Spartans Were Losers(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
Spartans Were Losers
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/22/sparta-popular-culture-united-states-military-bad-history/
124 comments
> Adulation of the Spartans is less about historical exactitude and more about creating a model that everyone can look to in order to build esprit de corps.
Very good, but why does it have to be a brutal -- for the standards of the time -- slave state that wasn't even particularly good at war?
The current situation in Ukraine should be proof enough that the myth of manly men doing manly things does not produce armies that are actually effective. Almost everything Sparta fanfiction does is actively counterproductive.
Very good, but why does it have to be a brutal -- for the standards of the time -- slave state that wasn't even particularly good at war?
The current situation in Ukraine should be proof enough that the myth of manly men doing manly things does not produce armies that are actually effective. Almost everything Sparta fanfiction does is actively counterproductive.
Sparta was a totalitarian state well beyond the wildest dreams of Hitler or Stalin. Bertrand Russell does an excellent job The History of Western Philosophy of showing how depraved they were (as does Devereaux), how they influenced Plato (himself a disgruntled Athenian aristocrat who resented his social class' loss of power when Athens became a democracy, then collaborated with the Spartan occupation of Athens after the latter lost the Peloponnesian War).
According to the histories levied by the Athenians.
The Spartans left no written record and hardly any archeology.
The Spartans left no written record and hardly any archeology.
> The Spartans left no written record and hardly any archeology.
Which also suggests they kind of sucked.
Which also suggests they kind of sucked.
Or that they oriented their society towards war rather than writing things down. Sparta was a state of total war before total war was even defined.
Just like we look to Somalia and Uganda today for the highest calibre soldiers.
Total war is distinct from civil war or regional conflict - none of the parties you mentioned are completely committed at every level possible to victory (or at least the other side losing). Britain and Germany can both be thought of as being in states of total war at varying times during WW2.
If you draw this distinction it doesn't apply to Sparta either.
They are not drawing the distinction, this is a specific definition that you decided to take offense to for some reason: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
It's not some political statement, all that was meant was that their whole society participated in the war effort and their education centered on fighting and survival rather than writing things down.
It's not some political statement, all that was meant was that their whole society participated in the war effort and their education centered on fighting and survival rather than writing things down.
> their whole society participated in the war effort
Right, and this is untrue of Sparta.
Right, and this is untrue of Sparta.
I probably don't know enough about Sparta then. From what I thought I knew before your comments, I learned that they took the "teach kids to be fighters" to the extreme and they had the longest "education" period of any city states around them, mostly focused on skills for battle. Supposedly the old men were involved in this education, the kids were training, the men were fighting, and the women were supporting all of this. So that's what I was basing the thought of this type of society probably making it less likely that you have a bunch of scribes or other types of jobs being done that would be more likely to leave stuff written down.
> Their city is not built continuously, and has no splendid temples or other edifices; it rather resembles a group of villages, like the ancient towns of Hellas, and would therefore make a poor show
Thucydides.
Thucydides.
> Which also suggests they kind of sucked
The Spartans were paranoid and insular. More likely than their being illiterates is that they destroyed their own records.
The Spartans were paranoid and insular. More likely than their being illiterates is that they destroyed their own records.
> The Spartans were paranoid and insular.
Which also suggests they kind of sucked.
Which also suggests they kind of sucked.
I suppose one has to ask the question, what is the definition of "suck"? For whom? When? Did the Spartans have an obligation to peoples unknown thousands of years in the future to write down what they were doing?
> Sparta was a totalitarian state well beyond the wildest dreams of Hitler or Stalin
It was also a polis with rudimentary constitutional checks on its dyadic monarchy and a public ekklesia that notionally approved legislation.
> a disgruntled Athenian aristocrat who resented his social class' loss of power when Athens became a democracy
This is true. He also had prescient complaints about direct democracy as Athens practiced it. Of course, at that time we didn't know direct democracy doesn't work--it careens towards partisan overdrive and ricocheting majoritarianism.
It was also a polis with rudimentary constitutional checks on its dyadic monarchy and a public ekklesia that notionally approved legislation.
> a disgruntled Athenian aristocrat who resented his social class' loss of power when Athens became a democracy
This is true. He also had prescient complaints about direct democracy as Athens practiced it. Of course, at that time we didn't know direct democracy doesn't work--it careens towards partisan overdrive and ricocheting majoritarianism.
Why do you cite Russel's philosophy book written for a lay audience and that has received criticism (see wikipedia), rather than, say, a classical scholar?
Because classical scholars tend to brush this under the carpet out of misplaced deference or reverence for Plato (or perhaps because they quite enjoy the conceit of the philosopher-king). You have to go to Russell or Popper for an explanation of how evil Plato's ideology is, even though it is there black on white in The Republic:
- "noble lies" and propaganda as the basis of the state
- strict separation of the population into castes
- taking children away from their parents and brainwashing them
- killing of political dissidents
Even in Orwell's 1984 parents kept their children, even if they were indoctrinated into squealing on their parents. If anything, it looks more like John Boorman's Zardoz.
- "noble lies" and propaganda as the basis of the state
- strict separation of the population into castes
- taking children away from their parents and brainwashing them
- killing of political dissidents
Even in Orwell's 1984 parents kept their children, even if they were indoctrinated into squealing on their parents. If anything, it looks more like John Boorman's Zardoz.
Let me repeat your argument back to you. You are saying that classical scholars, purely out of deference for Plato, cannot be trusted to investigate properly just how depraved Spartan society was; and hence Russell is a better authority?
Classics is not the same as history and no serious historians dispute what Sparta was, it’s philosophy or Ancient Greek ones. I suppose since you have Holocaust denier “historians” like you have British Empire revisionists, there must be some Sparta fans lurking under a rock somewhere.
Here's a good article by a classical military scholar which covers many of the same topics:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/22/sparta-popular-culture-...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/22/sparta-popular-culture-...
It's the same author, historian Bret Devereaux, better known for his geeky blog "A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry" (acoup.blog)
Using the imagery of a people who were a historical loser does not necessarily imply that you, too, will lose battles. After all, things like Apache helicopters are named after historical losers, but one can still win battles with them.
Could you expand more on your view about the current situation in Ukraine?
I think stuff like how Russian VDV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Forces was portrayed before war and what they actually have accomplished example of this.
After all those trampoline axe throwing videos, I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear that Spetznaz were wiped out at an airport on day one.
Maybe through the lens of culture war nonsense the Ukraine war proves that. Ukraine's army isn't more effeminate lol, they're just less associated with Fox News
Yeah pretty sure they're referring to Russia's army being so pathetic
Basically pentagon is setting American military power to be defeated into 2nd class power from which nevet to recover. You can already see Russians obliterate anything sent over Ukraine battlefields by NATO, especially US. We will see in our lifetime our American Leutra where just half a century ago Americans defeated Nazi. It is such a bad idea to use Sparta as though Americans never read history...ops the recent Jada Black Cleopatra confirmed that.
