Spartans vs Romans

[Lord Condormanius]

Up in here I've seen lots of kids playing Spartans.
Kids playing Spartans is just because the word 'Spartan' allways refers to 'brave' or 'heroic', especially with that 300 movie coming up..
I thought that it especially would live in the USA, as 300 is pretty much a message that Iranian and Eastern people are bad and that you can't trust 'em.

Yeah, I got that message too. But what they didn't tell you is that Sparta was a slave-driven society. The reason they had so much time to train is that the men did not have to work. Slaves did virtually everything.

I don't agree either with your opinion that Spartan soldiers weren't much tougher than other City States.. Sure they had their 'invincible myth' with them but I don't believe they got trained from age 7 for nothing.

You can believe whatever you want to. The fact is, there is no real evidence that show that the Spartans were any tougher or any more sucessful than the other major city-states of Greece.

LC

[Sir Francis]

LC, no. I'm sorry.

Of course the Spartan government milked the psychological aspect of their military strength, but there is no question whatsoever that (unlike the Romans, who, as you rightly point out, lost a lot of battles) the Spartans were far superior to other Hellenes in combat. Just read Thucydides, Herodotus or Xenophon.

Of the nine large battles Sparta was involved in from 500 to the 370s (and obvioiusly this is the key period when speaking of Sparta), Sparta won all except Thermopylae - and the latter is an exception considering the context of the battle. [I exclude the confused 'battle' of Haliartus, which was a draw (despite Lysander's death)].

You could conceivably argue that Spartan superiority came from their constant training as opposed to most poleis' amateur militia (aside from epilektoi), but even this doesn't really hold its own in the face of the ancient evidence. In an Athenian main phalanx, you'll have Timon the fat, bald shoemaker standing next to strong, young Andros, next to ol' Semides the retired banker. There was no 'army' - everyone (male, between 18 and 60) fought.

Lastly, I'm surprised by the constant surprise about Spartans fighting Romans and not winning; when these two met Sparta was largely finished, her day in the sun was done. Look for example at the difference between the US now and 200 years ago - or the British over the last 150 years: from planetary hegemon to 2nd rate power.

LC, yes it was slave-driven. But you miss the point. Athens, Thebes etc. were slave-driven too. It's what a society chooses to do with its free time that is important.

Most Greeks chose to live comfortably and make money; the Spartans - an anomoly amongst the Greeks - chose to focus on warfare.

there is no real evidence that show that the Spartans were any tougher or any more sucessful than the other major city-states of Greece.

I cannot stress enough that if you want to know anything about the ancient Greeks, you have to read the primary sources and form your own opinion on direct evidence.

[SpartansDon'tDie]

You can believe whatever you want to. The fact is, there is no real evidence that show that the Spartans were any tougher or any more sucessful than the other major city-states of Greece.

Not more sucessful?
Perhaps.
But not any tougher?
Name me an army that would stood their ground while trapped and outnumbered over 1:200, while it was clear that they all would die, but managed to kill a number of enemy troops 20 times their own numbers?

[Lord Condormanius]

Of course the Spartan government milked the psychological aspect of their military strength, but there is no question whatsoever that (unlike the Romans, who, as you rightly point out, lost a lot of battles) the Spartans were far superior to other Hellenes in combat. Just read Thucydides, Herodotus or Xenophon.

I like Plutarch's Lycurgus the best... but, as a historian, one must consider when and in what context these sources came to be. For the most part they were all written long after the fact. The authors themselves are influenced by the Spartan myth.

You could conceivably argue that Spartan superiority came from their constant training as opposed to most poleis' amateur militia (aside from epilektoi), but even this doesn't really hold its own in the face of the ancient evidence. In an Athenian main phalanx, you'll have Timon the fat, bald shoemaker standing next to strong, young Andros, next to ol' Semides the retired banker. There was no 'army' - everyone (male, between 18 and 60) fought.

This is true about training, I do understand that the Spartans had ample time for training due to their slave-run economy. However, after a while the outcomes of these battles largely depended on numbers, and Sparta's social practices weren't necessarily conducive to spawning large populations.

...and the "Major" battles that you refer to are only such because they were written about.

Lastly, I'm surprised by the constant surprise about Spartans fighting Romans and not winning; when these two met Sparta was largely finished, her day in the sun was done. Look for example at the difference between the US now and 200 years ago - or the British over the last 150 years: from planetary hegemon to 2nd rate power.

This is probably the best way to answer the initial question.

Athens, Thebes etc. were slave-driven too. It's what a society chooses to do with its free time that is important.

