Hellenika - Historical Mudpit

[maddogs1989]

In the interest of debate, I thought this would be a good idea. Here we can discuss and debate (heatedly if necessary, but keep personal attacks on opinions out of it please).
To start, there is a debate going on about Sparta and Athens as besiegers and how competent they were.

The rules of the mudpit are as follows:
If you make a claim, or support a theory you must provide the source of your claim or the source on which your theory is based.

For example. A Claim that Thucydides was biased.

Most of our knowledge of the causes and the events of this decisive war depends on the history written by the Athenian Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.). Thucydides served as an Athenian commander in northern Greece in the early years of the war until the assembly exiled him for losing an outpost to the enemy. (Thuc. 5.26.5) During his exile, Thucydides was able to interview witnesses from both sides of the conflict. Unlike Herodotus, Thucycdides concentrated on contemporary history and presented his account of the events of the war in an annalistic framework, that is, by organizing his history according to the years of the war with only occasional divergences from chronological order. Like Herodotus, he included versions of direct speeches (Thuc. 1.22) in addition to the description of events. The speeches in Thucydides, usually longer and more complex than those in Herodotus, deal with major events and issues of the war in difficult and dramatic language. Their contents often address the motives of the participants in the war and offer broad interpretations of human nature and behavior. Historians disagree about the extent to which Thucydides has put words and ideas into the mouths of his speakers, but it seems indisputable that the speeches deal with the moral and political issues that Thucydides saw as central for understanding the Peloponnesian War as well as human conflict in general. His perceptive narrative and interpretation of the causes and events of the war made his book a pioneering work of history as the narrative of great contemporary events and power politics.

Thomas R. Martin, An Overview of Classical Greek History from Mycenae to Alexander

I'll include a link to the full article. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...er%3D12#note26

My opinion. I find it hard to believe that Thucydides would be totally unbiased, however, his exile and treatment by fellow Athenians might offset that a little.

(Note maddogs1989 did not start this thread but posted in another, we created a new thread by moving the debate from gaw manual thread here. That results in this post (the first one chronologicaly) being the op. Therefore I edited in the information about the thread posted below when we made it into an entirely new one, enjoy/Linke)

Ok so I made this profile in response to what you said about the Spartans on besieging. Frankly I'm kinda disappointed at your conclusion, when there is no real data to support it at all, given the amount of information that you did to research everything else.

"Spartan armies were probably the worst besiegers ever..If we exclude success in PLatees after 2 years of siege which happened with the surrender of the minimal local garrison (they failed every attack attempt) they did not make any worth mentioning victory during Peloponnesian war.In fact one of the reasons of the Sfacteria humilliation was their incapability to besiege even a small and rushly made Athenian outpost in Pylos left to be defended by few garrisoned Athenian marines"

First of you are coming at this thinking that sieging involved siege equipment during this time which it did not. A siege during the Peloponnesian War involved literally starving the defenders out. This is why the wall of Athens was so pinnacle in Athens surviving the war. Secondly the loss of the battle of Pylos was not due to poor besieging tactics but the loss of the Spartan Navy to the Arriving Athenian Navy half a day after the Spartans set in for a siege. The resulting loss at Sphacteria was again due to the loss of a battle with the Spartan Navy which resulted in one of the few losses that the Spartan Army ever actually took through out history. In fact if you actually study The Peloponnesian War all of Sparta's defeats were because of an ill gotten Navy going up against the most formidable Navy of the time. The Athenians like wise refused to engage the Spartans on land through out the war for the most part because they new they would loose any land battle the faced the Spartans in. Hence for the creation of the wall around Athens and her port. It was oly when Lysander defected to Sparta did Sparta actually start winning Naval battles. Well that and the incoming gold from Persia.

To better make your mod more historical which from all the time I see you put in to getting actual discriptions is what you're going for the correct thing would to give Sparta superiority on land while Athens has superiority on the sea. Additionally when you make a comment on the Spartan page saying that they paid to lunches .... Its called a mess it is a complete different definition then a standard lunch. A mess is a military dining facility yes however in Sparta these were represented by the different units. You had to get accepted into a mess after the Agoge. You didn't just join one. If you failed to get accepted into a mess you lost your citizenship.