Sparta was a incredibly brutal army masquerading as a state. Like all great powers they were successful until they weren't.
It's weird how we forget Athenian brutality in the whole Athens/Sparta dichotomy. There Melian dialogue is literally them shaking down their neighbors and then brutally murdering them drug cartel style, and Sparta won the Peloponnesian war by being more diplomatic. We uncritically buy into both of their propaganda about themselves
It's weird how we forget Athenian brutality in the whole Athens/Sparta dichotomy. There Melian dialogue is literally them shaking down their neighbors and then brutally murdering them drug cartel style, and Sparta won the Peloponnesian war by being more diplomatic. We uncritically buy into both of their propaganda about themselves
"Where some states have an army, the Prussian Army has a state", as a wit later put it.
But yeah, reading Thucydides (also an out-of-sorts Athenian) leaves you with a lingering doubt about the inherent goodness of political regimes - "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
But yeah, reading Thucydides (also an out-of-sorts Athenian) leaves you with a lingering doubt about the inherent goodness of political regimes - "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
> There Melian dialogue is literally them shaking down their neighbors and then brutally murdering them
"The strong do as they will. The weak submit."
"The strong do as they will. The weak submit."
If this interests you, I'd recommend the ACOUP blog articles by Bret Devereaux on this subject.
https://acoup.blog/category/collections/this-isnt-sparta/
Audio format
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcIwe3bxds8ZvX9wL0Vf2hz...
https://acoup.blog/category/collections/this-isnt-sparta/
Audio format
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcIwe3bxds8ZvX9wL0Vf2hz...
I was just about to say this reads like a Bret Devereaux article...and it is.
Bret Devereaux is the author of the submitted article.
I missed that somehow. I guess that explains why reading it reminded me so much of the blog post!
Thucydides, an Athenian who fought the Spartans and also spent some time with them, would beg to disagree. Spartan diplomacy, while not very eloquent, was nevertheless very effective during the Peloponnesian War, with Athenian allies frequently doing their utmost to desert to the enemy. Spartan troops, while few in number, prove extremely effective in combat, usually routing their direct opponents and only losing the occasional battle due to their allies' unsteadiness. Even the battle at Pylos, cited by Mr. Devereaux as a major defeat, comes very close to being a second Thermopylae, with a small group of Spartan warriors stranded on an island and holding off against all odds for months, until a freak accident burns out all the trees and reveals their lack of strength to the enemy. Finally forced to take to the seas, inexperienced Spartan admiral Lysander concocts a brilliant strategy and utterly destroys the Athenian fleet at Aegospotami.
The article was written by an historian who is well aware of Thucydides. He's written a lot about him on https://acoup.blog/ including a discussion of why we shouldn't take his views on Sparta without a grain of salt.
"To put it bluntly, these guys are all snobs. Thucydides and Xenophon were both aristocratic Athenians (they got to be generals, rather than common soldiers), frustrated that democracy – in their view – let the fickle, uneducated and poor ‘masses’ make decisions that ought to have been left to their ‘betters.’... For these authors, Sparta is a mirror to hold up to the politics of Athens – speaking well of Sparta is a way of criticizing what they dislike about Athens (which is the democracy)... These men conclude that Sparta is fantastic because Sparta seems fantastic for men like them – rich, educated, adult citizen men."
"To put it bluntly, these guys are all snobs. Thucydides and Xenophon were both aristocratic Athenians (they got to be generals, rather than common soldiers), frustrated that democracy – in their view – let the fickle, uneducated and poor ‘masses’ make decisions that ought to have been left to their ‘betters.’... For these authors, Sparta is a mirror to hold up to the politics of Athens – speaking well of Sparta is a way of criticizing what they dislike about Athens (which is the democracy)... These men conclude that Sparta is fantastic because Sparta seems fantastic for men like them – rich, educated, adult citizen men."
I am well aware of prof. Devereaux's blog and have even donated to it in the past. Also I hope you realize that just because someone is a historian it doesn't mean all other historians would agree with him. Pick ten random books on ancient Sparta, the odds are that most will take a position very different from "Spartans were losers".
I'm not sure about the 'random books' method, since there are a lot of extremely random books on Sparta, but I'd be very interested to hear about debate within the military history profession on the effectiveness of Sparta. (This is not me expressing scepticism that it exists, merely that I am ignorant of it).
A rather authoritative reference point here is Donald Kagan's "The Peloponnesian War", which has been generally well regarded over the past two decades. Paul Rahe's recent book also seems well documented. Here are a couple of reviews to get you started:
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2021/2021.03.44/
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2021/1/the-spartan-way-of-wa...
> One of the many Spartan enigmas—the reluctance to deploy an otherwise superior military—was not really an enigma at all.
> Sparta’s original paramilitary force, with time and sustenance to train and drill constantly against internal enemies, eventually evolved, by the early fifth century, into a crack expeditionary army, one even deadlier against Greek rivals than against Sparta’s restive serfs.
> Its unmatched hoplite army was often put to Panhellenic use, most famously by the three hundred at Thermopylae and as the “Dorian Spear” that crushed the Persians at Plataea.
> In this regard, Rahe shows that purportedly blinkered Spartan foreign policies gradually proved more astute than those of sophisticated Athens.
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2021/2021.03.44/
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2021/1/the-spartan-way-of-wa...
> One of the many Spartan enigmas—the reluctance to deploy an otherwise superior military—was not really an enigma at all.
> Sparta’s original paramilitary force, with time and sustenance to train and drill constantly against internal enemies, eventually evolved, by the early fifth century, into a crack expeditionary army, one even deadlier against Greek rivals than against Sparta’s restive serfs.
> Its unmatched hoplite army was often put to Panhellenic use, most famously by the three hundred at Thermopylae and as the “Dorian Spear” that crushed the Persians at Plataea.
> In this regard, Rahe shows that purportedly blinkered Spartan foreign policies gradually proved more astute than those of sophisticated Athens.
>Despite Sparta’s reputation for superior fighting, Spartan armies were as likely to lose battles as to win them, especially against peer opponents such as other Greek city-states.
This shows a misunderstanding of how military power and war works, particularly in the ancient world. It's not a football game, where the best team will dominate everyone else. It's about fear and intimidation as much as fighting. If you have a force that is capable of creating 50/50 odds against any given opponent, that is a very formidable enemy.
This shows a misunderstanding of how military power and war works, particularly in the ancient world. It's not a football game, where the best team will dominate everyone else. It's about fear and intimidation as much as fighting. If you have a force that is capable of creating 50/50 odds against any given opponent, that is a very formidable enemy.
>Sparta has also become a political rallying cry, including by members of the extreme right who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Why does this always get brought up in articles where it's not relevant? Is my takeaway supposed to be that anybody who names anything after the Spartans is associated with a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over losing that election?
Also TFA's cited proof for this is a link to a Twitter thread about something questionable Joe Biden said regarding gun control? I cannot even speculate why OP would tell such an really verifiable lie, did he think nobody would click on his links?
