A military historian’s analysis of Spartan myth(acoup.blog)
acoup.blog
A military historian’s analysis of Spartan myth
https://acoup.blog/category/collections/this-isnt-sparta/
95 comments
Sparta was like North Korea of Ancient Greece.
- Isolationist country.
- Young are indoctrinated in rigid militant ideology (agoge).
- Weak economy. Little to no valuable goods were produced. People not allowed to have valuable money, just worthless tokens.
- The main job of the spartan army was to suppress helots and protect the old rulers. People serve the military and the state, not the other way around.
- No creativity in warfare. Incompetents and arrogant leaders just attack with hoplites until they run out of food and have to retreat.
- Isolationist country.
- Young are indoctrinated in rigid militant ideology (agoge).
- Weak economy. Little to no valuable goods were produced. People not allowed to have valuable money, just worthless tokens.
- The main job of the spartan army was to suppress helots and protect the old rulers. People serve the military and the state, not the other way around.
- No creativity in warfare. Incompetents and arrogant leaders just attack with hoplites until they run out of food and have to retreat.
> North Korea
You cannot simply make a comparison of X democracy today (or dictatorship in this case) to a city-state of Ancient Greece. Back then it was do or die. Wars were in the daily menu. For a state that was isolated geographically (in comparison to other powerful/richer city-states like Athens or Messina, the only way to stay alive is brute force, be the ultimate killing machine. The landscape also didn't help much. Stuck between two mountains, path to the north lead nowhere, sea to the south was 30-40km away. Perfect place to make it difficult to be invaded but poor enough to not thrive.
Also.. creativity? I would need creativity to beat a MMA pro in a fight. On his side, he would just throw a punch. Creativity is for the weak! (like me)
You cannot simply make a comparison of X democracy today (or dictatorship in this case) to a city-state of Ancient Greece. Back then it was do or die. Wars were in the daily menu. For a state that was isolated geographically (in comparison to other powerful/richer city-states like Athens or Messina, the only way to stay alive is brute force, be the ultimate killing machine. The landscape also didn't help much. Stuck between two mountains, path to the north lead nowhere, sea to the south was 30-40km away. Perfect place to make it difficult to be invaded but poor enough to not thrive.
Also.. creativity? I would need creativity to beat a MMA pro in a fight. On his side, he would just throw a punch. Creativity is for the weak! (like me)
North Korea is actually a very apt analogy, because ~85% of people living in Sparta were chattel slaves... Who were, as part of a Spartan citizen's right of passage into manhood (And, in addition to that, as a fun annual holiday), were hunted, and killed for sport.
Actually, even North Korea sounds like the worker's paradise, in comparison.
(And no, this state of affairs was not common among Mediterranean city states. Athens and later Rome had a ~50% slave population, and (legally) considered killing a slave to be murder.)
As for staying alive through brute force, I may observe that your city-state may be able to stay alive more successfully, if it didn't spend most of its time warring against its own enslaved people. Which is what the Spartans did. (Hint: Hunting your slaves for sport does not endear you to them... In a state where 6 out of 7 men are enslaved, and two thirds of the freedmen hate the guts of the ruling class.)
Actually, even North Korea sounds like the worker's paradise, in comparison.
(And no, this state of affairs was not common among Mediterranean city states. Athens and later Rome had a ~50% slave population, and (legally) considered killing a slave to be murder.)
As for staying alive through brute force, I may observe that your city-state may be able to stay alive more successfully, if it didn't spend most of its time warring against its own enslaved people. Which is what the Spartans did. (Hint: Hunting your slaves for sport does not endear you to them... In a state where 6 out of 7 men are enslaved, and two thirds of the freedmen hate the guts of the ruling class.)
Except Sparta doesn't seem to have actually been particularly successful militarily, instead relying more on a reputation for military success, according to this analysis.
...so, more like North Korea? :)
"Get out of my way! I'm a crazy madman who may start war at the slightest provocation, and I don't care that it will also kill me!" has been NK's signature shtick for decades. Other than a few nukes and a crapton of grunt soldiers, their military power is actually rather underwhelming.
"Get out of my way! I'm a crazy madman who may start war at the slightest provocation, and I don't care that it will also kill me!" has been NK's signature shtick for decades. Other than a few nukes and a crapton of grunt soldiers, their military power is actually rather underwhelming.
"Was like North Korea of Ancient Greece" was not direct comparison. It's relative analogy like chicken:egg :: tree:seed.
Sparta:Athens :: North Korea:South Korea
Sparta was to Athens like North Korea is to South Korea.
Sparta:Athens :: North Korea:South Korea
Sparta was to Athens like North Korea is to South Korea.
That's the author's conclusion in the final paragraph of the final entry.
Your descriptive points are closer to Pakistan than NK.
I'm serious. Pakistan relies on it's military state more than you would think. Nk is actively corrupt and all-worshipping of the diety-leader kim jong in a way both Sparta and Pakistan are not. Nk actively seeks to control and suppress domestic traders with power where it can and enslaves people into work camp gulags. Those are unique distinctions from Sparta and Pakistan.
I love it when classical history is discussed on HN! When we realize our civilization is thousands of years old, it is easier to imagine it lasting thousands more years.
I highly recommend that people make use of original source material when making an argument so that you can contribute constructively. The original sources are FUN to read -- we are lucky that the internet makes this so accessible.
I like the Perseus project, because it has almost everything. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
I highly recommend that people make use of original source material when making an argument so that you can contribute constructively. The original sources are FUN to read -- we are lucky that the internet makes this so accessible.
