Bret Devereaux

Now, obviously, the Greeks - and the Spartans - have an idea of the subservience or service of an individual to the community, but it is expressed as a obedience owed (and trained or enforced by violence) or a 'kratos' (power, strength) exerted by/to that community

Instead, the key focus is on the ἀγών ('Agon') - the contest, the competition, the struggle - the moment where two individuals, or two communities compete, with one proving its excellence (arete) over the other.

And the basic Greek assumption that comes out again and again in their writing is that all humans and all communities are continually seeking agones as opportunities to prove or demonstrate their excellence with the goal of being 'inferior to none.'

These are massive philosophical differences that Pressfield is just casually collapsing and pretending that the assumptions being made are universal and universally applicable. They very clearly are not!

Lendon's book is actually great for this, because he juxtaposes the development of Greek martial values - which have to undergo some changes as their warfare changes! - and Roman martial values. And they're really different, despite the two cultures being in conversation!

Roman virtus isn't Greek arete - the former is an impelling force, the later a quality of skill. Latin has 'discrimen' - the 'testing point' or 'point of decision' - as the nearest match for 'agon' but the 'discrimen' might not be a contest at all.

'Discrimen' means 'seperate' at its core (we get our word discriminate from it) so it has that sense of 'showing the difference' (like English 'proving one's quality'), but no contest is required. A firefighter battling a fire is experiencing a moment of discrimen.

So, to conclude this thread for tonight, I think Pressfield has been very badly served by his theoretical framework. He's shaving the corners off of square blocks to make them fit into a round hole which was never very well made in the first place.