Why does this always get brought up in articles where it's not relevant? Is my takeaway supposed to be that anybody who names anything after the Spartans is associated with a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over losing that election?
Also TFA's cited proof for this is a link to a Twitter thread about something questionable Joe Biden said regarding gun control? I cannot even speculate why OP would tell such an really verifiable lie, did he think nobody would click on his links?
I don't see any lies.
The link supports the claim is that 'Molṑn Labé' is used as a "political rallying cry", in this case by Rep. Jeff Duncan making a political rally cry in support of access to guns.
That is indeed a Spartan saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe .
It was also used "by members of the extreme right who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021." For example, from 'SPARTANS ON THE CAPITOL: Recent Far-Right Appropriations of Spartan Militarism in the USA and their Historical Roots' (found via Google Scholar, but the URL doesn't seem to work stand-alone from HN):
] The display of ‘Spartan’ symbols during the insurrection of 6 January 2021 represented the culmination of an increasing recent trend whereby the U.S. Far-Right has appropriated martial images of the Spartans (linked especially to the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC) to support their causes. Three strands of appropriation have been prominent: Three strands of appropriation have been prominent: first, exploitation of the phrase MOLON LABE, supposedly uttered at Thermopylae by Sparta’s king Leonidas, by the firearms industry and gun-rights activists as a selling-point and a rallying cry against restrictions on gun ownership; secondly, use of imagery from Zack Snyder’s film 300 (2006) by supporters of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign; thirdly, invocations of ‘Spartan’ military symbols and Sparta’s martial reputation to mobilise violence against the leftist movement labelled ‘Antifa’.
> Is my takeaway supposed to be that anybody who names anything after the Spartans is associated with a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over losing that election?
... No? I think it's supposed to be that perhaps your understanding is incomplete and there is context you aren't aware of? Perhaps a newer context than one used to, for example, choose the name "Spartans" for the Michigan State University mascot back in 1925?
The link supports the claim is that 'Molṑn Labé' is used as a "political rallying cry", in this case by Rep. Jeff Duncan making a political rally cry in support of access to guns.
That is indeed a Spartan saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe .
It was also used "by members of the extreme right who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021." For example, from 'SPARTANS ON THE CAPITOL: Recent Far-Right Appropriations of Spartan Militarism in the USA and their Historical Roots' (found via Google Scholar, but the URL doesn't seem to work stand-alone from HN):
] The display of ‘Spartan’ symbols during the insurrection of 6 January 2021 represented the culmination of an increasing recent trend whereby the U.S. Far-Right has appropriated martial images of the Spartans (linked especially to the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC) to support their causes. Three strands of appropriation have been prominent: Three strands of appropriation have been prominent: first, exploitation of the phrase MOLON LABE, supposedly uttered at Thermopylae by Sparta’s king Leonidas, by the firearms industry and gun-rights activists as a selling-point and a rallying cry against restrictions on gun ownership; secondly, use of imagery from Zack Snyder’s film 300 (2006) by supporters of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign; thirdly, invocations of ‘Spartan’ military symbols and Sparta’s martial reputation to mobilise violence against the leftist movement labelled ‘Antifa’.
> Is my takeaway supposed to be that anybody who names anything after the Spartans is associated with a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over losing that election?
... No? I think it's supposed to be that perhaps your understanding is incomplete and there is context you aren't aware of? Perhaps a newer context than one used to, for example, choose the name "Spartans" for the Michigan State University mascot back in 1925?
> a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over ...
This describes just about all current political events, so take your pick of any of them - it's gonna be dumb.
This describes just about all current political events, so take your pick of any of them - it's gonna be dumb.
They did win the war with Athens…
Hard to take seriously anyone who calls the victors of the Peloponnesian War and the only Greek city-state not subjugated by Phillip of Macedon “losers.” This is just people taking the opposite stance of Spartans being good warriors because they know right wingers fetishize Spartans. Both are people who care little about historical truths and more about “owning” their culture war enemies.
Did you at least read the article before taking a side? The author is a historian who happens to have spent quite a bit of time researching this and makes a very compelling argument.
Every empire that ever was and is no more are also losers then I guess. I guess all the native populations that got owned by invading armies and more advanced technology coming from Europe in the Discoveries were losers too. This whole loser thing is funny until it's about someone you identify with, so better not even start it.
Does anyone bother to write that the gauls were losers? Vercingetorix got owned!
The Spartans get way too much hype but they also had a fairly respectable run for a while. They beat Persia and then Athens. Were the athenians even bigger losers?
The Spartans get way too much hype but they also had a fairly respectable run for a while. They beat Persia and then Athens. Were the athenians even bigger losers?
> They beat Persia and then Athens
I hope you're not counting Thermopylae as them 'beating Persia'. Thermopylae was a disastrous defeat. Marathon and Salamis seem to be more important than Thermopylae (and are victories), and those were led by Athens as far as I can make out. You may be referring to Plataea, which was led by Sparta, but included forces from the whole Greek alliance, including nearly as many troops from Athens as Sparta.
As to them beating Athens, that was only after taking an enormous amount of Persian money to do so, and would most likely have been impossible otherwise.
I hope you're not counting Thermopylae as them 'beating Persia'. Thermopylae was a disastrous defeat. Marathon and Salamis seem to be more important than Thermopylae (and are victories), and those were led by Athens as far as I can make out. You may be referring to Plataea, which was led by Sparta, but included forces from the whole Greek alliance, including nearly as many troops from Athens as Sparta.
As to them beating Athens, that was only after taking an enormous amount of Persian money to do so, and would most likely have been impossible otherwise.
[deleted]
they had help from allies, but they still won those wars and not lost.
That's fine, as long as you also agree that Athens 'beat Persia'.
i am not expert, but my reading of wiki is that there were two wars:
- first invasion where persian were defeated by athens, and sparta was not involved much because persian didn't come to sparta close
- second, much larger invasion, where persians again attacked athens first, essentially defeated athens (athenians left the city), then athenians asked sparta to join the war or otherwise they will surrender to persians. Sparta assembled army, and defeated persians in the battle of plataea.
It looks like spartans defeated persians, and athenians would surrender if no sparta's involvement
- first invasion where persian were defeated by athens, and sparta was not involved much because persian didn't come to sparta close
- second, much larger invasion, where persians again attacked athens first, essentially defeated athens (athenians left the city), then athenians asked sparta to join the war or otherwise they will surrender to persians. Sparta assembled army, and defeated persians in the battle of plataea.
It looks like spartans defeated persians, and athenians would surrender if no sparta's involvement
they had help from allies, but they still won those wars and not lost.
The author can’t refute the two instances I gave so not sure it matters.
always disappointing when people switch topic to titles when they can't bring counter-argument.
That isn't really an accurate take.