I like the Perseus project, because it has almost everything. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
I like an analysis that includes operations and logistics, which is how long or large campaigns are won or lost.
>It is hard to avoid the conclusion that while Spartan tactics may have been modestly better than most other Greek states, Spartan operations were dismal, placing severe limits on how effectively the Spartan army could be utilized. You may have the best soldiers – and again, Sparta does not appear to have always had the best soldiers – but they are of no use if you cannot get them to the fight, with the equipment (e.g. siege tools, ships) they need to win the fight.
>It is hard to avoid the conclusion that while Spartan tactics may have been modestly better than most other Greek states, Spartan operations were dismal, placing severe limits on how effectively the Spartan army could be utilized. You may have the best soldiers – and again, Sparta does not appear to have always had the best soldiers – but they are of no use if you cannot get them to the fight, with the equipment (e.g. siege tools, ships) they need to win the fight.
>> if you cannot get them to the fight, with the equipment (e.g. siege tools, ships) they need to win the fight.
That is one area where modern warfare is very different than ancient warfare. Siege weapons were not normally 'brought'. They were created when and as needed. An ancient engineer could turn a forest into a trebuchet, something akin to a modern engineer building a fighter jet out of rocks. So too with food. Ancient armies lived off the land. They pillaged and took what they needed. The concept of moving food to feed an army on a distant shore was just not an option as recently as WWI.
That is one area where modern warfare is very different than ancient warfare. Siege weapons were not normally 'brought'. They were created when and as needed. An ancient engineer could turn a forest into a trebuchet, something akin to a modern engineer building a fighter jet out of rocks. So too with food. Ancient armies lived off the land. They pillaged and took what they needed. The concept of moving food to feed an army on a distant shore was just not an option as recently as WWI.
While it's true that siege weapons and food were not transported via supply lines in the sense that modern militaries plan for it, that doesn't mean that logistics wasn't an important concept in Classical Greece. Even if you're living off the land, you still have to actually figure out how to transform the local produce into food, and actually procure sufficient local produce (if you're settling down for a siege, you can't exactly rely only on the nearest fields). Sparta's attempt to lay siege to Athens failed several years in a row entirely because they couldn't manage to support that level of logistical sophistication, which is a pretty indicting failure, even given the simpler problem it was 2500 years ago.
For a more fun take on this, the author also has an extremely thorough analysis of the “military history” in Lord of the Rings. He specifically discusses siege engines in the context of the Battle of the Pellenor and food supplies in the context of Aragorn’s campaign to Mordor immediately thereafter.
Would love to see the same for Athens. An amazing place but popular culture doesn’t reflect how profoundly alien their culture was: more of an honor-killing kind of place rather than some paradise of erudition.
Isn't the military might of Sparta an example of history written by the losers? I mean one important source for the Peloponnesian War was Thucydides, who was on the losing side of the war. And when writing his book, he might have wanted to cast himself in the best light possible, by depicting his victorious opponents as the best military in Greece?
Thanks for stealing most of my day with your interesting articles.
There was a submission from the same blog on the front page yesterday, which I assume is what led OP to discover this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21382247 (about war elephants)
Indeed! I knew Sparta just by reputation, like most people I expect, so this was a rather surprising and fascinating series.
It was a second surprise to come to this thread and see so many people vehemently dismissing the article, the author’s knowledge or tone, to defend Sparta as they see it. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that other than, I suppose, some people really really admire Sparta as mythologized and dislike reading anything that contradicts that image.
It was a second surprise to come to this thread and see so many people vehemently dismissing the article, the author’s knowledge or tone, to defend Sparta as they see it. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that other than, I suppose, some people really really admire Sparta as mythologized and dislike reading anything that contradicts that image.
After reading the first one, "on spartan schooling" I'm a little sad. I understand the point of casting a more clear light on the alien and brutal practices of ancient civilizations, but the distaste and condemnation that the author uses evokes British colonizers talking about their subjects, combined with a tinge of social justice history revisionism. One of the central concepts of anthropology (and I think, by extension, history) is that you don't judge other people disjoint from you in space and time with your cultural norms.
History has been awful and brutal every year since we began writing it down, and well before that, too. I think it's wrong that this means we shouldn't admire the more interesting parts of history.
History has been awful and brutal every year since we began writing it down, and well before that, too. I think it's wrong that this means we shouldn't admire the more interesting parts of history.
> History has been awful and brutal every year since we began writing it down, and well before that, too. I think it's wrong that this means we shouldn't admire the more interesting parts of history.
But if you only admire the interesting parts, you get a horribly inaccurate picture. Indeed, because the study of history traditionally relied on the surviving written accounts, and there was little, if any, consideration of their potential bias, we have a rather jaundiced view of most of history that is passed into popular culture and knowledge. It is only quite recently--late 20th century--that the field itself has started to point out that, for example, given that all we know of Caligula is written by his enemies, maybe the accounts of his sex orgies is about as accurate as discussions of Clinton's pizza parlor sex ring (which is to say, a complete and utter fabrication).
For writers targeting a popular audience, there is generally a greater tendency to balance the horrible inaccuracies that circulate in popular thought (partially driven, sadly, by school curricula which are very slow to accept that "traditional" history is often completely and totally wrong) by focusing on the aspects that most directly contradict what the audience assumes. And that's what the author here is doing.
