Nietzsche often does not quote and or refer to his sources. At best you can say that he expects to pick up the references, and at worst you can say he is simply purloining the ideas of others without due credit and burnishing his own flame at the expense of others.
One might say, for a man interested in genealogy he's singularly uninterested in the genealogy of his own; perhaps, he sees himself sui generis? That would figure given his eulogy of ubermenschen - and did he count himself amongst them? Maybe, maybe, maybe - we don't know! But he certainly made himself out to be something uber uniqo and uber fantastico; that Greek spirit certainly went his head but whereas most sober up, one wonders whether he ever did...
For example, here's something that I've just read from a footnote in an essay by Ortega y Gasset:
In passing, let us seize the opportunity to see, from the altitude of this vision, the element of frivolity, and even of vulgarity, in N's famous imperative: 'Live dangerously'. Which furthermore, is not N's but the exaggeration of an old Italian Renaissance saying, Aretinos famous motto: Vivere risolutamente. Because N does not say 'Live on the alert', which would have been good, but 'Live dangerously.' And this shows that despite his genius, he did not know that the very substance of our life is danger and hence it is rather affected, and supererogatory, to propose as something new, added, and original that we should seek and collect danger. An idea, furthermore, which is typical of that period called 'fin de siècle'
And mind you, Ortega happened to be a fan of Nietzsche! That didn't stop him from disapproving of his philosophy of excess, of turning words upside down, of giving words wings, and of borrowing the words of others - unacknowledged. I'd have whispered in his ear - Nietschze, do you remember the story of Icarus? But would a man like him take any notice? One very much doubts it.
I also recall reading somewhere that an Irish playwright and politician - unfortunately I don't recall the name right now - in the 17th C was critical of Machivelli describing Christianity as a religion of slaves. This of course is interesting in the context of Nietzsches philosophy as he famous for saying this (and then his followers and disciples - they don't seem often to get far past this point for some reason). The playwrights riposte, and maybe the politician in him too, was that Christianity made it that much more difficult for tyrants to rule; that they so often do, shows the strength of tyranny...
Martin Luthor King said this philosophy was something he had to struggle through when he was doing his thesis in the seminary. That critique obviously hit home - one might say as it was meant to. Coming from a world only recently emancipated from slavery but still living like second class or third class citizens - it would, wouldn't it? I mean not only did he come from a family of slaves, and a race of slaves, and that he was the colour of a slave but he was metaphysically a slave! Not just a slave legally, or in fact, but slave all the way through to his soul. No wonder, it jolted him. I don't recall what he thought in response to it except that he was able to go past it. Given your interest in the challenges that N puts to traditional morality of one kind or another it might be worth looking to see what he had to say about his own struggles with this.