Most 'right wingers' only fetishize Sparta based on what they learned from the movie 300. Kind of like a lot of 'right wingers' say they are Christian, but have never read the bible and have no idea what they believe in. (for example, Jesus didn't actually support killing neighbors with guns).
Like from the Movie 300, it is made out like Athens are 'gay', 'boy lovers'.
When it is pretty clearly documented that Spartans were very homosexual. Since the movie changed this, 'right wingers' feel ok fetishizing them. (and, I do like how you used the word "fetish" here, it almost makes me think this was a long con reverse troll post).
Most 'right wingers' only fetishize Sparta based on what they learned from the movie 300. Kind of like a lot of 'right wingers' say they are Christian, but have never read the bible and have no idea what they believe in. (for example, Jesus didn't actually support killing neighbors with guns).
Like from the Movie 300, it is made out like Athens are 'gay', 'boy lovers'.
When it is pretty clearly documented that Spartans were very homosexual. Since the movie changed this, 'right wingers' feel ok fetishizing them. (and, I do like how you used the word "fetish" here, it almost makes me think this was a long con reverse troll post).
Look into Sparta inheritance laws. Most land was owned by rich widows. Those also dominated political life. Kings had to borrow money from them!
Sparta was basically matriarchal society with very low fertility. At time of Alexander the Great, they could only field 1000 soldiers. He did not even bothered to conquer them.
Compare it to US. How many soldiers could they put on field? UK can realistically deploy only 10k soldiers.
Sparta was basically matriarchal society with very low fertility. At time of Alexander the Great, they could only field 1000 soldiers. He did not even bothered to conquer them.
Compare it to US. How many soldiers could they put on field? UK can realistically deploy only 10k soldiers.
I was always under the impression that the glorification of Sparta started and ended at the battle of Thermopylae, the willingness to fight and die alongside your brothers in arms is venerated just as we Remember the Alamo.
All in all, this FP just reeks of a leftist hit-piece, Sparta is so associated with right-wing toxic masculinity and so must be pilloried. After all, they’ve already torn down beautiful statues venerating heroes, now own to the intangible idols.
All in all, this FP just reeks of a leftist hit-piece, Sparta is so associated with right-wing toxic masculinity and so must be pilloried. After all, they’ve already torn down beautiful statues venerating heroes, now own to the intangible idols.
Traitors who fought their country for slavery weren't heroes. The Founding Fathers were
When the American Revolution erupted, society in the Colonies was split pretty evenly between those who rebelled and those who wanted to remain under England. The American Founding Fathers are representative of a side that ultimately won by doing things like burning down many loyalists’ homes, or tar-and-feathering them, and then exiling them to Canada or the West Indies, in order to cow the other loyalists into keeping quiet. Sure, that is a bit less heinous than fighting to perpetuate race-based chattel slavery. But there is no reason to view the American Founding Fathers as heroes unless you are of that small portion of the world’s population that has been through American schools and still has an attachment to the mythology presented in civics classes there.
There certainly is reason. Did you know that after Washington defeated the British, his officers offered him a military dictatorship?
And he turned it down? Who does that? Who else in history did that?
When he became President, he turned down titles like "your Excellency" and other trappings of power. He voluntarily left after two terms, establishing a precedent that lasted until FDR.
How do you get more heroic than that?
As for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, terrible fates awaited nearly all of them.
https://michaelwsmith.com/the-sacrifices-made-by-the-declara...
And he turned it down? Who does that? Who else in history did that?
When he became President, he turned down titles like "your Excellency" and other trappings of power. He voluntarily left after two terms, establishing a precedent that lasted until FDR.
How do you get more heroic than that?
As for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, terrible fates awaited nearly all of them.
https://michaelwsmith.com/the-sacrifices-made-by-the-declara...
Rare virtue, but I wouldn’t say it was unprecedented: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
I didn't know about him, thanks. But it illustrates my point - you had to reach back two thousand five hundred years to find an example.
France-Albert René, Jerry Rawlings. Couple of 20th century examples of autocrats who yielded their power to democratic rule.
> France-Albert René
I'm not impressed. He took a dictatorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France-Albert_Ren%C3%A9
> Jerry Rawlings
Not impressed with him,either. He took it back: "After handing power over to a civilian government, he took back control of the country on 31 December 1981 as the chairman of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Rawlings
I'm not impressed. He took a dictatorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France-Albert_Ren%C3%A9
> Jerry Rawlings
Not impressed with him,either. He took it back: "After handing power over to a civilian government, he took back control of the country on 31 December 1981 as the chairman of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Rawlings
Theres not a big sample size to pick from.
How many people have led armies fighting British, let alone beat them?
How many people have led armies fighting British, let alone beat them?
The sample size is people who led successful revolutions. There are plenty in history you can compare Washington to.
For the record, there is also Scipio. But yes, very few people in all of history who voluntarily stepped back when offered absolute power.
It’s easy to turn honours down when you are among the wealthiest people in a country and therefore retain a great deal of power and influence even without formal trappings.
Easy? Who else has done it? FDR was very wealthy, but he clung on until he died. People like power, wealthy or not. It's the ultimate seduction.
Loads of revolutions have ended with one or more of the warlords involved relinquishing any formal role in the subsequent elected government, in exchange for simply keeping their massive wealth and networks of influence. After all, formal roles bring duties and obligations, so why bother if you don’t have to? The idea of Washington as some kind of saintly Cincinnatus is itself a literal textbook example of early American mythology.
I only listed facts, not mythology.
> in exchange for
Washington didn't do it in exchange for anything.
> any formal rule
Washington wasn't offered a "role". He was offered absolute power.
> in exchange for
Washington didn't do it in exchange for anything.
> any formal rule
Washington wasn't offered a "role". He was offered absolute power.
> Washington didn't do it in exchange for anything.
How do you know that? Wielding absolute power makes enemies and Washington could have eventually lost everything, just like any number of historical tyrants that his circle, so keen about Greek and Roman history, were aware of. Turning down absolute power while keeping one’s immense wealth and influence can be an attractive choice, and this is the same calculus that has guided other warlords involved in revolutions up to the present day.
How do you know that? Wielding absolute power makes enemies and Washington could have eventually lost everything, just like any number of historical tyrants that his circle, so keen about Greek and Roman history, were aware of. Turning down absolute power while keeping one’s immense wealth and influence can be an attractive choice, and this is the same calculus that has guided other warlords involved in revolutions up to the present day.
He also gave up the Presidency after 2 terms, though he was a shoo-in to be re-elected.
Your portrayal of FDR is extremely unfair, and shows your biases clearly as day. The man was re-elected for his 3rd and 4th terms in 1940 and 1944, think of any extenuating circumstance that might have caused that?
Extremely unfair? After he did that, a Constitutional Amendment was passed to stop that from happening again. Presidents have an enormous advantage in reelection, and the country was concerned that we were at risk of a "president for life".
He was quite ill during his final term, which put him at a severe disadvantage in negotiating with Stalin. This was hidden from the public.