But if you only admire the interesting parts, you get a horribly inaccurate picture. Indeed, because the study of history traditionally relied on the surviving written accounts, and there was little, if any, consideration of their potential bias, we have a rather jaundiced view of most of history that is passed into popular culture and knowledge. It is only quite recently--late 20th century--that the field itself has started to point out that, for example, given that all we know of Caligula is written by his enemies, maybe the accounts of his sex orgies is about as accurate as discussions of Clinton's pizza parlor sex ring (which is to say, a complete and utter fabrication).
For writers targeting a popular audience, there is generally a greater tendency to balance the horrible inaccuracies that circulate in popular thought (partially driven, sadly, by school curricula which are very slow to accept that "traditional" history is often completely and totally wrong) by focusing on the aspects that most directly contradict what the audience assumes. And that's what the author here is doing.
> "But if you only admire the interesting parts, you get a horribly inaccurate picture."
I don't think that's how admiration generally works. I admire Steve Jobs on many things, but he was a cruel human being to some. When I see a sports star, I don't need to know 'the whole picture' to admire their amazing catch or dedication to training. That doesn't make it 'horrid'.
I don't think that's how admiration generally works. I admire Steve Jobs on many things, but he was a cruel human being to some. When I see a sports star, I don't need to know 'the whole picture' to admire their amazing catch or dedication to training. That doesn't make it 'horrid'.
But only focusing on the good is definitely a trend that happens a lot--it's called romanticizing. And the ultimate thesis here is that Sparta has been heavily romanticized in modern culture: to modern people, Sparta is the epitome of a proud, independent, martial ethos, when in actuality it was a society led by indoctrinated child soldiers whose military prowess was middling at best and whose military reputation was overrated, even contemporaneously.
> "But only focusing on the good is definitely a trend that happens a lot--it's called romanticizing."
It doesn't appear that way to me at least. The tired trend I see "hey, you see that thing you like, here let me rub shit all over it. Why do you like it? stop fantasizing, cant you see that I found something bad in it so you are obligated to hate the whole thing". Case in point.
It doesn't appear that way to me at least. The tired trend I see "hey, you see that thing you like, here let me rub shit all over it. Why do you like it? stop fantasizing, cant you see that I found something bad in it so you are obligated to hate the whole thing". Case in point.
"Plutarch relates the saying that “in Sparta the free man is more free than anywhere else in the world, and the slave more a slave” (Plut. Lyc. 28.5). He can only be referring to the helots here. Indeed, Plutarch’s statement is telling – the helots were treated poorly by the standards of ancient chattel slavery, which is, I must stress, an incredibly low bar."
"The absence of any taboo – legal or religious – against the killing of helots marks the institution as uncommonly brutal not merely by Greek standards, but by world-historical standards."
"Given how very little our sources care for the lives and experiences of any enslaved people, the unanimity of their testimony that life as a helot was awful is nothing short of astounding. This is an institution that shocks the conscience of ancient slaveholders."
These are all from the second post in the series. You should try reading more than just the first one.
> social justice history revisionism
Couldn't find a good way to work "virtue signaling" in there as well?
"The absence of any taboo – legal or religious – against the killing of helots marks the institution as uncommonly brutal not merely by Greek standards, but by world-historical standards."
"Given how very little our sources care for the lives and experiences of any enslaved people, the unanimity of their testimony that life as a helot was awful is nothing short of astounding. This is an institution that shocks the conscience of ancient slaveholders."
These are all from the second post in the series. You should try reading more than just the first one.
> social justice history revisionism
Couldn't find a good way to work "virtue signaling" in there as well?
The first post also has parts where he explains how even by contemporary standards it was cruel. That doesn't excuse the attitude that we often hold, that we are the most morally evolved and have the right to judge.
I don't think the implied ad hominem is necessary or useful here. I meant what I said and I don't think there's any overt virtue signaling. The author was awarded a PhD in 2018 on Roman history so I think the author is well-versed and strongly opinionated, no virtue signaling there.
The sibling comment about admiration I think has an important point. We don't need a universe that's perfectly in balance, which is to say that if Sparta is romanticized I don't think it's necessary that we demonize them to balance the scales. Of course it's important to understand what they did and know the whole story, and what the author does to disillusion about 300 is good work. However, at least this first article is written in a persuasive way rather than an informative one, the author clearly wants us to be on his side about how awful the Spartans were rather than just inform us so we understand what we might be admiring. Another sibling comment said that the outrageism goes down in later articles, so maybe they're different and worth a good read.
I don't think the implied ad hominem is necessary or useful here. I meant what I said and I don't think there's any overt virtue signaling. The author was awarded a PhD in 2018 on Roman history so I think the author is well-versed and strongly opinionated, no virtue signaling there.
The sibling comment about admiration I think has an important point. We don't need a universe that's perfectly in balance, which is to say that if Sparta is romanticized I don't think it's necessary that we demonize them to balance the scales. Of course it's important to understand what they did and know the whole story, and what the author does to disillusion about 300 is good work. However, at least this first article is written in a persuasive way rather than an informative one, the author clearly wants us to be on his side about how awful the Spartans were rather than just inform us so we understand what we might be admiring. Another sibling comment said that the outrageism goes down in later articles, so maybe they're different and worth a good read.
> I don't think the implied ad hominem is necessary or useful here
Sorry I guess I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply you were virtue signaling. It's just I tend to notice that when someone uses the phrase "social justice <anything>" the phrase "virtue signaling" isn't too far behind. It was still an unkind comment from me, just not in the way you thought. My apologies.
