The first post also has parts where he explains how even by contemporary standards it was cruel. That doesn't excuse the attitude that we often hold, that we ar

The first post also has parts where he explains how even by contemporary standards it was cruel. That doesn't excuse the attitude that we often hold, that we are the most morally evolved and have the right to judge. I don't think the implied ad hominem is necessary or useful here. I meant what I said and I don't think there's any overt virtue signaling. The author was awarded a PhD in 2018 on Roman history so I think the author is well-versed and strongly opinionated, no virtue signaling there. The sibling comment about admiration I think has an important point. We don't need a universe that's perfectly in balance, which is to say that if Sparta is romanticized I don't think it's necessary that we demonize them to balance the scales. Of course it's important to understand what they did and know the whole story, and what the author does to disillusion about 300 is good work. However, at least this first article is written in a persuasive way rather than an informative one, the author clearly wants us to be on his side about how awful the Spartans were rather than just inform us so we understand what we might be admiring. Another sibling comment said that the outrageism goes down in later articles, so maybe they're different and worth a good read.