidenced by the survival of Athenian prisoners after their defeat in Sicily in 415-413 BC. Instead, such prisoners were either sold as slaves or forced to work at the Syracusian quarries.

Wars in Greek antiquity began with the official announcement of hostilities between two adversary states by an envoy-preacher. A similar practice is followed internationally nowadays, requiring an official written declaration of war under specific circumstances to legitimise a conflict. As with any declaration of war, the ancient Greeks followed the same procedure to announce the end of hostilities. Peace terms were also announced by an envoy-preacher and were always accompanied by ceremonial libations, which formalised the peace treaty in a religious manner. An example of such a treaty was the Thirty Years’ Peace between Athens and Sparta in 446/5 BC, which signified the end of the first Peloponnesian War (460-446/5 BC). Of course, the terms of this peace treaty were only satisfied briefly, as new hostilities marked the beginning of the second Peloponnesian War (431-421 BC).

Finally, the military training of youths (the Eirenes in Sparta or the Euphebes in Athens) was connected with worship and a series of religious ceremonies, which gave the inauguration of new fighters into the army a sacred character and religious symbolism. In Athens, the teenage recruits (the Euphebes) swore an oath at the temple of the goddess Aglauros, located to the north of the Acropolis, with their hands spread across the temple’s altar. In Sparta, the teenage trainees (the Eirenes) were subject to a whipping ceremony at the altar of the temple of Artemis Orthia.

War and the social perceptions of the ancient Greeks

In antiquity, the familiarity of average Greek males with war was a given fact. It was dictated by everyday internal (from other Greeks) and external (from non-Greeks) military threats. In this climate of ongoing conflict among city-states, military virtue and readiness for war were highly valued among citizens.

In the textual evidence from the Archaic period, and more specifically in Homer, the protagonists in battle (noted as the heroes) fight for their personal honour and profit, which is the main characteristic of ‘big men societies’, such as those described in the Iliad. According to the oral tradition, the Trojan war begins with Helen’s abduction by Paris, an act that insults Menelaus’ honour and provokes war. During the armed conflict between the Achaeans and the Trojans, Achilles decides not to participate in battle as he has suffered Agamemnon’s injustice while splitting the spoils. These two examples show that wars in the Homeric cosmos were matters of personal honour and profit among members of the palatial elite.

Despite the idealised heroic character of individual duels in Homer, which could be attributed to some supposed Mycenaean inspiration, the reader can detect social values and ideals that characterise later periods. For example, Hector considers that mutual faith in defending their homeland is the best omen for victory; therefore, he stresses to his fellow warriors that a mutual belief as such stands beyond divine intervention. During another scene in the Iliad, Agamemnon exclaims angrily to his soldiers, “Shame on you, Argives”, when he realises that the Achaeans are not fighting against the Trojans who set fire to their ships. Such anger is justifiable if one considers that warships are state property, and therefore, every citizen-warrior is obliged to protect them. In general, the social values in Homer reflect views more commonly encountered after the 6th century BC.

During the Archaic and Classical periods, the population of city-states increased, accompanied by the widening of social groups. The new social conditions dictated a revision in the conduct of warfare. Defending the state ceased to be the main occupation of kings and aristocrats and became a compulsory duty of every adult male who could carry arms. The combat values of previous centuries, which were limited to personal honour and profit, underwent radical changes. New warfare aimed at homeland protection became the collective concern of every male citizen, regardless of military experience. The new social model demanded that courage and bravery were the main virtues of all adult males without exception.

A need to increase the number of soldiers to defend the city-state more effectively led to the emergence of a new category of warriors: infantry, or hoplites. The hoplites were adult males recruited from the least prominent social strata. Along with their other everyday activities (professional or social), they were responsible for the city-state’s security and served in the army during defensive or offensive wars. The hoplites were foot soldiers who fought by holding a large shield with their left hand and a spear or sword with their right hand. This specific equipment was used in a way that meant each hoplite could not survive as an autonomous unit on the battlefield, as his right side would always be exposed to the enemy. The need to cover their right flank with another shield held by an adjacent hoplite led to the formation of the infantry phalanx, the first sophisticated military formation in European history.