Sorry I guess I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply you were virtue signaling. It's just I tend to notice that when someone uses the phrase "social justice <anything>" the phrase "virtue signaling" isn't too far behind. It was still an unkind comment from me, just not in the way you thought. My apologies.
> History has been awful and brutal every year since we began writing it down, and well before that, too.
If you actually read the series, you'll learn that Sparta was horrifying even by the standards of its own time.
If you actually read the series, you'll learn that Sparta was horrifying even by the standards of its own time.
When you admire the more interesting parts of history, without taking into account the ugly, nasty side of them, you get shitty political movements (It is incredibly popular among xenophobic nationalist assholes to admire the Roman Empire, the Crusaders, the Spartans, the Vikings, as some kind of cultural ideals that we should aspire to...)
For some reason, though, they always envision themselves as being warrior-kings, or some equivalent thereof in such societies, instead of members of a slave caste...
For some reason, though, they always envision themselves as being warrior-kings, or some equivalent thereof in such societies, instead of members of a slave caste...
I agree and in one of my replies I acknowledge that. It's okay to admire but you have to understand what you are admiring and its context. A very good recent example is that the Nazis were the first government to acknowledge that smoking is bad, and they had strong animal rights positions as well as decent policies on environmentalism.
Nobody would argue that these footnotes mean we can overlook what they did, but what they did doesn't invalidate (emphasis) the good they did. It definitely outweighs it!
If we weren't allowed to admire then what do we do? Even saintly figures have blemishes.
Nobody would argue that these footnotes mean we can overlook what they did, but what they did doesn't invalidate (emphasis) the good they did. It definitely outweighs it!
If we weren't allowed to admire then what do we do? Even saintly figures have blemishes.
Maybe you don't need to admire historic figures to acknowledge good policies? This doesn't seem very complicated.
We constantly try to abstract good decisions into "good people" and that seems like a mistake.
We constantly try to abstract good decisions into "good people" and that seems like a mistake.
Although the author is knowledgeable, I too find it incredibly frustrating to read his writing. An opposing viewpoint is fine but the sheer amount of bias, outrageism (note the number of times he mentiones how "sickened" he was during his research), and condemnation made it impossible for me to read any further than the first post.
Reading the first and last two posts, the outrageism is definitely far less present in the latter than the former. You should at least read the sixth post as well, which evaluates how deserved Sparta's military reputation was (spoiler alert: it wasn't).
You should try reading the second post, where they relate what contemporary Greeks of other states thought of Spartans' treatment of helots. It's not bias.
I found it hard to consider them knowledgeable when they kept comparing them to armies/people/etc hundreds of years in the future.
It's primarily a criticism of modern perception of Sparta, particularly "300". I don't see why it need be any more fair than it is.
> comparing the popular legacy of Sparta (embodied in films like 300) with the historical ancient state
> comparing the popular legacy of Sparta (embodied in films like 300) with the historical ancient state
On these and maybe other measures you might prefer Prof. Donald Kagan's lectures on Sparta. (Granted, the following account's purpose and context are different from the parent article's.)
[Video Part 1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuJ7lGZVUl4
[Video Part 2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP1POpsqin4
His whole Greek history course at Yale is on YouTube and is quite good.
[Video Part 1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuJ7lGZVUl4
[Video Part 2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP1POpsqin4
His whole Greek history course at Yale is on YouTube and is quite good.
When did historians finally strip Sparta of its great image? When Roman Stoics praised Spartans, did they treat them as perfect role models or as a cruel people who had certain qualities to emulate?
The only reason Sparta lasted as long as it did was because it was a valueless minor city-state not worth the effort of conquering until the point that conquering and absorbing it was so effortless that it was done almost as an afterthought.
It was a sick and broken society populated by fanatics, that was quickly (on a historical timescale) out-advanced by its neighbors.
Imagine if a casino-less (Mormon Fort-era) Las Vegas, NV was full of militiamen and religious zealots and got involved in a war with the surrounding area and it managed conquer all of Clark County, the county that surrounds it, and control it for about 30 years by implementing a cruel system that enslaved most of its population.
And then that short-lived city-state collapsed after the rest of the Nevada developed over the decades to the point that a coalition of other small counties quickly steamrolled the now-decrepit and hollow Clark County city-state.
Like, super steamrolled. Like the rest of Nevada had developed tanks and artillery and the "Vegans" still fought with Mormon Fort-era weaponry.
That's Sparta.
I don't get why Sparta seems to be so fetishized, particularly by people who are not pleasant to be around.
It was a sick and broken society populated by fanatics, that was quickly (on a historical timescale) out-advanced by its neighbors.
Imagine if a casino-less (Mormon Fort-era) Las Vegas, NV was full of militiamen and religious zealots and got involved in a war with the surrounding area and it managed conquer all of Clark County, the county that surrounds it, and control it for about 30 years by implementing a cruel system that enslaved most of its population.
And then that short-lived city-state collapsed after the rest of the Nevada developed over the decades to the point that a coalition of other small counties quickly steamrolled the now-decrepit and hollow Clark County city-state.
Like, super steamrolled. Like the rest of Nevada had developed tanks and artillery and the "Vegans" still fought with Mormon Fort-era weaponry.
That's Sparta.
I don't get why Sparta seems to be so fetishized, particularly by people who are not pleasant to be around.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and particularly please edit out flamebait, such as your last sentence.