Second looking at the unit models that you have for Sparta with the crest that do the loop up. Seeing how from the 6th century onwards Sparta was huge on its uniformity I highly doubt this version of the crest was used on Spartan units. At least there is no evidence of it being used on Spartan hoplites. But certain other greek city states did use it. The crests that Spartans primarily used were the front to rear, the transverse, and the long transverse crest. Transverse crest were primarily used to mark Spartan Officers while long transverse crest were used on very high ranking officers.

The last thing I would like to say is that I like the mix use of the Corinthian Helms with the Pilos as its know that by the end of the 5th Century Sparta fully adopted the Pilos helm. However, Again off the Spartan uniformity I would say that the Spartans would use the same style of Corinthian Helm whether it be a wide gap, or close gap between the spacing of the cheek shields. Personally I think the close gap is the coolest.

Anyway rather you choose to take this information is up to you. But it is more historically accurate and a better more challenging play experience.

I will transfer shortly here our only mud fight till now about Sparta's expertese in sieges and helmet styles from GaW manual section..
For what is worth i must say that my answers were a bit aggresive and i regret that.If i have one excuse is that my passion for history temporarily overtook me.
I apologised privately for my tone to maddogs1989 and i promise to behave from now on.
I stand strong in my views though which are 100% backed in literature.
Scout's honour.

[Linke]

I think the Athenians should be good besiegers but the Spartans don't have to be bad, just normal. We will see.

I can't say much about Spartan soldiers. But Elias says the crests are to represent the front rank in the preview.
And do remember that we added more officers than 2 in a unit so it might look like ordinary soldiers have officers crests if you don't know that.

Would the state provide Spartans with the same helmets? I don't think so but that the Spartan helmets went from father to son so some might look older/different. Although I agree one looks a bit small, but as far as I know it's the only one that can fit some crests.

You will probably get an answer from someone who knows more than me, thanks for feedback!

[M@x1mus]

Second looking at the unit models that you have for Sparta with the crest that do the loop up. Seeing how from the 6th century onwards Sparta was huge on its uniformity I highly doubt this version of the crest was used on Spartan units. At least there is no evidence of it being used on Spartan hoplites. But certain other greek city states did use it. The crests that Spartans primarily used were the front to rear, the transverse, and the long transverse crest. Transverse crest were primarily used to mark Spartan Officers while long transverse crest were used on very high ranking officers.

The last thing I would like to say is that I like the mix use of the Corinthian Helms with the Pilos as its know that by the end of the 5th Century Sparta fully adopted the Pilos helm. However, Again off the Spartan uniformity I would say that the Spartans would use the same style of Corinthian Helm whether it be a wide gap, or close gap between the spacing of the cheek shields. Personally I think the close gap is the coolest.

Anyway rather you choose to take this information is up to you. But it is more historically accurate and a better more challenging play experience.

-About the "loop up" crest on hippeis. Check my sources. (You can google the spartan hippes also and you will find many sources and tons of images about this crest). You are saying there is no evidence. I say that there are more evidence that Spartans actually used this crest on this unit than the opposite.
-About your transverse crests i did exactly that if you care to read what i have done.
-About using the same corinthian helmet model. Mate helmets goes from father to son. Also helmets get destroyed and should be replaced. Furthermore if you have so much knowledge in ancient Greek warfare as you claim you should know about the helmets evolution. Corinthian helmets limit the hearing and eyesight. So, many modifications made throughout time to limit this problems such us ear openings wider mouth gap etc. Of course a helmet that was made on Persian wars era and pass to a son will definitely not be same like a new corinthian helmet model created at 431.
-About Sparta's abillity to siege. Maybe Phalangitis sayings was a bit exaggerated, but more or less that is what happened. Herodotos mention that Spartans had no knowledge at siegecraft (see the chapter about battle of Mycalis) and waited the Athenians who considered experts on that field to siege the persian fortified camp. Also Thucidides mentions, when the helots revolted and Kimon came to help, on the siege of Ithomis, Spartans were afraid that, because of the Athenian knowledge in siegecraft, they will take the fort and succed where Spartans couldn't so they sent them away. And many other cases. Also Lysander was a Spartan admiral not an Athenian who defected to Sparta and Athens never get surrounded with walls.
You are saying that your sayings are historically accurate even though speaking without sources. We are saying that we are trying to be as closest to what historically happend as possible studying the todays given sources.
Finally i don't see where your sayings affect gameplay to be more challenging.
Welcome to the TW community mate and thanks for the feedback!