Within the hoplite phalanx, cooperation and solidarity among soldiers ensured its effective functioning. Furthermore, the competitive character of ancient Greek society led individual soldiers to pursue recognition from their companions and to gain honour through acts of self-sacrifice and bravery. The competition among soldiers over who would honour their homeland the most became the ethical basis for all citizens, even in times of peace. The values taught to the Athenian Ephebes during their service in the army, for example, were commitment to their homeland, devotion to the collective operational framework of the phalanx, and finally self-sacrifice.

Flight from battle was considered the greatest of all shames. A man who had purposely fled the battlefield was emphatically called ripsaspis (shield-dropper), as in order to retreat, he had to abandon his shield first. Dropping a shield down would immediately put the entire formation in danger, as the covering mechanism of the phalanx would become useless. The Spartan mothers wished their sons to return from war carrying their shields, and, if not, to be brought back dead on them. Such an attitude stressed the importance of solidarity in defending the phalanx.

In ancient Greek societies, physical exercise and keeping healthy were expected of all men. A healthy body was not only a matter of beauty and personal adornment but also a necessity for coping with the hardships of war. In Athens, the training of young children in wrestling and javelin-throwing was a manifestation of military preparation. In Sparta, the agoge (education) of children included a series of harsh trials and deprivations to prepare them for the rigours of military campaigns, familiarise them with extreme conditions, and teach them austerity and self-discipline.

Along with physical exercise, cultivating the mind was considered an indispensable element that produced good men. In ancient Greece, the word kalos (=good) was used to describe a good warrior and citizen. Goodwill (kalokagathia) in war was the most desirable virtue of fighters. Socrates, who was regarded by his students as an important teacher and philosopher, was admired by Alcibiades for his spiritual virtue and cultivated mind, and was always admired for the prudence and bravery he demonstrated during the battle of Potidaea in 432 BC.

Xenia (=hospitality) was another important social value that the ancient Greeks combined with the military needs of the city-state. Although it was informal, xenia aimed at fostering friendships; in its official form, it was meant to build military alliances and coalitions. From Homer onward, formal xenia was the only way to maintain diplomatic relations among kings, states, and other social groups to gain support in war. The acceptance of formal xenia obligated the host to assist his formal host in the event of a conflict. This practice continued during the Archaic period and the formation of the first city-states. During that time, formal hospitality between private individuals generated friendships at a personal level, which served as forms of devotion not only to the ritualised friend/host but also to his city-state. This way, personal friendship was converted to a formal alliance at the state level.

Male homosexuality in ancient Greece was also influenced by the military character and the military organisation of early societies. In fully militarised city-states, such as Sparta and the cities of Crete, the erotic relationships between young trainees and their significantly older adult instructors were an integral part of their military training. Finally, it is recorded that the men comprising the Sacred Company of the Theban army were connected with each other through “special friendships”, which aimed towards homogeneity and the greatest martial performance of this military unit.

Military tasks and financial obligations for defence spending were allocated by the state based on citizens' financial status. In the timocratic systems of Greek antiquity, as Aristotle would define them, it was perfectly normal that each citizen’s military contributions were calculated based on his income and/or social position.

In Sparta, the group of the Homoioi (=equals) constituted the regular army, consisting of all Lacedaemonian male citizens with the right to land ownership (clergy) who served as heavily armed infantrymen. Their numbers were small due to the restricted nature of their social group, and they were further reduced after the Peloponnesian War by casualties, which caused devastating problems for Sparta. The Spartan army was then supplemented by soldiers recruited from the Perioikoi and by lightly armed Helotes. For Sparta, it was only in 424 BC that a small unit of 400 horsemen was first created.