I don't think it is fair to compare the slavery practices of Sparta with those of Athens or Thebes. The Spartan economy was entirely worked by slaves. The only profession a man could have was a soldier or (less often) a religous position.

Not more sucessful?
Perhaps.
But not any tougher?
Name me an army that would stood their ground while trapped and outnumbered over 1:200, while it was clear that they all would die, but managed to kill a number of enemy troops 20 times their own numbers?

You should read Herodotus' account of the battle. It is far less glorious.

I cannot stress enough that if you want to know anything about the ancient Greeks, you have to read the primary sources and form your own opinion on direct evidence.

That is what I have done.

[Sir Francis]

That is what I have done.

Not really.

Again, I apologise but if you think the history was written long after the fact you're somehow reading things wrongly.

Thucydides was a general in the Pelop. War - he wrote from direct experience. He is a contemporary of the events he wrote about ('primary source').

Xenophon not only fought in the wars he wrote about but was a personal friend of the Spartan king Agesilaos.
His main work is called hellenica but is translated as A History of my Times; again, he writes from direct experience.

Herodotus likewise mentions throughout his History that he spoke to eye-witnesses constantly. Again, a contemporary.

Additionally, read plays by Sophokles, Aeschylus, Euripides and Aristophanes. All fought as hoplites for Athens [as did Socrates].

Aeschylus, arguably the greatest playwright of the time, asked that his gravestone merely mention that he had fought the Persians at Marathon).

Plutarch, Pausanias etc. are not strictly speaking primary sources (for Classical Greece) so should not be confused with the primaries.

"However, after a while the outcomes of these battles largely depended on numbers, and Sparta's social practices weren't necessarily conducive to spawning large populations."

What's your point? During the Classical period, down to the 370s, she was the most powerful military state on land. Later, her lack of population was her downfall, yes, but all powers have downfalls.

"...and the "Major" battles that you refer to are only such because they were written about."

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that there were large battles in this period that all the guys that wrote during the period purposefully left out in some sort of pan-Hellenic pro-Sparta conspiracy?

The facts are that Sparta was in fact superior to other Greeks in warfare (on land) during a particular period. I don't know why you're trying to fight this in the light of incontrovertable evidence.

You should read Herodotus' account of the battle. It is far less glorious.

No it isn't. SpartansDD has largly synopsised Herodotus' writing about it.

When was the last time you read it?

[Lord Condormanius]

Sir Francis:

I don't think we need to take this to the level of insult. I have read the same works that you have. Just because I reach a different historical conclusion, does not mean that I am not educated.

The last time I checked the Pellop Wars occured quite some time after Thermopolae. Not long, in perspective, but long enough so that it was learned about before it was written down. None of the authors that you speak of were there. They were all secondary accounts. Primary sources, yes, but there is still some degree of bias that must be taken into considerstion.

Herodotus has also been called the "father of lies."

...and while Plutarch can't be considered a primary source, he was closer to the sources and had acces to things that have been lost in the interim, and was able to construct a very nice history...

No it isn't. SpartansDD has largly synopsised Herodotus' writing about it.

When was the last time you read it?

Yes, it is...maybe glorious is the wrong word. I read it about a year ago. Take a look at the way he describes the Persians. I don't have my copy handy right now...

[SpartansDon'tDie]

You should read Herodotus' account of the battle. It is far less glorious.

You didn't answer the question.

[Sir Francis]

Sir Francis:

I don't think we need to take this to the level of insult.

I haven't insulted you.

In academic debate, the clear line is not to insult a person him or her self but one can say if one thinks an idea or concept is ludicrous.

Imo it is not about coming to different conclusions, it is about a person apparently reading something and drawing impossible conclusions. Pluaralism can only take us so far.

If I read Herodotus and form the conclusion that Thermopylae was a battle fought between 300 Spiders vs millions of Purses, you have the right to show me why I'm wrong. Facts is facts (sometimes). Some people still believe the earth is flat.

The last time I checked the Pellop Wars occured quite some time after Thermopolae.

You're not keeping to the debate here. I hope this is a genuine mistake and not obfuscation! No-one is saying anything about Thermopylae and sources.

The debate is this: you said the Spartans were not tougher than other Greeks.
I have answered by saying that during the first half of the Classical Greek period, Spartans were indeed militarily superior to other Greeks.
Your response to what is in fact an unarguable fact of history is to say a) the sources are innaccurate because they are not primary, and b) there are a bunch of battles which the Spartans lost but noone knows about.