[Phalangitis]

First of all let me say (joking of course) that i hate you for making argument against my favorite Spartans.
I will not describe the countless failures in sieges.I will only describe their most known success in Plataies and you all can draw conclusions.
First of all numbers.When siege started there were 30,000 men.Plateeis were 600.480 men and 120 women cooks!!Secondly.No siege weapons?At first Archidamus tried to thorw dirt on the walls to make his soldiers walk over the wall.FAilure.After that he constructed many battery rams wich failed with crane hook and rock attack of the defenders.Thirdly they constructed a huge falme thrower and tried to set the city on fire.Failure (they nearky caught fire themselves).After that they constructed 2 parallel wals of 5 meters apart.Despite all that 220 Platean garrison decided to get away to go to Athens and ask for help.They succeded 212 of them.THe jumped over 2 walls and passed through the entire Spartan army loosing 8 men.So Patees were left with 480-220=400 men plus 100 women as garrison to defend 1,500 long meters of wall.They DID!!!.Finaly they just surrendered after promised fair trial which they had not.
Conclusions are yours..

EDIT "Hence for the creation of the wall around Athens and her port. It was oly when Lysander defected to Sparta did Sparta actually start winning Naval battles. Well that and the incoming gold from Persia."
Sorry mate but i simply cannot see where did you find those info..Athens was never surrounded with wall.. Spartans created a base in Decelia
Also Lysander never defected..Alkibiadis did.
These are so basic mistakes that i really doupt you got Peloponnesian war history well sorted in your memory.Sorry not beeing sarcastic.It is very hard to keep track of so many info we get from texts..

[Mausolos of Caria]

I still think the evil Thebans should not have convicted all of those poor Plataian souls to death

[Phalangitis]

So truth...Those heroic men did not deserve that fate..Also let us not forget their heroic stance in Persian wars..

[maddogs1989]

-About the "loop up" crest on hippeis. Check my sources. (You can google the spartan hippes also and you will find many sources and tons of images about this crest). You are saying there is no evidence. I say that there are more evidence that Spartans actually used this crest on this unit than the opposite.
-About your transverse crests i did exactly that if you care to read what i have done.
-About using the same corinthian helmet model. Mate helmets goes from father to son. Also helmets get destroyed and should be replaced. Furthermore if you have so much knowledge in ancient Greek warfare as you claim you should know about the helmets evolution. Corinthian helmets limit the hearing and eyesight. So, many modifications made throughout time to limit this problems such us ear openings wider mouth gap etc. Of course a helmet that was made on Persian wars era and pass to a son will definitely not be same like a new corinthian helmet model created at 431.
-About Sparta's abillity to siege. Maybe Phalangitis sayings was a bit exaggerated, but more or less that is what happened. Herodotos mention that Spartans had no knowledge at siegecraft (see the chapter about battle of Mycalis) and waited the Athenians who considered experts on that field to siege the persian fortified camp. Also Thucidides mentions, when the helots revolted and Kimon came to help, on the siege of Ithomis, Spartans were afraid that, because of the Athenian knowledge in siegecraft, they will take the fort and succed where Spartans couldn't so they sent them away. And many other cases. Also Lysander was a Spartan admiral not an Athenian who defected to Sparta and Athens never get surrounded with walls.
You are saying that your sayings are historically accurate even though speaking without sources. We are saying that we are trying to be as closest to what historically happend as possible studying the todays given sources.
Finally i don't see where your sayings affect gameplay to be more challenging.
Welcome to the TW community mate and thanks for the feedback!

When the evidence comes from a historian that's almost a millennia after almost all the events that transpired its not really a first hand source. A lot of first hand source should come from Herodotus is the only real first hand source on information regarding the Spartans and some of that is vague and onesided favoring the Athenians. As far as actual historical evidence we really don't have any for the hippies. I have checked your sources a lot of which I'm not conflicting with.

I know that Spartans passed down there helms from one to another and I know the differences between the early and late model Corinthian helms. What I was saying was more to the animation as CA did a complete horrible job on the initial Corinthian helms and some of those were mixed in. That is what I meant by that comment.

Herodotus did indeed mention that. However siege craft at the time was in its extreme infancy. Oh yeah it took forever to take Platea. Which is more an example of how early siege craft really was during that time.

Yes I admit I miss spoke I got Lysander confused with that turn coat Athenian Alcibiades. My mistake.