In Athens, military expenditures and duties were allocated according to a timocratic social division, which was originally regulated by Solon in 594 BC. The group of the Pentakosiomedimnoi assumed the costly task of equipping and maintaining the Athenian warships. More specifically, the institution of Trierarchy demanded that each member of the most affluent Athenian social group assume the costs of maintaining, equipping, crew-recruiting and hiring a commander for one warship (trireme) and for one year. Often, such expenses amounted to the substantial annual sum of 6,000 drachmas. The second social group, the Triakosiomedimnoi, consisted of wealthy landlords, who manned the cavalry and paid martial levies in money. In fact, this social group, which was also called Hippeis (=horsemen), was characterised by their ability to breed and maintain their own horses privately, which were essential means for serving in the cavalry. An additional privilege of the first two social groups was the assignment of senior military tasks, particularly to men considered economically strong. It is a fact that in Athens, high military offices were held by a limited number of citizens who were members of prominent, wealthy aristocratic families. This practice was combined with the broader perception of this period, namely that the rich aristocrats were, by nature, experienced in administration. The third social group, the Diakosiomedimnoi or Zeugitae, contributed money to the military and at the same time, they consisted of the Athenian heavily armed infantry. Members of this specific group had the financial capacity to obtain at their own expense their armour and weapons to be part of the hoplite phalanx. Finally, the fourth social group, the Thetes, was expected to offer only their personal services to the army. The Thetes manned some auxiliary units and served as archers or slingers. They had low status in the army, not only because of their social position, but also because they fought from a distance, without direct contact with the enemy and without demonstrating their true value as warriors. However, during the Peloponnesian War, their contribution in battle was greatly appreciated, particularly by the Pelastae, a unit of lightly armed foot soldiers who could attack and efficiently neutralise the enemy’s formations. Finally, the Thetes' greatest contribution was their service as oarsmen on Athenian warships, which made Athens the first maritime power in the Greek world after the Persian Wars.

War and the political perceptions of the ancient Greeks

War in ancient Greece depended to a great extent on the political systems of the parties involved. The type of government and the political structure of city-states often determined their military organisation.

The role of monarchy in warfare is presented in its ideal form in the Homeric epics. Homeric kings fight to prove their prowess and to demonstrate their martial skills to the eyes of their soldiers, who also happen to be their subordinates. Although men follow their kings in battle, glory is reserved only for the monarchs, who are the only ones named heroes (e.g., the heroes of Lycia, kings Glaucus and Sarpedon).

In aristocratic political systems, the most prominent role in battle was played by the cavalry, composed of wealthy nobles. Thessaly was an ethnos ruled by regional aristocracies and was renowned for its mighty Thessalian cavalry. By contrast, in a state of citizen-hoplites, the most important roles in politics and warfare were played by small landowners, who fought as heavily armed foot soldiers and made up the hoplite phalanx. Each hoplite in the ancient infantry was treated as equal among equals. The best-known example of a state formed by citizen-hoplites was Sparta. The Spartan army consisted of males with full political rights, the Homoioi (= equals), and some civilians with limited political rights, the Perioikoi (= those living in the periphery). The army’s leader was one of Sparta’s two kings, and its supervisors were the Five Ephors. Both kings and ephors belonged to the same social group, the Homoioi. The ephors were over 60 years old, an unusual fact given the high Spartan battle mortality rate. Another paradox in Sparta was that its two kings, who were also the army's chiefs, came exclusively from two prominent Spartan families, the Agidae and the Evripondidae. This institution was mandatory, and no questions were ever asked regarding the leadership skills and administrative capacities of each king.

Finally, in democratic regimes, the contribution to military expenses was determined by a strict timocratic system. As mentioned in the previous section, the city-state’s annual defence spending and the military obligations of its citizens were determined according to the income of different social groups. In democratic Athens, all soldiers were also citizens with full political rights. This meant that only those who offered their military services to their homeland were able to participate in the city-state’s communal decisions. Regardless of their income, all male adult citizens participated in the People’s Assembly (Ekklesia) and the Supreme Court (Heliaia). These two political privileges could not have been won without the hoplite reform and the expansion of the military body, which demanded an expansion of the city-state’s political body.