If we can't discuss classical history without flamewar, we can't discuss anything without flamewar. Let's discuss things without flamewar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If we can't discuss classical history without flamewar, we can't discuss anything without flamewar. Let's discuss things without flamewar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't see what was "flamewar style" about the grandparent post. Are you referring to the mention of "Vegans"? I took that to mean Vegans as in citizens of Las Vegas. People say Angelenos to refer to inhabitants of Los Angeles. I believe that was the spirit in which the reference to "Vegans" was intended.
edited to correct the spelling of Las Vegas
edited to correct the spelling of Las Vegas
Looking at it again I think I was reacting primarily to the last sentence.
>The only reason Sparta lasted as long as it did was because it was a valueless minor city-state not worth the effort of conquering until the point that conquering and absorbing it was so effortless that it was done almost as an afterthought.
Yeah, that's not even wrong.
Sparta was an important city-state, and survived centuries without being pushed around like others, even larger had. They also bossed lesser city-states around, and of course defeated Athens itself, while also being important for the defense against Persian invasions.
No city-state at the time (of which were dozens) would consider Sparta a "valueless minor city-state". The very opposite is true.
The rest of the comment (or rather, all of it) is irrelevant drivel, more a rant about modern day gun-freaks and rednecks and US issues, than about historical Sparta.
Yeah, that's not even wrong.
Sparta was an important city-state, and survived centuries without being pushed around like others, even larger had. They also bossed lesser city-states around, and of course defeated Athens itself, while also being important for the defense against Persian invasions.
No city-state at the time (of which were dozens) would consider Sparta a "valueless minor city-state". The very opposite is true.
The rest of the comment (or rather, all of it) is irrelevant drivel, more a rant about modern day gun-freaks and rednecks and US issues, than about historical Sparta.
By what metric were they important?
Economic output?
Influence abroad?
Cultural contributions?
Trade hub?
A cultural impact that lasts to today that makes them important in retrospect?
A city-state conquering 21,000 square kilometers (roughly the same area of Clark County, NV, chosen purposefully for my example) of olive groves and poor towns on a peninsula that is almost completely surrounded by sea with no other major players doesn't make one important, in the big picture.
I mean, I know philosophers liked to wax... philosophically... about them, like they were the lost city of Atlantis or something, centuries after the slow and creaky absorption of the hellish nightmare that was a declining Sparta into their neighbors, but so what?
I don't know what your gun stuff was about.
edit: I can imagine all of the rulers of the ACTUALLY relevant kingdoms and empires that surrounded Sparta looking at a map that was all colored in except for Sparta and saying to their generals:
"You know what? We'll give it a try but even if we do conquer Sparta all we'll get is a bunch of olives, goats, and a whole bunch of whacked-out weirdos with no gold, no navy, and a lot of baggage. So commit but don't 'Commit' and if we lose we'll just wait them out and color in the entire map later when they inevitably collapse."
Economic output?
Influence abroad?
Cultural contributions?
Trade hub?
A cultural impact that lasts to today that makes them important in retrospect?
A city-state conquering 21,000 square kilometers (roughly the same area of Clark County, NV, chosen purposefully for my example) of olive groves and poor towns on a peninsula that is almost completely surrounded by sea with no other major players doesn't make one important, in the big picture.
I mean, I know philosophers liked to wax... philosophically... about them, like they were the lost city of Atlantis or something, centuries after the slow and creaky absorption of the hellish nightmare that was a declining Sparta into their neighbors, but so what?
I don't know what your gun stuff was about.
edit: I can imagine all of the rulers of the ACTUALLY relevant kingdoms and empires that surrounded Sparta looking at a map that was all colored in except for Sparta and saying to their generals:
"You know what? We'll give it a try but even if we do conquer Sparta all we'll get is a bunch of olives, goats, and a whole bunch of whacked-out weirdos with no gold, no navy, and a lot of baggage. So commit but don't 'Commit' and if we lose we'll just wait them out and color in the entire map later when they inevitably collapse."
Your list of important-making features is dominated by a modern mindset. In the ancient world, ability to wage war was an important -- if not the important -- feature of many civilizations. Rome, Greece, Persia, Carthage, everybody was obsessed with it.
Looking at purely economics or modern cultural relevance is anachronistic.
Looking at purely economics or modern cultural relevance is anachronistic.
In those times, the ability to project power (in a modern military sense) was virtually non-existent.
Aircraft hadn't been invented yet.
Naval transport was subject to the vagaries of the wind and slow.
Land transport was a matter of multi-year campaigns, supplied at great cost.
So effectively, most conflicts were the business of the belligerent and defender, and no one else.
In that world, absent coordinated international response, it's unsurprising military might took on a much more existential value!
Aircraft hadn't been invented yet.
Naval transport was subject to the vagaries of the wind and slow.
Land transport was a matter of multi-year campaigns, supplied at great cost.
So effectively, most conflicts were the business of the belligerent and defender, and no one else.
In that world, absent coordinated international response, it's unsurprising military might took on a much more existential value!
"In those times, the ability to project power (in a modern military sense) was virtually non-existent."
This isn't really true. The contemporary Carthaginian and Roman empires spanned hundreds of miles of Mediterranean coastline.
This isn't really true. The contemporary Carthaginian and Roman empires spanned hundreds of miles of Mediterranean coastline.
The Carthaginian Empire expanded over ~400 years, and never penetrated far from coasts (per design, but also illustrating the limitations of transportation at that time).
The Roman Republic / Empire expanded over ~600 years.