He was quite ill during his final term, which put him at a severe disadvantage in negotiating with Stalin. This was hidden from the public.
If he shouldn’t have done that why didn’t the American people sent him packing out of office? Why the arbitrary term limit of eight years?
Because the American people don't really choose who's on the final ballot. For all we know FDR in 1944 was considered "just ok", but was better than his opponent.
Then that was the fault of a lack of a challenger within the Democratic nomination. And if they really wanted to, more delegates should have voted for Harry Byrd:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Democratic_National_Conve...
Given that Americans tend to reelect presidents during wartime, that makes the claim that FDR was somehow unpopularly "just ok" to be even more dubious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Democratic_National_Conve...
Given that Americans tend to reelect presidents during wartime, that makes the claim that FDR was somehow unpopularly "just ok" to be even more dubious.
> How do you get more heroic than that?
Do the same things without owning people.
Do the same things without owning people.
He turned down owning the entire country. Do you know of anyone that meets your standard?
The French Revolutionaries, Washington's contemporaries, didn't own anybody. How'd that work out? I'll help. Millions dead, and they arrived right back where they started with Napoleon declaring himself hereditary monarch of France.
How about all the other revolutions in the Americas?
The French Revolutionaries, Washington's contemporaries, didn't own anybody. How'd that work out? I'll help. Millions dead, and they arrived right back where they started with Napoleon declaring himself hereditary monarch of France.
How about all the other revolutions in the Americas?
What your ascribe to nobility might simply be prudence. The American republic was founded on the ideals and rhetoric of anti-tyranny. Washington may have simply chosen the course of wisdom of not getting overthrown, himself. Or assassinated by any of his various rivals, such as Horatio Gates and the officers of the Newburgh Conspiracy, which sought to remove him as leader of the Continental Army during the war itself.
Maybe choosing not to be a dictator was simply the safest course of action. Least path of resistance.
Maybe choosing not to be a dictator was simply the safest course of action. Least path of resistance.
Look at his later stepping down as President setting a precedent for two terms, despite being a shoo-in for re-election.
It's not consistent with him being afraid of assassination.
It's not consistent with him being afraid of assassination.
Washington passed away two years after his second term. Him not seeking a third is consistent with him being old and ailing.
They also fought for freedom and democracy. Without their heroic example the French Revolution would never have happened and the world would still be ruled by hereditary monarchies. Also, the military in the great nation they founded has consistently protected the democracies of today from falling into dictatorship (like Ukraine)
> They also fought for freedom and democracy.
They claimed to do so. Most revolutions have some kind of noble ideology that is proclaimed over what is actually a complex mixture of self-interest and enmities.
> Without their heroic example the French Revolution would never have happened and the world would still be ruled by hereditary monarchies
The French Revolution is widely regarded as a disaster of sorts: any noble aims were downed in the blood of innocent people during the Terror that immediately ensued. Moreover, even the French reversed its achievements multiple times over the 19th century.
That the world would still be ruled by hereditary monarchies is a stretch considering that even the state that the American Colonies rebelled against had reduced the power of the monarch in favour of Parliament many decades before.
They claimed to do so. Most revolutions have some kind of noble ideology that is proclaimed over what is actually a complex mixture of self-interest and enmities.
> Without their heroic example the French Revolution would never have happened and the world would still be ruled by hereditary monarchies
The French Revolution is widely regarded as a disaster of sorts: any noble aims were downed in the blood of innocent people during the Terror that immediately ensued. Moreover, even the French reversed its achievements multiple times over the 19th century.
That the world would still be ruled by hereditary monarchies is a stretch considering that even the state that the American Colonies rebelled against had reduced the power of the monarch in favour of Parliament many decades before.
Oof, bold claims (the world would not have liberal democracies without the American revolution) and bald-faced lies (muh USA military protecting democracy, Guatemala, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, etc, would all like to have a word with you).
" Traitors who fought their country for slavery weren't heroes. The Founding Fathers were"
Someone said a few years ago:
"On the one hand, we had people who fought with gun and sword to murder, rape, and otherwise exploit my people. On the other hand we had people who fought with pen and parchment to murder, rape, and otherwise exploit my people."
Someone said a few years ago:
"On the one hand, we had people who fought with gun and sword to murder, rape, and otherwise exploit my people. On the other hand we had people who fought with pen and parchment to murder, rape, and otherwise exploit my people."
The first right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence (not declaration of liberty or equality or rights) is the first sentence: the right to dissolve political bonds. And the US actually did it again after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederate were replaced by the Constitution.
Please explain to me how the states which dissolved their bonds with the United States and declared their independence from it (many of which had done so during the Revolution and had ratified both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution while slavery was legal, and several of which did not secede until after the U.S. fired on Ft. Sumpter) were different in exercising the right to dissolve political bonds?
Bonus points if you can do it without saying but but muh racist. If you don't accept the first sentence of the Declaration the rest of it is null and void.
(While you're at the explain how the three-fifths compromise actually strengthened slave states (who wanted to count each slave as 1 person) because it actually weakened them and also, most importantly, enshrined slaves as persons and not property in the Constitution with the consentand ratification of those states where slavery was still legal.)
Please explain to me how the states which dissolved their bonds with the United States and declared their independence from it (many of which had done so during the Revolution and had ratified both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution while slavery was legal, and several of which did not secede until after the U.S. fired on Ft. Sumpter) were different in exercising the right to dissolve political bonds?
Bonus points if you can do it without saying but but muh racist. If you don't accept the first sentence of the Declaration the rest of it is null and void.
(While you're at the explain how the three-fifths compromise actually strengthened slave states (who wanted to count each slave as 1 person) because it actually weakened them and also, most importantly, enshrined slaves as persons and not property in the Constitution with the consentand ratification of those states where slavery was still legal.)
That right belongs to the people, not the states. Which in slave states included the slaves. In two Confederate states, slaves were an outright majority, and in most of the rest, they were a large plurality. Do you seriously believe that Confederate politicians could be meaningfully described as representing "the people" dissolving political bonds, given that those politicians did not in any way represent all the slaves by design? It's about as meaningful as claiming that Spartan aristocracy represented helots or Messenians.
Not that it matters much. Even if it is democratic, there's no moral right to self-determination if that self-determination is explicitly for the purposes of brutal oppression of some minority.
Not that it matters much. Even if it is democratic, there's no moral right to self-determination if that self-determination is explicitly for the purposes of brutal oppression of some minority.
>Please explain to me how the states which dissolved their bonds with the United States and declared their independence from it were different in exercising the right to dissolve political bonds?
Non American here. Honestly, I'm perplexed by the question? Are you being genuine?
The difference is that they're the traitors from your perspective. You're American. They seceded from America. Thus they're traitors.
The same way that Americans are traitors from the perspective of an Englishman.
How is this even a question? There is no absolute right or wrong. There's not even an absolute right. Nothing says you can or cannot secede. It all depends on your perspective. If you're American than the South were the traitors.