I'm speaking from reading source over a decade. If you wish for me to start putting sources up I will gladly do so. This all started from the use of an extremely bad example of siege warefare by using the Battle of Pylos as an example. How many really sieges actually took place in the Peloponnesian War. There wasn't all that many. I'm assuming you're talking about the helot revolt after the Earthquake of 464? If that's the case I'm fairly certain that there are a lot more sources that support the fact that the Spartans turned down the Athenian aid after requesting it due to fear that the Athenians would sympathize with the helots especially because they requested Athenian support for there "REPUTED EXPERIENCE IN SIEGE OPERATIONS". Especially being that the Spartans complete enslaved an entire greek city state.

Now while admitting that I agree that Thucidides says the Athenians are great siegers I see no evidence of this at all especially during the Peloponnesian War. Infact its quite the opposite. Ever research he Siege of Potidaia? No? Well look into it It took the Athenians 2 years to break the siege and only from starvation did they do it and this is after the beat the defenders in combat before sieging the city. Oh wait isn't that the same length of time it took the Spartans???? Oh and the Spartans didn't defeat there enemy before laying siege to them???? So tell me again how the Athenians are great siege artists. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles..._potidaia.html

Finally this is directed at you Phalangitis. Do not even remotely tell me that during the Peloponnesian War that Athens did not build a wall around their city and there sea port to prevent a ground war with Sparta. So why did a plague strike Athens????? Was it because they were hiding behind a wall a relying on their navy to supply them. Your very statement says how badly you don't know the events. And before you make a comment on it again. Yes I mixed up Lysander with an Athenian. Though it was an Athenian that assisted the Spartans in defeating the Athenians in Syracuse brokered a the Persians to supply Sparta with gold and even advised to build a permanent fort in Athens. So I may get names wrong from time to time but the events are at least still right.

Now yes this entire thing is harsh I made my first comment in hopes for you to improve on the accuracy not start a heated argument. Thanks for the welcome to the form M@x1mus I think you guy have a great mod going on.

[maddogs1989]

Again correct me if I'm wrong but this is the Wall that you says doesn't exist? http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...DHg&ajaxhist=0

Also has anyone noticed that the long transverse crest used by CA is actually wrong for the y have the checkered wood mount ontop of a bronze mount? As I recall the wood mounts and the bronze mounts were never stacked on top of each other.

[M@x1mus]

Again correct me if I'm wrong but this is the Wall that you says doesn't exist? http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...DHg&ajaxhist=0

Those are the long walls of Athens built by Athenians to defend their city not a Spartan wall to isolate Athens. Spartans never built walls around Athens to isolate the city like Athenians did to Syracuse or Spartans to Plataea. At least that was what i understood from your sayings. If you mean something else then ok.

[Phalangitis]

A well known action of the besieger (attacker) of that era was to create a wall around the settlement to ensure the isolation of it the the inability to be supplied.Sparta did that to Platees , Athenian to Syracuse etc.I thought you mentioned doing that same thng to Athens.In fact what they did was create a base in Decelia so they would harass Athenian farmers and have a base of pillaging operations inside Attica.If you were reffering to the defensive Long walls of Athens then ok but there are many mistakes in your thinking generaly mate.
Thank you for participating in the discusion

[maddogs1989]

Read my longwinded response. I never said Sparta built the wall. I said the Athenians built there wall to prevent ground engagements with Sparta. And the main reason for doing such was because siege warefare was virtually non existant in 430 BC. From my knowledge you had only three sieges in the Pelopponnesian war. Two of which were done by Sparta, and were successful, and one by Athens which was successful. All of them took well over a year to do. Here's you're Athenian siege warefare at its finest and only reienforces my point. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles..._potidaia.html And this is 30 years after the Helot revolt due to the Earthquake in Sparta where Thucidides said the Athenians were great siegers. What I have said and the history of any battle supports this from this time period still stands. Thucidides was an Athenian recording history from the Athenian side of the war. Starting off he already has a biased on the matter and the Capabilities of the Athenians themselves. They were infact not great siege artists but neither were the Spartans.

I have admitted my mistakes with history. Have you?

[M@x1mus]

Thanks for the welcome to the form M@x1mus I think you guy have a great mod going on.

