A military historian’s analysis of Spartan myth
acoup.blog
acoup.blog
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rvusy/is_th...
- 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.
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)
"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.
Sparta:Athens :: North Korea:South Korea
Sparta was to Athens like North Korea is to South Korea.
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.)
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/
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
[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.
If you actually read the series, you'll learn that Sparta was horrifying even by the standards of its own time.
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...
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.
We constantly try to abstract good decisions into "good people" and that seems like a mistake.
"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?
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.
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.
> comparing the popular legacy of Sparta (embodied in films like 300) with the historical ancient state
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.
“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.”
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-...
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).
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.
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.
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."
Looking at purely economics or modern cultural relevance is anachronistic.
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!
This isn't really true. The contemporary Carthaginian and Roman empires spanned hundreds of miles of Mediterranean coastline.
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."
How much would the Japanese have cared about what Rome thought?
Vs now.
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.
That's roughly the distance between Paris and Moscow, crossing through Belgium, Germany and Poland.
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.
I'll just say that it's human nature to romanticize the past. Particularly when we feel we have an affinity for that past.
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.
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.
If we can't discuss classical history without flamewar, we can't discuss anything without flamewar. Let's discuss things without flamewar.
edited to correct the spelling of Las Vegas
War College had a good interview with a historian on this subject.
https://player.fm/series/war-college-1324080/this-is-not-spa...
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.
The "fetishization" of Sparta goes back to Thucydides and Xenophon, Athenians who admired the Spartans, and Plutarch, a Roman who admired Sparta.
"...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.