Non American here. Honestly, I'm perplexed by the question? Are you being genuine?
The difference is that they're the traitors from your perspective. You're American. They seceded from America. Thus they're traitors.
The same way that Americans are traitors from the perspective of an Englishman.
How is this even a question? There is no absolute right or wrong. There's not even an absolute right. Nothing says you can or cannot secede. It all depends on your perspective. If you're American than the South were the traitors.
> You're American. They seceded from America. Thus they're traitors. ... Nothing says you can or cannot secede. ...
GP's entire point was that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence establishes the basic right to secede. Here it is:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
His point is that Americans are broadly wrong when we condemn secessionists as traitors. According to our own founding document.
GP's entire point was that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence establishes the basic right to secede. Here it is:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
His point is that Americans are broadly wrong when we condemn secessionists as traitors. According to our own founding document.
It becomes turtles all the way down.
The south secedes. Then a few states don't dig the confederacy and secede from that, to form "The States of Northern Florida". Then some counties secede, then some cities secede, then a few individuals secede.
This actually happened, (not the Florida part). Once seceding was an option on the table, individual states started considering it and individual counties. And the whole thing was going to break apart.
Once you start down the path of anybody can 'dissolve the political bands' then the whole enterprise dissolves into anarchy.
You can interpret the Declaration of Independence literally all you want. But I'm pretty sure it was just a big middle finger to England. Once the US consolidated, those in power did what all people in power did, and it was more 'Can't have anymore of that'.
The south secedes. Then a few states don't dig the confederacy and secede from that, to form "The States of Northern Florida". Then some counties secede, then some cities secede, then a few individuals secede.
This actually happened, (not the Florida part). Once seceding was an option on the table, individual states started considering it and individual counties. And the whole thing was going to break apart.
Once you start down the path of anybody can 'dissolve the political bands' then the whole enterprise dissolves into anarchy.
You can interpret the Declaration of Independence literally all you want. But I'm pretty sure it was just a big middle finger to England. Once the US consolidated, those in power did what all people in power did, and it was more 'Can't have anymore of that'.
>His point is that Americans are broadly wrong when we condemn secessionists as traitors. According to our own founding document.
And he'd be wrong. They betrayed their nation, the United States of America. What's more, the Declaration of Independence didn't found anything.
It was a declaration of rebellion with broad, well understood at the time, political arguments designed to rile folks up against George III.
The U.S.'s first "founding document" was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union[0], approved by the Second Continental Congress in 1777 and ratified by all 13 colonies (cum states) by 1781, followed by its replacement in 1789 by the US Constitution.
While the Declaration does lay out political arguments for secession, it has no legal force. Rather, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land[1]. What clause in that document grants the several states the right to secede? I'll save you the effort. It ain't there.
You can absolutely make the philosophical argument that a society can, and in some cases, should, create a separate political entity. As was elucidated in Robert Heinlein's lunar retelling of the American Revolution in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress[2].
But that's a philosophical argument, not a legal one. That said, there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from advocating/organizing secession from the Unites States (or the relevant political entity wherever you might be), but governments tend to frown on that sort of thing.
As such, no matter the malicious motives and/or provocations of said government, if you attempt to overthrow its authority, you are a traitor (or a 'freedom fighter', I'm not picky about labels). But you are perfectly able to do so. But things might not end so well. Governments tend to be less pleasant to those who take up arms against them than they might be.
As the Confederacy[3] found out, during the American Civil War.
Relatedly, Kermit Roosevelt[4] persuasively argues[5] that the members of the Confederacy were the true inheritors of the political arguments embodied by the Declaration of Independence, not the Union. His point being that our nation as it exists is the product of the evolution of our constitutional order, and not simply the natural rights arguments laid out in the Declaration.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
[1] https://constitutionus.com/constitution/the-supreme-law-of-t...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt_III
[5] https://www.c-span.org/video/?469938-1/rethinking-americas-f...
And he'd be wrong. They betrayed their nation, the United States of America. What's more, the Declaration of Independence didn't found anything.
It was a declaration of rebellion with broad, well understood at the time, political arguments designed to rile folks up against George III.
The U.S.'s first "founding document" was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union[0], approved by the Second Continental Congress in 1777 and ratified by all 13 colonies (cum states) by 1781, followed by its replacement in 1789 by the US Constitution.
While the Declaration does lay out political arguments for secession, it has no legal force. Rather, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land[1]. What clause in that document grants the several states the right to secede? I'll save you the effort. It ain't there.
You can absolutely make the philosophical argument that a society can, and in some cases, should, create a separate political entity. As was elucidated in Robert Heinlein's lunar retelling of the American Revolution in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress[2].
But that's a philosophical argument, not a legal one. That said, there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from advocating/organizing secession from the Unites States (or the relevant political entity wherever you might be), but governments tend to frown on that sort of thing.
As such, no matter the malicious motives and/or provocations of said government, if you attempt to overthrow its authority, you are a traitor (or a 'freedom fighter', I'm not picky about labels). But you are perfectly able to do so. But things might not end so well. Governments tend to be less pleasant to those who take up arms against them than they might be.
As the Confederacy[3] found out, during the American Civil War.
Relatedly, Kermit Roosevelt[4] persuasively argues[5] that the members of the Confederacy were the true inheritors of the political arguments embodied by the Declaration of Independence, not the Union. His point being that our nation as it exists is the product of the evolution of our constitutional order, and not simply the natural rights arguments laid out in the Declaration.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
[1] https://constitutionus.com/constitution/the-supreme-law-of-t...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt_III
[5] https://www.c-span.org/video/?469938-1/rethinking-americas-f...
I think a lot of it comes down to the usual ignorance of what the Spartans actually did and how they lived. A lot of focus is placed on their extreme lifestyles while a lot less is placed on their massive community of slaves (helots) and their secret police to manage them. It's funny, since the existence of a slave population which greatly outnumbered them shaped their society and led directly to their downfall.
They've also always been a very useful shibboleth for people trying to make the "Effete Athenians vs Manly Spartans" comparison.
They've also always been a very useful shibboleth for people trying to make the "Effete Athenians vs Manly Spartans" comparison.
> All in all, this FP just reeks of a leftist hit-piece, Sparta is so associated with right-wing toxic masculinity and so must be pilloried.
Can you point out any factual errors in it?
>After all, they’ve already torn down beautiful statues venerating heroes, now own to the intangible idols.
Which statues specifically are you talking about?
Can you point out any factual errors in it?
>After all, they’ve already torn down beautiful statues venerating heroes, now own to the intangible idols.
Which statues specifically are you talking about?
I suspect they are talking about the statues glorifying the confederate slave owning society.
As stated elsewhere I think. Right-Wing glorification of Sparta is really based mostly on the movie 300, and not on much 'historical fact'.