So, in response to a) I am saying the sources are in fact contemporary with the period of Spartan superiority I specified, and b) I poke fun at you because for me, it is a completely nonsensicle argument (what are these battles, and if there are no sources, how do you know about them?)

...and while Plutarch can't be considered a primary source, he was closer to the sources

Closer than who to what sources?

Yes, it is...maybe glorious is the wrong word. I read it about a year ago. Take a look at the way he describes the Persians. I don't have my copy handy right now...

LC, to avoid tempers rising, it's important to be precise and keep to what's being said.

SDD didn't mention the Persians, so why do you bring them up? He said the Spartans "stood their ground while trapped and outnumbered over 1:200, while it was clear that they all would die, but managed to kill a number of enemy troops 20 times their own numbers."

And this fits well with Herodotus (depending on how you want to translate H's numbers - many historians would put the odds at many 100s to 1.)

So how is SDD's statement innaccurate?

[Lord Condormanius]

LC, to avoid tempers rising, it's important to be precise and keep to what's being said.

SDD didn't mention the Persians, so why do you bring them up? He said the Spartans "stood their ground while trapped and outnumbered over 1:200, while it was clear that they all would die, but managed to kill a number of enemy troops 20 times their own numbers."

And this fits well with Herodotus (depending on how you want to translate H's numbers - many historians would put the odds at many 100s to 1.)

So how is SDD's statement innaccurate?

I didn't say it was inaccurate. I just think that it is impossible to talk about Thermopolae without talking about the Persians and the makeup of their army. It is important to consider who the Spartans were fighting against...the individual soldiers. Herodotus talks about many of them having little or no armor and wicker shields...wicker shields!

I just think that, while the Spartans may have had a better military than most, their prowess is greatly exaggerated.

LC

btw... as your "poking fun" and using words like "ludicrous"... that is where debate ends and personal attack begins. Regardless of how you want to define the remarks you are making, by the norms of polite conversation, you are attempting insult...borderline trolling if you ask me.

You didn't answer the question.

...maybe that's because I'm not getting proper readings on my tough-o-meter.

Honestly, how do you answer a question like that?

Closer than who to what sources?

Closer than later historians to ancient sources.

[Sir Francis]

There's nothing personally insulting about saying an idea is ludicrous (which I never in fact said - did I?)

This is generally how it's done in places where argument and debate is fundamental, drawing a line between people and ideas. We all have stupid ideas sometimes.

If you share your ideas with 'the public' some people will find them poor and some will say so. You can respond and show why you think their judgement of your idea may be wrong, but you really shouldn't get offended.

Otherwise you get subconscious mass censorship.

Besides you do it too - "how do you answer a question like that?" has obvious implications and is imo far worse than spelling out why you disagree (as I have done).

For example, I find it exasperating when people don't listen to what's being said. It is rude and disrespectful, to my mind. (Even when I'm not agreeing with you, at least I'm listening and answering). Do I insult them, call them personal names? No, I point out where I think they are not listening.

Different cultures, types of background etc can get along fine but communication is key.

Likewise, it is poor behaviour imo to participate in an argument and ignore salient points made by the Other(s) - if we're seeking truth, we have to accept points where the Other is correct - not avoid them and jump on small bits and pieces we think we can debate.

I spelled out the line of argument, based on the evidence of what has actually been written, so the debate can reach a conclusion - and you ignore it. You then say something which frankly doesn't make any sense given the context of the debate [more anon] (though you do make a slight retraction: "may have had a better military than most" which shows some courage).

[Lord Condormanius]

There's nothing personally insulting about saying an idea is ludicrous (which I never in fact said - did I?)

There is and you did (post #58)

This is generally how it's done in places where argument and debate is fundamental, drawing a line between people and ideas. We all have stupid ideas sometimes.

If you share your ideas with 'the public' some people will find them poor and some will say so. You can respond and show why you think their judgement of your idea may be wrong, but you really shouldn't get offended.

Otherwise you get subconscious mass censorship.

It is really not up to you to decide what I should or should not get offended by. The words on their own may not be all that offensive, but your pompous and condescending manner is.

Besides you do it too - "how do you answer a question like that?" has obvious implications and is imo far worse than spelling out why you disagree (as I have done).

I don't think it has any implications at all. If you think that there is a way to answer an arbitrary question like "who is tougher," go ahead and try. My only conclusion is that I am not sure that I can measure an abstract like "toughness," which forces me to aske again: "How do you answer a question like that?"

For example, I find it exasperating when people don't listen to what's being said. It is rude and disrespectful, to my mind. (Even when I'm not agreeing with you, at least I'm listening and answering). Do I insult them, call them personal names? No, I point out where I think they are not listening.

