4 ms·
Some criticism of Acoup's analysis of their combat performance. All of the defeats listed are either not infantry battles or ones where Sparta was heavily outnu
by kleton 5y ago
Some criticism of Acoup's analysis of their combat performance. All of the defeats listed are either not infantry battles or ones where Sparta was heavily outnumbered. It's hardly surprising that they would lose battles over 500 v 1000, and no contemporary commentators claimed that man for man they were that much better than their peer poleis. If you did a "wins above replacement" analysis for pitched infantry battles, they would come out ahead, at least until the Battle of Tegyra (375), when Boeotians had figured out an effective infantry doctrine after years fighting Sparta.
Plutarch on the Theban victory over Sparta at Leuctra (371).
>For in all the great wars there had ever been against Greeks or barbarians, the Spartans were never before beaten by a smaller company than their own; nor, indeed, in a set battle, when their number was equal. Hence their courage was thought irresistible, and their high repute before the battle made a conquest already of enemies, who thought themselves no match for the men of Sparta even on equal terms.
That battle wiped out the Spartiate class for a generation, killing 400 out of 700. This opened the way for Thebes to liberate Messenia in 370, which was the majority of the Lakonian helots, and it was all downhill for Sparta after that.
- karpierz 5y agoI think if you're going to do an analysis of military strength, you have to do it in context of the political system that produces it. If your society results in supersoldiers, but also causes you to regularly fail at diplomacy and end up outnumbered in wars which you end up losing, I wouldn't say that your military record is successful.
- kleton 5y agoThey won the Peloponessian war (plenty of diplomacy and coalition building) and remained dominant until 371, which was the first war they lost. It was a pretty respectable record.
- dmix 5y agoI’m not seeing much connection to North Korea here. They have awful diplomacy, no real coalitions (besides China which is more of a complete one sided economic dependency and a constant source of trouble), a poor military track record besides perfecting sabre rattling and a single small US ship from the 1950s as their most prominent war prize, no one is trying to imitate them, they rely heavily on raw numbers over ability in a defensive posture built up over generations, etc. I’m trying to think of where the analogies begin…
- b0rsuk 5y agoBrutal dictatorship. 90% of population living in poverty (The Helots in Sparta were hunted for sport by Spartiates, particularly as a coming of age ritual).
- birdyrooster 5y agoDid they kidnap foreigners to do research or translation?
- danielheath 5y agoAFAIK, At that point in history “kidnap foreigners for their labour” was a feature of every settlement over a few hundred people in size.
- kbenson 5y agoBut this isn't really an analysis of military strength as much as one of unit strength, if I understand what's being presented. The meme isn't that Sparta was awesome, the meme is that spartan soldiers and units are awesome. I don't think most people think that a society that turns it's children out on the street to fend for themselves to toughen the ones that survive is good or worth any awe, but that doesn't mean that people can't look at the end result and think one specific aspect is worth respect.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- b0rsuk 5y ago> Some criticism of Acoup's analysis of their combat performance. All of the defeats listed are either not infantry battles or ones where Sparta was heavily outnumbered. It cuts both ways. Classic example is Thermopylae. The total number of Greeks is estimated to be between 5200 and 7700, but you very rarely hear any number higher than 300. The Spartan fame was manufactured, for example by historians like Herodotus. Why does one have to resort to cherry picking to prove Spartan military excellence? Why aren't they self-evident?
- blix 5y agoHerotodus lists 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, and over 5000 Greeks. It is possible that there are two different numbers because they describe two very different things. Spartan military excellence is likely exaggerated, but it is also likely that there was a significant time period where their soldiers were individually superior to other communities, primarily as a result of better nutrition. Nutrition in early Greek agricultural communities is notoriously awful, while the severe inequality of Spartan society allowed them to maintain a realtively well-fed warrior class. Individual quality doesn't scale, however, while raw quantity does. The Spartans were able to demonstrate excellence in results on a small scale, such as the conquest of Messina, but as quantity became a more important factor they simply couldn't compete even as they maintained some degree of individual excellence. There are many things to dislike about Spartan society from a modern standpoint (such as their brutally oppressed slave underclass), but it is important to remember that this is a feature of almost all early agricultural societies.