Introduction
In his article, Kyle (2003) investigates one of the most disputable questions about Athens and Sparta, their political and sporting rivalry, and the role of women, or, in fact, one woman, in these processes. The author analyzes the victory of Kyniska of Sparta in the Olympics from the point of view of geopolitics rather than sports. Based on scholarly evidence, Kyle (2003) argues that winning the chariot race had little, if nothing, to do with sports.
The scholar remarks that Kyniska’s victory could be treated as a pioneering attempt of females to set their foot in predominantly patriarchal matters and as an intricate manipulation by her brother, Agesilaus. Kyle’s (2003) thesis statement is that Kyniska was instead a “political pawn” rather than a “proud pioneer” (p. 183). The thesis fits within the stream of arguments about the topic. Other scholars studying this issue also stated that there was a very vague relation to sports in Kyniska’s victory and a highly close connection to political dominance (Kyle, 2003). The author hopes to contribute to the topic by analyzing various facts and pieces of evidence and defending his point of the debate.
Article Summary
The author’s argument throughout the paper dwells on the internal and external affairs in and between Ancient Greece and Sparta. Kyle (2003) states that Kyniska’s victory, however promising for the females and their societal position, did not live up to this promise. In order to explain his position, the author gives a detailed account of the political environment of the time and explains who Kyniska and Agesilaus were.
Also, Kyle (2003) portrays Alcibiades as the main rival of Kyniska’s brother. If, at the beginning of the article, Kyle (2003) offers two alternatives as to why Kyniska’s participation in the Olympics was possible and why her victory was significant, by the end of his introduction, the author clearly states that he tends to believe in non-athletic motivations behind Kyniska’s competitiveness.
The article’s main argument is that Kyniska did not entirely come to her victory by herself. The author considers that she would have never even tried to anticipate had it not been for her brother and his eagerness to outperform his main competitor. Agesilaus of Sparta could not beat Alcibiades of Athens as the latter was in a much better physical shape and was known to have won the chariot races before (Kyle, 2003).
Meanwhile, letting his sister compete would place Agesilaus in a favorable position. If she won, she would be considered “unique,” whereas if she lost, it would merely be “a woman losing” (Kyle, 2003, p. 190). Hence, Kyniska’s victory, which was “a notable aberration,” was a favorable outcome, but her brother would not be distraught if she did not win (Kyle, 2003, p. 184). Kyle (2003) characterizes Kyniska as a representative of a wealthy family acting on her brother’s behalf in the political realm rather than a true fighter for female rights in sports.
The researcher defies the notion that Kyniska’s victory had any impact on female participation in sports by thoroughly explaining and providing ample evidence. Kyle (2003) pays due attention to the fact that chariot races were not about physical excellence but wealth. Kyniska, the winner, was not even allowed to observe the games. The author notes that the woman was only playing her role as dictated by her brother (Kyle, 2003). Although her victory epigram states that she erected the statue in commemoration of her victory, the words “Sparta,” “kings,” “fathers,” and “brothers” appear in the first line. At the same time, her reference to herself occurs only after them (Kyle, 2003, p. 183). To explain the dependent role that Kyniska played in the affairs, Kyle (2003) offers insights into the political arena of the time and dwells on the personalities of the key players Alcibiades, Agesilaus, and Kyniska.
The author mentions that while the woman had some interest and skills in sports, there is little evidence of that. As Kyle (2003) remarks, there is too little detail on Kyniska’s life, which results in the danger of “enthusiastic extrapolations” (p. 184). The article’s primary focus is that Agesilaus, being not physically fit and afraid to lose to Alcibiades, decided to make his sister a contestant. The type of sports Kyniska won did not presuppose any personal dexterity since chariot races were judged by the horses’ owner and their ability to breed a perfect race (Kyle, 2003).
Hence, the female winner did not change the “enduring ban” on women at the game even though she technically gained a victory (Kyle, 2003, p. 190). Moreover, Agesilaus did not consider chariot races a crucial sporting event since he was more dedicated to military training and highly valued skilled cavalry, finding racing “merely a wasteful matter of wealth” (Kyle, 2003, p. 188). As such, the author’s argument about the political rather than feministic nature of Kyniska’s victory seems relevant.
Another significant aspect of Kyle’s (2003) argument is explaining the political life during Kyniska’s victory. The scholar discusses two aspects of Kyniska’s prominent role in the Olympics. Firstly, she was the first woman to enter the equestrian competition, which traditionally included only elite males. Secondly, and not less importantly, she had to do with Sparta’s foreign relations with Athens and Elis (Kyle, 2003). However, the researcher consistently explains that irrespective of these issues, Kyniska’s “anomalous success” did not change women’s rights to enter the Olympics (Kyle, 2003, p. 190). Therefore, the nature of her victory is mainly related to her brother’s political ambitions rather than her emancipation interests.
In his article, the author relies upon many primary and secondary sources. The number of pages with footnotes almost equals the number of pages of the actual article. Kyle (2003) gives examples from original ancient texts and contemporary research articles, book chapters, and monographs. He uses primary and secondary citations to make his arguments reliable and prove his points. Since the type of research chosen by the author falls within the perspective and opinion category, no methodology is present.
Critique
It is necessary to note that although there is no methodology in the article, the clarity of structure and strength of the argument provided throughout the paper are its assets. Kyle (2003) is an experienced historian, which is easy to trace when reading the article. Even someone without prior knowledge of the historical and political aspects of Kyniska’s victory in the Olympics can understand the mechanisms behind the events due to the author’s extensive use of factual evidence and examples. The researcher marks every section, preparing the reader for what angle of the research issue will be revealed in each.
Primary and secondary sources are highly effective, each adding to the trustworthiness of Kyle’s (2003) analysis and enriching the reader’s knowledge of the subject matter. He provides many citations and quotes to back up his arguments and also includes a professional evaluation of sources within the article. For instance, when depicting Kyniska’s personality, Kyle (2003) states that Pausanias is the “least credible” source despite being the latest one (p. 186).
Another valuable observation of the author, which is one of many, is the analysis of Agesilaus’ choice of tactics. Kyle (2003) reckons that Agesilaus “drew his inspiration from epic poetry” (p. 190). Further, the author notes that Kyniska served as a role model for the development of Greek sports literature, in which there were indications of it being shameful for men to lose to women, along with other allusions to Kyniska (Kyle, 2003). These and other examples serve as a solid basis for the scholar’s scope of knowledge and analytical skills. It is not viable to think that he missed any sources that could be relevant to the topic.
Conclusion
The conclusion is warranted not only by synthesizing the key facts but also by using sources. Kyle (2003) does not merely reiterate the article’s main ideas but also provides strong final arguments on the topic. He mentions that Kyniska’s participation in the race did not pursue the goal of liberating the games and empowering female athletes (Kyle, 2003). Instead, she was following her brother’s political agenda. The professional argumentation and support from sources influence the conclusion and the article about the first female Olympic winner.
Reference
Kyle, Donald G. 2003. ““The Only Woman in All Greece”: Kyniska, Agesilaus, Alcibiades and Olympia.” Journal of Sport History 30 (2): 183-203.