In Athens, military positions were determined by citizens’ financial contributions to the state. After Solon’s reforms in 594 BC, the first two social groups, the Pentakosiomedimnoi and the Hippeis, which could contribute financially to the maintenance of the fleet and the cavalry, had full access to senior military posts. Following Cleisthenes' reforms in 508/7 BC, the third social group, the Zeugitae, also gained access to higher military positions. The greatest advantage of Athenian democracy was that, although civilian offices were appointed by lottery, the supreme generals were elected by popular vote after examining their individual qualities as leaders of the army. Of course, it is worth noting that, despite the Zeugitae's access to higher military offices, most Athenian generals came from aristocratic families of prominent landowners.

An important innovation was introduced into the newly born democratic system in Athens during the time of Pericles (443-429 BC). The increasing power of the Athenian navy was due to the service of low-income citizens as oarsmen, who did not own any land. The Thetes' service in the Athenian fleet was the main reason for their increasing political power. As naval warfare became more important, so did the political power of the Thetes. Hence, the gradual development of the Athenian navy promoted the political dominion of a group with low economic and social status.

Finally, the connection between politics and the ideology of warfare in Greek societies is clearly noted in Plato’s political philosophy. Circa 380 BC, Plato visualised an imaginary yet ideal political regime, the Republic, which he divided into three social strata: the Producers, the Guardians and the Rulers. The Guardians, who were professional military personnel, were considered socially superior to the Producers’ group. Their role was to guarantee the security and smooth functioning of the state. The Rulers’ group originated with the Guardians, and this specific arrangement, symbolised by Plato’s approach, was a political necessity: those expected to govern the state in the future needed to be aware of the state’s military matters.

Conclusions

This paper discusses some social perceptions of the ancient Greeks and how they influenced the course of warfare. The paper offered a brief discussion of the idea of war, both as a theoretical concept and as a practical necessity, connected to three broader domains: religion, society, and politics.

In terms of religious practice, the conduct of war in ancient Greece had to be ratified by the gods. This meant that ceremonial sacrifices, oracular advice, vows, tributes to the sanctuaries, and respect for the gods were necessary to invite divine intervention in favour of victory. The Greeks, whether in internal or external conflicts, always took care of their religious obligations before going to war and upon returning.

In relation to society, war profoundly affected the way of life and the development of thought in ancient Greek communities. Physical exercise, cultivation of the mind, idealisation of one’s homeland, competition, cooperation, and the pursuit of virtue and honour in battle were elements that kept the community’s morale high and enhanced its readiness against hostile attacks. In relation to social stratification, the timocratic system of most democratic city-states regulated the social and political role of each citizen. The same social stratification was reflected in the army, where soldiers' income and contributions to military spending determined their role in battle.

In terms of political structure, the effectiveness of military formations in combat depended on the unity among citizen-warriors and was also an extension of their political identity. In a monarchy, the protagonists in battle were individual warriors who matched the Homeric hero-kings and were followed by their subordinates. Aristocratic states were defended by small groups of warriors from prominent families, most of whom served in the cavalry. The use of heavily armed infantry led to the democratisation of most city-states. This development required expanding the political body to include those of less prominent descent, who served as foot soldiers; however, the greatest innovation of democratic city-states, such as Athens, was the development of navies, which allowed greater citizen participation in the armed forces.

Finally, this paper noted that at a theoretical level, political philosophy often saw that an ideal form of government depended on the city-state’s military functions.

Final remarks

This article aligns with the Francophone historical and philological approaches of the late 20th century, which primarily employed textual sources to decode and understand the ancient Greek past. The bibliography originally suggested for the completion of this study consisted almost entirely of French historians, such as Jean-Pierre Vernant, Georges Dumézil, Luis Moulinier, Claude Mossé, Yvon Garlan, and Jacqueline de Romilly; therefore, the article is the thought-product of a specific academic approach and presents specific interpretative problems.