I think you should look into being a little more tactful if you would like a different reaction. You come across as arrogant.

Different cultures, types of background etc can get along fine but communication is key.

I'm sorry I don't understand your point. That seems like common sense to me.

Likewise, it is poor behaviour imo to participate in an argument and ignore salient points made by the Other(s) - if we're seeking truth, we have to accept points where the Other is correct - not avoid them and jump on small bits and pieces we think we can debate.

I spelled out the line of argument, based on the evidence of what has actually been written, so the debate can reach a conclusion - and you ignore it. You then say something which frankly doesn't make any sense given the context of the debate [more anon] (though you do make a slight retraction: "may have had a better military than most" which shows some courage).

Pardon me, but wasn't the debate about whether or not the Romans could beat the Spartans in battle? How does your repeated assessment of my interpretation of sources have anything to do with that? You even suggested that we can talk about Thermopolae without bringing up the Persians. I don't understand how your argument with me has any bearing on what the topic of this thread is. You apparently are just looking to argue for its own sake.

..with that, I am leaving this debate. You have created a distasteful atmosphere for me.

LC

[thebigsalad]

Discussion is getting quite heated.

The Spartans have been trounced on many occaisions, particularly by Thebes. Quite soundly I might add. Their training, discipline and culture stand out, yes, but not their ability to win battles.

If you want an example of Greeks of indomitable consitution just look at the the thousand. They hacked their way out of the heart of Persia, and their Spartan contingent certainly did not distinguish themselves against the rest.

[hacon]

When the Spartans played in the amateur leagues they invariably won their matches due to them adopting semi professional training and full dedication to the game. Other teams such as the Athenians, Thebans, Argives and Corinthians were still very casual in their training and organization. As part of the national contingent that played Persia at the Plataea ground the Spartan team members proved to be the match winners. Improvements in tactics and formations at this time were still not thought of as important. In the great cup filnal played against Athens though the Spartans were occasionally caught out by new tactics that had been adopted from outside leagues they still won with the help of a foreign backer. The Spartans were slow to adopt these new tactics and even when they did they proved unable to use them to their best advantage. In the meantime some of the other teams in the league had learned from the Spartans and one of them, the Thebans under the guidance of their coach Epaminondas had adopted a novel formation that was used to defeat the Spartans in the cup final at Leuctra.
After this lack of money to buy new players and to a certain extent intransigence in their strategy and methods led them to be relegated to the 2nd division. After the formation of the Premier League teams such as the Macedonians, Seleucids, Ptolemies and the super team of Romans became more professional, had more money, hired the best players, trainers and tacticians. The Spartans fell further behind and were sometimes beaten by sides of lesser renown. Their last try at promotion ended gloriously but to defeat against the Achaens when the blatantly biased Macedonian referee gave the Achaeans a dubious penalty in extra time. Though occasionally matched with the big money teams in the cup competitions they invariably lost the game but not their spirit of "dont ask how big our opponent is but where is the match".
Well as to the comparison of the Spartans to the Romans, in the amateur days the Spartans would have worn down any Roman team but in their twilight years as Sparta's last captain, Nabis might say "A good big'un will always beat a good little'un".

[spirit_of_rob]

Okie people play nice quite frankly i was too lazy to read all of it both of you take a deep breath and walkaway. If the unpleasentness continues ill have to read all the thread

[Sir Francis]

Spiritofrob, there hasn't been really any nastiness, it's more a discussion getting a little passionate, I think. There's certainly no hard feelings this end.

LC - on behaviour:

You are calling me arrogant and condescending. What have I called you? Stick to speaking about my ideas rather than me, and we can debate these things (after all, debate was a cornerstone of Greek culture.)

On the debate:

A point is being missed: the discussion turned to whether there was a period when the Spartans were superior to other Greeks; you said they weren't. I countered by saying the sources show they were (and I specified the time).

You surely do not deny calling the sources into question by saying they were not written at the time? I corrected you on this - the sources depicting Spartan military superiority (Thucydides and Xenophon) are contemporary.

To sum up: would you agree that from say 490 to 380 the Spartans were militarily superior to the other Greeks (the 'amateur' phase as Hacon calls it in his entertaining and useful analogy)? And do you agree that the sources I have mentioned which depict this period are contemporary?

(Notes: I did not say any idea of yours was ludicrous: read the post again; I am not "deciding" when you get offended, merely advising you not to get offended just because people disagree with you (as long as they don't say anything about you.)