Not that this bad. Most of our romanticized notions are incorrect. I also loved the movie 300 and if that is the romantic ideal for manly fighting, then so be it. That is fine. Call this some kind of 'Spartan Fighting Spirit'. Just don't take it as fact. Kind of like the Arthurian Ideal of Knighthood and Chivalry. It is a very powerful symbol, even if not very 'accurate'.
Not that this bad. Most of our romanticized notions are incorrect. I also loved the movie 300 and if that is the romantic ideal for manly fighting, then so be it. That is fine. Call this some kind of 'Spartan Fighting Spirit'. Just don't take it as fact. Kind of like the Arthurian Ideal of Knighthood and Chivalry. It is a very powerful symbol, even if not very 'accurate'.
One day we will be able to test political ideas in a realistic simulator. Then we will have the ability inform citizens of the effects of what they are being told.
When that happens, they will realize that the low merit ideas of authors such as this guy are useless.
The decline of Sparta was due to the greed of the elite, who became self-serving at the expense of the rest. Not because of the merit of Spartan soldiers.
When that happens, they will realize that the low merit ideas of authors such as this guy are useless.
The decline of Sparta was due to the greed of the elite, who became self-serving at the expense of the rest. Not because of the merit of Spartan soldiers.
>When that happens, they will realize that the low merit ideas of authors such as this guy are useless.
Which ideas are you specifically talking about?
>The decline of Sparta was due to the greed of the elite, who became self-serving at the expense of the rest. Not because of the merit of Spartan soldiers.
Did you even read the article? Spartan soldiers were the elite. One major reason why Sparta declined was that this severely limited the size of armies they could field. And, as the article argues (supported with lots of hard historical facts), their military merit was, overall, rather mediocre.
Which ideas are you specifically talking about?
>The decline of Sparta was due to the greed of the elite, who became self-serving at the expense of the rest. Not because of the merit of Spartan soldiers.
Did you even read the article? Spartan soldiers were the elite. One major reason why Sparta declined was that this severely limited the size of armies they could field. And, as the article argues (supported with lots of hard historical facts), their military merit was, overall, rather mediocre.
> Sparta declined was that this severely limited the size of armies they could field.
Agreed. That is a scalability problem, it does not mean they were a failure at large in every aspect.
Rolls Royce, Ferrari and Lamborghini products also don't scale as much as Toyota products but many people aspire to have them.
> their military merit was, overall, rather mediocre.
Their merit is studied in military academies around the world. Those are the types of studies that actually matter and can be tested in real situations of life and death.
Agreed. That is a scalability problem, it does not mean they were a failure at large in every aspect.
Rolls Royce, Ferrari and Lamborghini products also don't scale as much as Toyota products but many people aspire to have them.
> their military merit was, overall, rather mediocre.
Their merit is studied in military academies around the world. Those are the types of studies that actually matter and can be tested in real situations of life and death.
> Agreed. That is a scalability problem, it does not mean they were a failure at large in every aspect.
No, but the fact that they weren't actually winning most of their battles means they were not exactly a success in the military aspect, which was kind of the only thing they had going for them, seeing as their society was otherwise pretty shit (admittedly, their upperclass women had a few more freedoms than those in other Greek states).
> Their merit is studied in military academies around the world. Those are the types of studies that actually matter and can be tested in real situations of life and death.
Excuse me, which military academies these days are fighting battles using spears and shields?
Please tell me you're not talking about Steve Pressfield "Warrior Ethos" bullshit.
No, but the fact that they weren't actually winning most of their battles means they were not exactly a success in the military aspect, which was kind of the only thing they had going for them, seeing as their society was otherwise pretty shit (admittedly, their upperclass women had a few more freedoms than those in other Greek states).
> Their merit is studied in military academies around the world. Those are the types of studies that actually matter and can be tested in real situations of life and death.
Excuse me, which military academies these days are fighting battles using spears and shields?
Please tell me you're not talking about Steve Pressfield "Warrior Ethos" bullshit.
Their upper class women had more than 'a few more freedom', especially after their husbands died: they basically controlled merchants and foreign policy.
Then some day after that, we'll realize that our simulations aren't as realistic as we imagined, and we'll be faced with entrenched ideas which enjoy the imprimatur of having "passed the simulator test" despite the questionable value that provides.
All models are wrong, some are useful; humanity will be dead long before that changes.
All models are wrong, some are useful; humanity will be dead long before that changes.
Even successful people have a success rate below 100%, and the more things you try the more failures you will accrue. For any successful person that has ever lived you can cherrypick all their failures and write an article like this.
The only person that doesn't fail is the person that never tries anything. Being successful is not about never failing.
This article completely ignores the Battle of Thermopylae which is probably one of the things Spartans are the most known for. In that sense, the author himself failed to portray Spartans fairly, making him a failed historian.
In 100 years this historian will be completely forgotten.
The only person that doesn't fail is the person that never tries anything. Being successful is not about never failing.
This article completely ignores the Battle of Thermopylae which is probably one of the things Spartans are the most known for. In that sense, the author himself failed to portray Spartans fairly, making him a failed historian.
In 100 years this historian will be completely forgotten.
Imagine being so sensitive to criticism of people who you never met, existed thousands of years ago, and you only really know about through an absurd pop-culture portrayal. Somebody has taken way too much of his identity from 300.
It's very clear that the aim of the article is not talking about Sparta. It's talking about how modern society should fit the expectations of this historian more.
And his aspirations would be to have a society less like Sparta. Meaning less fit, respected people that get mobilized to protect their territory and more of the opposite perhaps?
The semantic opposite is flaccid, laughable people that get invaded all the time. Perhaps that would be more aligned with the author's preferences.
And his aspirations would be to have a society less like Sparta. Meaning less fit, respected people that get mobilized to protect their territory and more of the opposite perhaps?
The semantic opposite is flaccid, laughable people that get invaded all the time. Perhaps that would be more aligned with the author's preferences.
Isn't this kind of what the author was saying? Spartan Military and Elites were a closely overlapping Venn-diagram, and they both were corruptible.
I'm not seeing a wide enough divergence in what you are saying compared to the author to justify that the author has 'low merit ideas'.
Unless you are thinking the ruling class elites and the soldiers were very distinct groups? But that wasn't really the case was it? It was a military society right? So Soldiers and rulers were the same group. So why are you stating the decline was because of 'elite's but not the 'soldiers' thus the article was 'low merit', when those were same group?
I'm not seeing a wide enough divergence in what you are saying compared to the author to justify that the author has 'low merit ideas'.
Unless you are thinking the ruling class elites and the soldiers were very distinct groups? But that wasn't really the case was it? It was a military society right? So Soldiers and rulers were the same group. So why are you stating the decline was because of 'elite's but not the 'soldiers' thus the article was 'low merit', when those were same group?
Read this first.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor
Guess we're both wrong.
Ephor's were Neither Elites nor Soldiers exclusively. Or probably in the middle. History is lot more messy than the movie.
The wiki does agree that they were pretty corrupt, but also makes point that Ephor's came from the general population.
"The ephors were elected by the popular assembly, and all citizens were eligible."