We may have different definitions of "power projection."
Mine does not include "we'll eventually be there, after everyone who is alive today has lived a full life and died of natural causes."
The Roman Republic / Empire expanded over ~600 years.
We may have different definitions of "power projection."
Mine does not include "we'll eventually be there, after everyone who is alive today has lived a full life and died of natural causes."
You are confusing projecting power over a sphere of influence with expanding the sphere of influence within which one can project power. These empires ruled over vast areas of land by threat of force. That is projection of power. The fact that they later projected power over a larger area has no bearing on this.
You're missing my point.
How much would the Japanese have cared about what Rome thought?
Vs now.
How much would the Japanese have cared about what Rome thought?
Vs now.
Rome stretched from Scotland to Iraq and ruled the entire Mediterranean. So power projection still existed
Uh, international coordination was definitely a thing! There was a whole Delian League formed specifically to coordinate the city-states' response to the Persian invasion – Sparta's exit from the League precipitated the war with Athens.
Syria to Tunisia is ~2,300 km.
For reference, that's about the same distance from NY, NY to Houston, TX.
And that's the long axis of the Mediterranean Sea.
IMHO, that's very different than how we talk about international cooperation (and specifically: intervention) in modern times.
For reference, that's about the same distance from NY, NY to Houston, TX.
And that's the long axis of the Mediterranean Sea.
IMHO, that's very different than how we talk about international cooperation (and specifically: intervention) in modern times.
> For reference, that's about the same distance from NY, NY to Houston, TX.
That's roughly the distance between Paris and Moscow, crossing through Belgium, Germany and Poland.
That's roughly the distance between Paris and Moscow, crossing through Belgium, Germany and Poland.
[deleted]
"Economic output?
Influence abroad?
Cultural contributions?
Trade hub?"
Yes, Yes, Obviously, and not as much.
At its height, Sparta was one of the more important military powers among the Greek city states. After the Peloponnesian war, which it won, it was for a time the dominant and most influential of all Greek city states. This dominance and influence is the reason that ancient Greek writers found them important to talk about and consequently is the reason we still talk about about them. The fact that we still debate the legacy of the Spartans speaks to the wide range of their influence.
""You know what? We'll give it a try but even if we do conquer Sparta all we'll get is a bunch of olives, goats, and a whole bunch of whacked-out weirdos with no gold, no navy, and a lot of baggage. So commit but don't 'Commit' and if we lose we'll just wait them out and color in the entire map later when they inevitably collapse." "
Actually, Sparta was quite wealthy if you measure it's wealth in productive farmland land rather than precious metals. We privileged modern westerners don't really recognize the importance of that, but it was quite important for the time.
Also, while the Spartans did not initially have a navy, they had no trouble buying one from the Persians and beat the previously unbeatable Athenian navy with it.
Olives were actually incredible valuable to the ancient Greeks (still are valuable, actually) one of the most important crops and essential to all of their industry. According to myth Athens was given the choice of naming their city after Athena or Poseidon. Athena offered olive trees while Poseidon offered naval power. The Athenians judged that olive trees would be more valuable.
Influence abroad?
Cultural contributions?
Trade hub?"
Yes, Yes, Obviously, and not as much.
At its height, Sparta was one of the more important military powers among the Greek city states. After the Peloponnesian war, which it won, it was for a time the dominant and most influential of all Greek city states. This dominance and influence is the reason that ancient Greek writers found them important to talk about and consequently is the reason we still talk about about them. The fact that we still debate the legacy of the Spartans speaks to the wide range of their influence.
""You know what? We'll give it a try but even if we do conquer Sparta all we'll get is a bunch of olives, goats, and a whole bunch of whacked-out weirdos with no gold, no navy, and a lot of baggage. So commit but don't 'Commit' and if we lose we'll just wait them out and color in the entire map later when they inevitably collapse." "
Actually, Sparta was quite wealthy if you measure it's wealth in productive farmland land rather than precious metals. We privileged modern westerners don't really recognize the importance of that, but it was quite important for the time.
Also, while the Spartans did not initially have a navy, they had no trouble buying one from the Persians and beat the previously unbeatable Athenian navy with it.
Olives were actually incredible valuable to the ancient Greeks (still are valuable, actually) one of the most important crops and essential to all of their industry. According to myth Athens was given the choice of naming their city after Athena or Poseidon. Athena offered olive trees while Poseidon offered naval power. The Athenians judged that olive trees would be more valuable.
Mainly they were economically and politically important. They were incredibly rich and had alliances with all neighboring city-states, using each alliance as leverage for more alliances. They didn't even need to send many of their own soldiers or slaves for any given war, their allies would send the bulk of the forces.
Sparta is fetishized because they beat Athens in the Peloponnesian war and Plato idealized the spartans.
Sparta was considered important way before they "beat Athens". And it has nothing to do with Plato either.
I don't believe I said that Sparta wasn't important in pre-Macedonian conquest greek politics or even that Sparta wasn't important as an idea in later philosophy and in the idea of governing.
Idealized and fetishized, yes, by those that see in Sparta something that they want in their own society. Even if most of it is dismally misguided. Plato, of course, loved spartan society and based his own utopian ideal state on it and Plato has an outsized reputation in history by his writings and his characterization of his teacher, Socrates (who wrote nothing).
Idealized and fetishized, yes, by those that see in Sparta something that they want in their own society. Even if most of it is dismally misguided. Plato, of course, loved spartan society and based his own utopian ideal state on it and Plato has an outsized reputation in history by his writings and his characterization of his teacher, Socrates (who wrote nothing).