It must be noted that some time after the submission of this paper, its author decided to switch sides and to specialise in Greek Early Iron Age archaeology in Britain. Although the so-called ‘Dark Age Greece’ (Snodgrass 1971) still falls within the broader field of classical studies, it is neither guided by nor dependent on the study of ancient textual sources. References to Homer and Hesiod are common; however, the archaeological approaches of the Anglophone School tend to highlight the problems of incorporating such literature in archaeology. During his own archaeological research, the author of this article continued the study of Francophone historical approaches, and his work was, to an extent, inspired by Jean-Pierre Vernant’s (1990) ‘Myth and Society in Ancient Greece’. Still, the author always believed that such approaches posed three main problems that modern historians needed to address, and, to be fair, there has been significant progress since then.

Firstly, textual sources are commonly used linearly, without considering the specific social and chronological contexts of their authors. It is not uncommon for historians to refer to Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Tyrtaeus, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Demosthenes, Plutarch, Polybius, Dio Chrysostom and Procopius as if they all lived during the same era, and as if they all reflected the same social reality. Such approaches tend to ignore the internal transformations of Greek civilisation and favour the use of textual evidence in a linear, selective and rather abstract manner.

Secondly, textual sources are used without regard for the specific circumstances that characterise the birth and development of different literary genres. Unfortunately, some historians forget that poetry, philosophy, comedy, and historiography are different types of literature, serving different human needs and employing different means of expression. As one would normally expect, the borderline between reality and fiction, fact and imagination, logic and emotion, is probably shifting when comparing, for example, poetry and political philosophy. As noted earlier, such shifts are likely influenced by the social conditions of the periods during which different authors lived.

Thirdly, textual sources are often used without comparison with existing archaeological evidence. This approach creates the false impression that texts offer objective insight into the past, whereas in reality, they reflect the social, political, and ideological background of specific authors and may not reflect popular views of the time. Unfortunately, historians' omission of archaeological evidence stems from the legacy of Classicism in academic thought: on many occasions, archaeology is still viewed as the servant of philology and incorporated into historical approaches selectively, only when it proves specific arguments.

The author of this essay believes that any form of historical research should be context-specific and should also consider relevant archaeological evidence. Furthermore, approaches that combine factual and fictional textual evidence should be avoided. Even when multiple ancient authors from different periods discuss the same piece of information, one cannot be certain that their approaches are the same. It is likely that each ancient author’s approach to the same topic differs; information might be perceived and processed according to an author’s personal perceptions, social experiences, and period-specific social values. Finally, historians need to bear in mind that the same principle applies to modern researchers: the modern interpretation of ancient sources depends to a great extent on the personal, social and political perceptions of the scholar interacting with them.

Bibliography

Andrews, A., 1987, Ancient Greek Society, translated by A. Panagopoulos, Athens: MIET.
Coucouzeli, A., 2000, ‘The values of the ancient Greeks’, in Giannopoulos, I., Katsiamboura, G. and Coucouzeli, A. (eds.), Introduction to Greek Culture, Vol. 2, Important Milestones of the Greek Civilisation, Patra: EAP.
Fracelière, R., 1990, Public and Private Life of the Ancient Greeks, translated by G. Vandoros, Athens: Papadimas.
Garlan, Y. 1996, ‘Man and war’, in Vernant, J.-P. (ed.) The Greek Man, translated by Ch. Tasakos, Athens: Ellinika Grammata, 94-5.
Mossé, C. and Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A., 2002, A Short History of Ancient Greece, translated by L. Stephanou, Athens: Papadimas.
Snodgrass, A., 1971, The Dark Age Of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries BC, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Vernant, J.-P., 1990, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece, third edition, translated by J. Lloyd, New York: Zone Books.

Original sources

Herodotus, Histories
Homer, Iliad
Homer, Odyssey
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
Aristotle, Politics
Plato, Republic