Think this comes back around to making same point as article. That Ephors weren't some exclusive class of elites, but more that the general population were kind of corrupt and fought to get these plumb corrupt positions.
"According to Aristotle, the ephors frequently came from poverty because any Spartan citizen could hold the position, and it was not exclusive to the upper-class. Aristotle stated that because of this they were often liable to corruption.[19]"
Ephor's were Neither Elites nor Soldiers exclusively. Or probably in the middle. History is lot more messy than the movie.
The wiki does agree that they were pretty corrupt, but also makes point that Ephor's came from the general population.
"The ephors were elected by the popular assembly, and all citizens were eligible."
Think this comes back around to making same point as article. That Ephors weren't some exclusive class of elites, but more that the general population were kind of corrupt and fought to get these plumb corrupt positions.
"According to Aristotle, the ephors frequently came from poverty because any Spartan citizen could hold the position, and it was not exclusive to the upper-class. Aristotle stated that because of this they were often liable to corruption.[19]"
>The wiki does agree that they were pretty corrupt, but also makes point that Ephor's came from the general population.
No - they came from the citizen population, which in Sparta's case was a tiny percentage of the entire population, with most of the rest being helots, who were basically especially badly treated slaves.
No - they came from the citizen population, which in Sparta's case was a tiny percentage of the entire population, with most of the rest being helots, who were basically especially badly treated slaves.
That is slaves. But were soldiers not citizens?
The Spartan army at Thermopylae included helots, for example.
Of what movie are you talking about? Did I ever reference a movie?
If you want to watch anything watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppGCbh8ggUs
If you want to watch anything watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppGCbh8ggUs
The movie "300". In the US most people's knowledge of Sparta comes from the movie "300". It's part of the romantic mythos, the underdogs that saved western civilization against amazing odds. You had a particular reaction to the contradiction of that version, I had just assumed that was the background.
So I'm not really following your argument.
I thought you were arguing that the submitted article was wrong. It was really the corrupt Elites that were the problem, not soldiers.
I posted something about elites and soldiers being in the same class.
You replied with link to Ephors, I thought to argue that Ephors were the 'elite's that were corrupt and lead to the downfall of Sparta.
I quoted about Ephors being generally elected and frequently from the poor, and soldiers. And also agreeing that they were corrupt, but not purely a class of 'elite's.
Then you sent video that seems to praise the 'ephor's. Not only were they not elites, they were actually trying to do the right thing, fighting for the people. (so I thought opposite of your original post, original post implied Ephors were bad, but this video makes them out as good). But, the video does point out who the elites were. They "Gerousia" which was a council of elders that were actually the more typical 'elites'. Old, entrenched, not elected, and had power over the Ephors. So the "Gerousia" are the 'elites' to blame, not the honest fighting soldiers.
But generally, the Video makes clear that we don't know much about this time period, and that by the time Rome was moving in, Sparta was a small village that couldn't form an army. So was it 'corruption' of the elites? Or stagnation? Still, nothing really contradicts the posted article.
So I'm not really following your argument.
I thought you were arguing that the submitted article was wrong. It was really the corrupt Elites that were the problem, not soldiers.
I posted something about elites and soldiers being in the same class.
You replied with link to Ephors, I thought to argue that Ephors were the 'elite's that were corrupt and lead to the downfall of Sparta.
I quoted about Ephors being generally elected and frequently from the poor, and soldiers. And also agreeing that they were corrupt, but not purely a class of 'elite's.
Then you sent video that seems to praise the 'ephor's. Not only were they not elites, they were actually trying to do the right thing, fighting for the people. (so I thought opposite of your original post, original post implied Ephors were bad, but this video makes them out as good). But, the video does point out who the elites were. They "Gerousia" which was a council of elders that were actually the more typical 'elites'. Old, entrenched, not elected, and had power over the Ephors. So the "Gerousia" are the 'elites' to blame, not the honest fighting soldiers.
But generally, the Video makes clear that we don't know much about this time period, and that by the time Rome was moving in, Sparta was a small village that couldn't form an army. So was it 'corruption' of the elites? Or stagnation? Still, nothing really contradicts the posted article.
The Ephorate did have power, which ultimately corrupts them to some degree, but they were not required to be wealthy and their term lasted for only one year.
My initial comment was about the "deep state" (non-electable de-facto powers with vast influence) in Sparta, which were the rich families run by the πατρούχοι that had an immense influence over the diarchy and Sparta at large. They used their wealth to influence most of the Spartan institutions, resulting in more wealth which ultimately tipped the balance of power to their side.
You are just incredibly confused, thinking that I am talking about the movie/visual novel 300, and then turning this into some kind of movie review.
Let me save you the public shame and let's cut this exchange short. Have a good life and enjoy learning about history.
My initial comment was about the "deep state" (non-electable de-facto powers with vast influence) in Sparta, which were the rich families run by the πατρούχοι that had an immense influence over the diarchy and Sparta at large. They used their wealth to influence most of the Spartan institutions, resulting in more wealth which ultimately tipped the balance of power to their side.
You are just incredibly confused, thinking that I am talking about the movie/visual novel 300, and then turning this into some kind of movie review.
Let me save you the public shame and let's cut this exchange short. Have a good life and enjoy learning about history.
Not that confused.
This entire thread makes reference to the movie at some point, since the article was dealing with modern popular views compared to history. Typically when someone comments as you did, as if offended when someone dare criticize Spartan soldiers, it is someone that only watched the movie.
Your original post did not provide any details as you did later, it was simply :
>"When that happens, they will realize that the low merit ideas of authors such as this guy are useless. "
But then, you later did provide more detail. And your views seem to align with the article. So, movie aside, not really sure what you find wrong with the article, except maybe you think it disrespects soldiers in general.
I agree power corrupts, money corrupts, and most human institution tend to become corrupted by money. Money seems to continue to accrue to a few and they buy everyone. The article seems to agree with this.
Public Shame. Who cares? (Lol, maybe the deep state is watching us)
Your original post did not provide any details as you did later, it was simply :
>"When that happens, they will realize that the low merit ideas of authors such as this guy are useless. "
But then, you later did provide more detail. And your views seem to align with the article. So, movie aside, not really sure what you find wrong with the article, except maybe you think it disrespects soldiers in general.
I agree power corrupts, money corrupts, and most human institution tend to become corrupted by money. Money seems to continue to accrue to a few and they buy everyone. The article seems to agree with this.
Public Shame. Who cares? (Lol, maybe the deep state is watching us)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Americans often did this before by making heroic-warrior myths out of American Indian tribes that were on the losing side of historical conflicts just like the Spartans. Just think of all the American Indian imagery in the Boy Scouts from its early years, high-school sports teams named after such tribes, etc. Of course now, use of Native American motifs is seen as cultural appropriation, but the Spartans are far removed enough in time – and viewed as the same race as modern privileged classes – that use of Spartan motifs is safe from such accusations.