Nah, Corinth was considered important too, but Sparta is much better known in the modern world.
And Plato is pretty important here. Sparta gets relatively high praise in the Republic which is probably one of the more influential books from its era. Platonism's enormous influence on Christianity ensured that this praise would remain relevant even into the modern era.
And Plato is pretty important here. Sparta gets relatively high praise in the Republic which is probably one of the more influential books from its era. Platonism's enormous influence on Christianity ensured that this praise would remain relevant even into the modern era.
Can you provide a source or an alternative point of origin for Sparta's importance? You've stated categorically that the parent is misinformed, but provided no information to back it up.
Why, are the claims controversial? They're backed by 2+ millenia of historiography.
Just off of the easiest sources available on the web:
Given its military pre-eminence, Sparta was recognized as the leading force of the unified Greek military during the Greco-Persian Wars, in rivalry with the rising naval power of Athens. Sparta was the principal enemy of Athens during the Peloponnesian War (between 431 and 404 BC), from which it emerged victorious. (...) Sparta was the subject of fascination in its own day, as well as in Western culture following the revival of classical learning. (...) In ancient times "Many of the noblest and best of the Athenians always considered the Spartan state nearly as an ideal theory realised in practice." Many Greek philosophers, especially Platonists, would often describe Sparta as an ideal state, strong, brave, and free from the corruptions of commerce and money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta
Sparta was one of the most important Greek city-states throughout the Archaic and Classical periods and was famous for its military prowess. The professional and well-trained Spartan hoplites with their distinctive red cloaks, long hair, and lambda-emblazoned shields were probably the best and most feared fighters in Greece, fighting with distinction at such key battles as Thermopylae and Plataea in the early 5th century BCE. https://www.ancient.eu/sparta/
During the 5th century BC Sparta was very powerful. This was due to her army, which was feared by other Greeks. Sparta focused on producing good soldiers and all Spartan male citizens were part of the army. The Spartan army played an important role in the Greek victory over the Persians, in 480-479 BC. http://www.ancientgreece.co.uk/sparta/home_set.html
The Athenian view of Sparta oscillated between admiration and fear, according to whether their warlike neighbors were allies or enemies. Without Spartan participation in the war against Persia at the beginning of the fifth century B.C.— especially their heroic stand at the critical Battle of Thermopylae in 480—the Persians may well have conquered Greece. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2016/11-...
Just off of the easiest sources available on the web:
Given its military pre-eminence, Sparta was recognized as the leading force of the unified Greek military during the Greco-Persian Wars, in rivalry with the rising naval power of Athens. Sparta was the principal enemy of Athens during the Peloponnesian War (between 431 and 404 BC), from which it emerged victorious. (...) Sparta was the subject of fascination in its own day, as well as in Western culture following the revival of classical learning. (...) In ancient times "Many of the noblest and best of the Athenians always considered the Spartan state nearly as an ideal theory realised in practice." Many Greek philosophers, especially Platonists, would often describe Sparta as an ideal state, strong, brave, and free from the corruptions of commerce and money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta
Sparta was one of the most important Greek city-states throughout the Archaic and Classical periods and was famous for its military prowess. The professional and well-trained Spartan hoplites with their distinctive red cloaks, long hair, and lambda-emblazoned shields were probably the best and most feared fighters in Greece, fighting with distinction at such key battles as Thermopylae and Plataea in the early 5th century BCE. https://www.ancient.eu/sparta/
During the 5th century BC Sparta was very powerful. This was due to her army, which was feared by other Greeks. Sparta focused on producing good soldiers and all Spartan male citizens were part of the army. The Spartan army played an important role in the Greek victory over the Persians, in 480-479 BC. http://www.ancientgreece.co.uk/sparta/home_set.html
The Athenian view of Sparta oscillated between admiration and fear, according to whether their warlike neighbors were allies or enemies. Without Spartan participation in the war against Persia at the beginning of the fifth century B.C.— especially their heroic stand at the critical Battle of Thermopylae in 480—the Persians may well have conquered Greece. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2016/11-...
I always thought the Spartans came to prominence in this war - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars
There was also that little skirmish at Thermopylae that helped grow the legend.
I'd argue that the mythology surrounding Thermopylae is the result of the mythology surrounding Sparta, rather than the other way around. Objectively, Thermopylae was an abject defeat (even by Herodotus's account) that didn't do anything to save Greece from Persia conquering basically everything. The only reason it's more than a historical footnote is because of the Spartan legend.
It was a holding action that gave the Greeks time to consolidate further back, no? And really, quite number of holding actions and retreats have achieved considerable fame. Among the retreats I'd mention the Anabasis, Sir John Moore's retreat on Corunna, the Long March, Dunkirk, and Stillwell's retreat to Burma.
> Spartan planning is both direct and unrealistic: find a choke-point, fortify it and hold it indefinately with a hoplite army. Attempted at Thermopylae this plan fails; the Battle of Thermopylae is often represented in popular culture as an intentional delaying action, but it was nothing of the sort – Herodotus is clear that this was supposed to be the decisive land engagement (Hdt. 7.175; Cf. Diodorus 11.4.1-5).