I m sure that Phalangitis understood exactly the same as i did, so i think the whole thing about wall in Athens, is more of a misunderstanding caused due to english is not our native language and the lenghth of your initial post.
Unfortunately history has many point of views so nobody can be absolut and we can discuss matters forever, but that is what makes studying history fascinating.!
Thank you for taking part to the discussion and for your intention to help

[Phalangitis]

3 sieges???what books are you reading friend? Have you ever read Thoucididis??
There were more than 21 sieges in war.Almost one for every year.From large scale like Potidea ans Syracuse to smaller ones like Mendi,Skione,Melos,Oinoi,Samos,Toroni,Amphipolis and the list goes on and on..
I will not continue though for 2 reasons friend.One is that despite any argument i may present you seem rather fixed in your views and the second reason is because i see you have the history of this era a bit mixed up in your head..
Thank you for participating in our threads though..

EDIT also we learned tooday that Thucididis was biased..with this argument you totaly lost me.I rest my case.

[maddogs1989]

3 sieges???what books are you reading friend? Have you ever read Thoucididis??
There were more than 21 sieges in war.Almost one for every year.From large scale like Potidea ans Syracuse to smaller ones like Mendi,Skione,Melos,Oinoi,Samos,Toroni,Amphipolis and the list goes on and on..
I will not continue though for 2 reasons friend.One is that despite any argument i may present you seem rather fixed in your views and the second reason is because i see you have the history of this era a bit mixed up in your head..
Thank you for participating in our threads though..

EDIT also we learned tooday that Thucididis was biased..with this argument you totaly lost me.I rest my case.

Ok so you clearly need to learn what a Siege is because the only two you listed that were sieges were Syracuse and Potidaia.

If you seriously can not see how Thucidides was biased in his view on the Athenians being an Athenian, having the views of an Athenian, and fighting in The Peloponnesian War as an Athenian you clearly don't grasp the concept of how people on one side of a conflict are biased to the other side. The fact is that more and more Historians are viewing Thucidides work as a work of literature rather than a source. If you were a true historian you would know this.

You say I have my history mixed up. Yet the only thing I mixed up was a name not an event. You point blank stated that "Athens was never surrounded with wall." Regardless of English being your first language or not Athens was surrounded by a wall. And if you bothered actually reading what I said it had nothing to do with the Spartans. AS I did say "This is why the wall of Athens was so pinnacle in Athens surviving the war." I have yet to get any events wrong yet you still insult my memory on the events when you yourself have gotten events wrong.

In the end I am not the one fixed in my views that would be you because even as I have presented sources to contradict your flawed conclusion you have yet to even acknowledge any of which instead keeping on your little island of solitude believing you are right. I have repeatedly asked for this proof of the Athenians being superior in siege operations yet you provide non. So don't go bouncing around in a high almighty stance at all when it because for one you have a very narrow grasp on history itself.

The very fact you bring up the FAILED Siege of Syracuse contradicts your entire view point on how great the Athenians were at siege operations as it was for the most part the single largest defeat that Athens had in the War.

[maddogs1989]

Finally you bring up the Battle of Oenoe? There is no know source of information that really confirms this battle. Not even the source that Pausanias says is the source supports it. Do you just read books written by authors or do you seriously study history. Because it seriously is starting to show that you really don't. Even if the Battle of Oenoe took place it is suggested to have taken place during the Athenian-Argive Alliance against Sparta in 462/1-451 BC not the Peloponnesian War.

Honestly if a tap were to be started on who is getting facts wrong right now with my one name drop and the numerous occasions in which you have misstated fact, misused fact, or flat out include something as history that the original so called source doesn't even support you are clearly leading in not understanding history.

[Phalangitis]

Lets agree we dissagree.
I have been to countless debates like this in the past.This will not lead anywhere.I can post and show pics of dozen different books and facts but i will not.If you study histrory you would know that for the same fact there are countless different opinions.At the end it is up to us to choose which fits our taste.
This is a free of charge deposit of countless hours of our precious free time , knowledge ,artistic ideas,thought and a very tiring procedure in the whole.
You are not forced to like it or agree with it.
Cheers

[Clearchus of Sparta]

In the interest of debate, I thought this would be a good idea. Here we can discuss and debate (heatedly if necessary, but keep personal attacks on opinions out of it please).
To start, there is a debate going on about Sparta and Athens as besiegers and how competent they were.

The rules of the mudpit are as follows:
If you make a claim, or support a theory you must provide the source of your claim or the source on which your theory is based.

For example. A Claim that Thucydides was biased.