The Spartans have been trounced on many occaisions, particularly by Thebes. Quite soundly I might add. Their training, discipline and culture stand out, yes, but not their ability to win battles.

I think what's key to all this is getting our periods straight. Of course you're right that if you look at the entire spectrum of Spartan history she lost many battles.

But I think most people when they think of Sarta think of the Classical Greek period (about 490 to 340), especially the first part: the Persian Wars, Peloponnesian War and Spartan hegemony/empire.

During this period the Sparans won nearly all their battles and showed a very clear dominace in land warfare amongst the Hellenes.

Here is a quote from Xenophon, who lived and wrote at the time: "The Spartans are the leaders of Greece and are able, even any single Spartan is able, to do whatever he likes in the cities."

If you want an example of Greeks of indomitable consitution just look at the the thousand. They hacked their way out of the heart of Persia, and their Spartan contingent certainly did not distinguish themselves against the rest.

Of course other Greeks could be great warriors - look at Marathon. (By the way, there was no Spartan contingent to speak of among the Ten Thousand.)

[Boeotian Star]

But I think most people when they think of Sarta think of the Classical Greek period (about 490 to 340), especially the first part: the Persian Wars, Peloponnesian War and Spartan hegemony/empire.

During this period the Sparans won nearly all their battles and showed a very clear dominace in land warfare amongst the Hellenes.

Here is a quote from Xenophon, who lived and wrote at the time: "The Spartans are the leaders of Greece and are able, even any single Spartan is able, to do whatever he likes in the cities."

Neither Sparta nor Thebes were empires but hegemonies.The Spartans were invincible in open hoplite battle until the Battle of Tegyra in 375bc but without imagination and strategic depth in their fighting way and deployment.Epaminondas and Pelopidas together changed for ever the history of war with their brilliant and revolutionary tactics and influenced heavily the creation of the macedonian war machine..Xenophon was a well known pro-spartan writer so...

[thebigsalad]

Of course other Greeks could be great warriors - look at Marathon. (By the way, there was no Spartan contingent to speak of among the Ten Thousand.)

It states in the Anabasis that Clearchus led 1000 hoplites, along with his thracians and cretans. They weren't Spartan?

And I agree with Boeotian Star. Xenophon is a very pro-Spartan writer, even though he is undoubtedly my hero.

[hacon]

Clearachus was a Spartan but he was also an exile.

H W Parke in his book "Greek Mercenary hoplites " breaks down the mercenary forces that assembled at Celaenae for Cyrus as follows :
under Xenias 4,000
under Proxenus 1,500
under Sophaenetus 1,000
under Socrates 500
under Pasion of Megara 300
under Menon 1,000
under Clearachus 1,000
and under Sosis of Syracuse 300.

Of these more than half were Arcadian and Achaean the remainder were drawn from almost every part of the Greek world. Spartans are not explicitly mentioned although there may have been a few impicunious hypomeiones among them but no official Spartan contingent.

The breakdown of officers is enlightening. Of the 61 we know by name 16 were Arcadians, 8 Athenian, 6 Spartans including Perioecs and 5 Achaeans.

In Cilicia this force was augmented by 700 hoplites under the Spartan Cheirisophus, these were probably Neodamodeis (freed helots). These may well have been the contribution required of Sparta as an ally by Cyrus.

[Sir Francis]

BoiotianStar:

"We can argue all day about our personal definitions of empire.

For me, sending governors and collecting taxes directly from foreign states, and enforcing this with military power (or the threat of) means empire.

But that's just me.

Historians generally use the term Spartan Empire.

For example, see: "The Development of the Second Spartan Empire" by H. W. Parke for the differences historians accept between Hegemonia and Arche (empire) - first page can be seen at (if ur a student at uni you can read the whole thing (an amazing resource):

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=007...2-V&size=LARGE

Cartledge himself names a chapter, "The Spartan Empire, 404-371 BC" in his book The Spartans, and Forrest has one named "Sparta's Empire" in his A History of Sparta (still a seminal work).

These are eminent secondary sources, but read Xenophon's Hellenica for a beter understanding of the Spartan empire."

Hacon, thanks for the useful info.

Spartans are not explicitly mentioned although there may have been a few impicunious hypomeiones among them but no official Spartan contingent...

Yes, a few are mentioned by name, usually exiles (e.g. Dracontius, exiled from home as a boy because he had accidentally killed another boy - Clearchus himself was an exile from Sparta (insubordination).

I love Parke's book, despite its age - have you seen Trundle's new book Greek Mercenaries? Also useful.

[spirit_of_rob]

Sir Francis could you please not post so many times in a row use the edit button