He is wrong about that. Herodotus says that they were an advance front to buy time for the rest, who were at a religious festival and at the Olympics:
“The force with Leonidas was sent forward by the Spartans in advance of their main body, that the sight of them might encourage the allies to fight, and hinder them from going over to the Medes, as it was likely they might have done had they seen that Sparta was backward. They intended presently, when they had celebrated the Carneian festival, which was what now kept them at home, to leave a garrison in Sparta, and hasten in full force to join the army. The rest of the allies also intended to act similarly; for it happened that the Olympic festival fell exactly at this same period. None of them looked to see the contest at Thermopylae decided so speedily; wherefore they were content to send forward a mere advanced guard.”
“The force with Leonidas was sent forward by the Spartans in advance of their main body, that the sight of them might encourage the allies to fight, and hinder them from going over to the Medes, as it was likely they might have done had they seen that Sparta was backward. They intended presently, when they had celebrated the Carneian festival, which was what now kept them at home, to leave a garrison in Sparta, and hasten in full force to join the army. The rest of the allies also intended to act similarly; for it happened that the Olympic festival fell exactly at this same period. None of them looked to see the contest at Thermopylae decided so speedily; wherefore they were content to send forward a mere advanced guard.”
Only if made by victors, no?
Pretty sure Persia lost that war pretty significantly.
They beat Athens only with the help of tremendous quantities of Persian gold. That was what enabled Sparta to win the war, not Sparta's military capabilities.
I think it has a lot to do with Plutarch telling wacky fun stories about Lycurgus and Sparta. The sort of stories that are fun to share with others.
They also contributed greatly to beating the Persians at Plataea.
The same reason people fetishize pirates, astronauts and jedi. They represent a niche symbol that doesn't have a compare. The historical truth of Sparta is important to know, but the symbol is a separate thing. The spirit of the hold-out warrior who's heroic society succeeds and fails, is interesting in many different ways.
I think it's good people know about and integrate the spartan story into their own world view, there's a lot of cautionary tales in there for those that believe you could ever succeed at having such a radical worldview as the Spartans maintained. The unpleasantness of the fan is directly proportional to how much they need to learn the lessons of the past and the folly of that mindset. There are also lessons about aspects of masculinity, femininity and most of life that stories like Sparta can be a useful reflection tool.
Sparta is a small moment in a large pantheon of stories that make people better people. Even to the most cynical view, it's better these unpleasant people explore this mindset in art than to carry out the actions in their full in real life.
I think it's good people know about and integrate the spartan story into their own world view, there's a lot of cautionary tales in there for those that believe you could ever succeed at having such a radical worldview as the Spartans maintained. The unpleasantness of the fan is directly proportional to how much they need to learn the lessons of the past and the folly of that mindset. There are also lessons about aspects of masculinity, femininity and most of life that stories like Sparta can be a useful reflection tool.
Sparta is a small moment in a large pantheon of stories that make people better people. Even to the most cynical view, it's better these unpleasant people explore this mindset in art than to carry out the actions in their full in real life.
Sparta is fetishized because human societies worship glory, courage and sacrifice, and that's what their myth is all about. As it's mythological, we tend to obscure the details we don't like and embellish the ones we do.
>I don't get why Sparta seems to be so fetishized
I'll just say that it's human nature to romanticize the past. Particularly when we feel we have an affinity for that past.
I'll just say that it's human nature to romanticize the past. Particularly when we feel we have an affinity for that past.
Sounds like Fallout New Vegas
Fallout: New Vegans (if you follow OP's naming convention)
>I don't get why Sparta seems to be so fetishized, particularly by people who are not pleasant to be around.
War College had a good interview with a historian on this subject.
https://player.fm/series/war-college-1324080/this-is-not-spa...
War College had a good interview with a historian on this subject.
https://player.fm/series/war-college-1324080/this-is-not-spa...
> I don't get why Sparta seems to be so fetishized, particularly by people who are not pleasant to be around.
It's because they saw a movie that depicted the Spartans as super ripped badasses who kicked ass all the time.
Seriously, there's not much more to it than that.
It's because they saw a movie that depicted the Spartans as super ripped badasses who kicked ass all the time.
Seriously, there's not much more to it than that.
>Seriously, there's not much more to it than that.
Do you really think that everything comes from that 2006 film? I learned about that civilization more than 30 years ago, when my primary school teachers taught me about classical Greece and its legacy. There is a long Hellenistic tradition that takes Sparta and Athens as the embodiment of two models worthy of historical study.
Do you really think that everything comes from that 2006 film? I learned about that civilization more than 30 years ago, when my primary school teachers taught me about classical Greece and its legacy. There is a long Hellenistic tradition that takes Sparta and Athens as the embodiment of two models worthy of historical study.
mieseratte(1)
Then why did Xerxes try to invade Laconia? To tramp on valueless minor city-states just for fun?
This article is laughably bad. I don't think the author put any effort into understanding the culture. No attempt is made to understand why the Spartans made certain decisions. The perspective seems to be, 'they didn't make decisions like us modern smart people would, so they were dumb and mean.' Lines like "because Sparta produced so little of value" do well to reveal this. So little of value to who?
"...essentially amounts to a strategic objective to be able to continue mistreating the helots and the periokoi. In practice – given Sparta’s desperate shortness of manpower (and economic resources!) and continued unwillingness to revisit the nature of its oppressive class system..."
So much for Hegel.
"...essentially amounts to a strategic objective to be able to continue mistreating the helots and the periokoi. In practice – given Sparta’s desperate shortness of manpower (and economic resources!) and continued unwillingness to revisit the nature of its oppressive class system..."
So much for Hegel.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rvusy/is_th...