Most of our knowledge of the causes and the events of this decisive war depends on the history written by the Athenian Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.). Thucydides served as an Athenian commander in northern Greece in the early years of the war until the assembly exiled him for losing an outpost to the enemy. (Thuc. 5.26.5) During his exile, Thucydides was able to interview witnesses from both sides of the conflict. Unlike Herodotus, Thucycdides concentrated on contemporary history and presented his account of the events of the war in an annalistic framework, that is, by organizing his history according to the years of the war with only occasional divergences from chronological order. Like Herodotus, he included versions of direct speeches (Thuc. 1.22) in addition to the description of events. The speeches in Thucydides, usually longer and more complex than those in Herodotus, deal with major events and issues of the war in difficult and dramatic language. Their contents often address the motives of the participants in the war and offer broad interpretations of human nature and behavior. Historians disagree about the extent to which Thucydides has put words and ideas into the mouths of his speakers, but it seems indisputable that the speeches deal with the moral and political issues that Thucydides saw as central for understanding the Peloponnesian War as well as human conflict in general. His perceptive narrative and interpretation of the causes and events of the war made his book a pioneering work of history as the narrative of great contemporary events and power politics.

Thomas R. Martin, An Overview of Classical Greek History from Mycenae to Alexander

I'll include a link to the full article. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...er%3D12#note26

My opinion. I find it hard to believe that Thucydides would be totally unbiased, however, his exile and treatment by fellow Athenians might offset that a little.

[Phalangitis]

I will transfer shortly here our only mud fight till now about Sparta's expertese in sieges and helmet styles from GaW manual section..
For what is worth i must say that my answers were a bit aggresive and i regret that.If i have one excuse is that my passion for history temporarily overtook me.
I apologised privately for my tone to maddogs1989 and i promise to behave from now on.
I stand strong in my views though which are 100% backed in literature.
Scout's honour.

[Phalangitis]

For a reason unknown to me the opening post of this thread was moved to position #17...
Anyway the mudpit is open.
I can argument on Thucididis but will do so later..(Wife yells..)

[maddogs1989]

Thank you for the apology Phalangitis it is appreciated and I understand I am just as passionate about history particularly of the Spartans as I feel a lot of people make rash judgments on them with out understanding them, historians included. Some where along the line, when it comes to the Spartans, historians stopped being objective and started bringing opinion into it when even with as little as we really know about them we still know a lot from studying the facts. I personally believe the downfall of Sparta came from a decline starting in during the Peloponnesian War when they stopped focusing on there laws as much and became more lacked. Coming from the military myself specifically the Marine Corps infantry I see the Spartan Leaders by this time being to set in a box of succeeding in battle. They're overconfident and brash. I still think even during the Battle of Leuctra that even the Sacred Band in skill, discipline, and strength were no match for the Spartans. That said they had one thing going for them, a brilliant Commander. And regardless of the Spartans military prowess it all came down to horrible commanders making horrible decisions and not adapting to the Battle at hand.

Now going forward. Sieges as defined:

a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault. The term derives from sedere, Latin for "to sit".^[1] Siege warfare is a form of constant, low-intensity conflict characterized by one party holding a strong, static defensive position. Consequently, an opportunity for negotiation between combatants is not uncommon, as proximity and fluctuating advantage can encourage diplomacy.A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that cannot be easily taken by a coup de main and refuses to surrender.

There were very few sieges in the Peloponnesian War, there were however a lot of battles. Now regarding the Athenians brilliance at siege warfare where is the historical proof? My question from the begging. They laid siege to Potidaia in a two year campaign after defeating their enemy in a ground combat. Only winning by starving the Potidaians out much like the Spartans did at Plataea. They then laid siege to Syracuse only to have the Syracusians under Spartan General Gylippus was able to counter the siege defeat the Athenians. Again another two year siege ordeal. My point is that throughout the 5th Century BC siege warfare was essentially in its infancy for the Greeks. While Easter countries like China and such were adapt at it the Greeks were just getting into it. Their siege equipment was generally ineffective or poorly assembled. They sieged by building wall and counter walls for the most part. If there is proof of the Athenians being great at sieges during time please present it. I have found none to the contrary. From what I have seen the Spartans do appear to be great at counter sieging which is generally a sign of proficient knowledge of sieging.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles..._potidaia.html http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/siege_plataea.html http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...acuse_414.html

On my comment on Thucydides http://www.academia.edu/458266/The_A...review_article_ You cant regard on a single source. If history is any context and repeating history is true, which we are shown it is, everyone regardless of being able to question every side is biased. Being Athenian General while he "may" have respected the Spartans he still had distain for them. Its true of every member of the military. You may respect your enemy but you certainly have a biased against them.