7 ms·

Iirc that series addresses this critique in some depth, pointing out that sparta was particularly awful even by the standards of other greek states. Another in

Iirc that series addresses this critique in some depth, pointing out that sparta was particularly awful even by the standards of other greek states. Another interesting bit was how it's historically rare for slave-owning societies to have more than 50% of their population enslaved. Since sparta was closer to 80% enslaved people, they relied on particularly brutal methods to keep down the regular slave revolts, making them considerably crueler than their contemporaries.

hutzlibu 5y ago
The implications of 80% enslaved people are indeed very harsh. Which makes this "painting a portrait of a grim, evil empire." quite accurate. I cannot find much noble ideals in the "glorious" spartans.
throwaway20371 5y ago
> Another interesting bit was how it's historically rare for slave-owning societies to have more than 50% of their population enslaved Probably worth noting, then, that in 1860, South Carolina and Mississippi had over 50% population enslaved, and four more states over 40% population enslaved. Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations, I'm curious whether Spartans were more or less like Americans in this regard. A glorious empire built on brutality and moral superiority.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations What?
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    Roman slaves at least had a path to freedom. Or a good portion of them did. Many (not majority) became citizens eventually (or their children did) and many in fact became quite prosperous. Their slavery wasn't based on racial status, but on class, and slavery wasn't considered genetically predetermined, but a product of status and conquest. "Graduation" out of slavery was actually possible. American slavery being built on "race" and white supremacy offered no such path. Even "mixed race" descendants suffered. Even after slavery was abolished, former slaves were (and often are) still treated abhorrently.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      > "Graduation" out of slavery was actually possible. This is also true of American slaves. > Their slavery wasn't based on racial status, but on class, and slavery wasn't considered genetically predetermined, but a product of status and conquest. So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved?
      - Hizonner 5y ago
        > This is also true of American slaves. Bullshit. By the 19th century (which is the century everybody talks about) it was almost legally impossible to free a slave in the American south (things like, say, a $200 tax in Florida... which was more money than most people saw in a year). Even when possible it was essentially never done. > So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved? In many of the US slave states, if you were a free black person, regardless of who your parents were, you had to either leave the state within a fixed time, or you would be enslaved. So, yes.
        metalliqaz 5y ago
        enslaved to whom?
        wavefunction 5y ago
        Caught by "slave catchers"/kidnappers and sold at slave auctions.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        > By the 19th century (which is the century everybody talks about) it was almost legally impossible to free a slave in the American south (things like, say, a $200 tax in Florida... which was more money than most people saw in a year). Believe it or not, most slaves were owned by fairly wealthy people.
    - stickyricky 5y ago
      Rome lasted for 2,100 years. I'm not sure you can generalize the quality of life of a free person, let alone a slave. > Roman slaves at least had a path to freedom You need to be specific. Are we comparing Connecticut in 1784 AD to Gaul in 50 BC? Or Connecticut in 1783 AD to Gaul in 59 BC? Because the two comparisons are very different.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    OP speaks the truth. At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them) In the Roman empire, selling oneself as a slave was even seen as a last resort when capital was urgently needed (like when a debt repayment was ordered by a magistrate and a person didn't have enough money and fungible possessions to pay it). Slaves could also buy their freedom, and were sometimes even given their freedom as a gift. Of course, there were cruel masters as well as kind ones. But prior to the African slave trade, the institution itself wasn't remotely as brutal or morally abhorrent, because it wasn't built on a social commitment to racism. American racism was fueled in part by the abhorrent belief that Africans were of a separate race (i.e. subspecies) that was inferior in a Darwinian sense, thus dehumanizing them in people's minds. This sentiment appears sometimes in 1800s American literature. (And if I may say so, I think it bears a remarkable resemblance to some Nazi antisemitic propaganda.)
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      > Slaves could also buy their freedom, and were sometimes even given their freedom as a gift. Again, this is not a difference between ancient slavery and American slavery. Why do you mention it? > Of course, there were cruel masters as well as kind ones. But prior to the African slave trade, the institution itself wasn't remotely as brutal or morally abhorrent, because it wasn't built on a social commitment to racism. Now it seems like you're specifically trying not to respond to the claim that American slaves received crueler treatment than ancient slaves did.
      - Larrikin 5y ago
        You're arguing that exceptions and rare occurrences in American slavery are equivalent to the norms in Rome and for some reason trying to make American slavery seem like it really wasn't all that bad. Your style of responding also makes it seem like you're arguing the point that slavery wasn't all that bad in the US from a very specific view point
        5y ago
  - throwaway20371 5y ago
    Speaking specifically of Greeks and Romans. And in general, Ancient peoples did not consider slaves to be as animals, but American slave-owners often held the belief that they were sub-human and not more than talking beasts. There was a class of Mycenaean slave that was close to a free man, who could own land and have status. Greek slaves could be involved in every economic activity except politics. Slaves were bankers, craftsmen and tradespeople. Male slaves might be personal assistants, shield makers, cutlers, bedmakers, while female slaves would be textile weavers and bakers. Not only were slaves not seen as denegerate inferiors, they were expected to be able to take over their masters' business when needed. Some of the most famous and respected philosophers were slaves. Slaves could earn wages, and use those wages to pay a fee to live and work alone, and even use their savings (or loans/gifts) to buy their freedom. Cretian slaves could own a house and livestock and pass it down to their family, which was also granted the same familial laws as freedmen. Debt slavery was common until it was abolished; people basically could become serfs until they paid off their debts, and then become free again. Some slavery was limited to a period of time, and slaves had rights / could be involved in legal disputes, and so win freedom or other rewards. Roman slaves perhaps were treated worse than Greek originally, and many more of them were used for agricultural labor, probably putting their experiences on par with American slaves. But as the Roman empire progressed, slaves gained many more rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome Worth nothing also that a lot of Spartan "historical information" is more myth and bullshit than evidence-based. Spartans were masters of propaganda. Helots may have been treated like shit, but apparently a lot of the reputation was inflated or made up by later historical writers. Helots could also be craftspeople, own land, raise crops, keep money, buy their freedom. They maintained family units and were less often dispersed than Greek slaves. Helot children born of Spartan citizen fathers would become members of the army as an intermediate rank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots
- chuckee 5y ago
  > Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations Not as cruelly as Arab-owned slaves (the trans-Saharan slave trade started in 650 AD, which is pretty close to ancient). Despite importing as much or more slaves than both Americas, there is barely any Black presence in North Africa. Try to imagine why. Source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-tcc-worldciv2/chapter/transsaharan-slave-trade/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-tcc-worldciv2/chapter/...
- CyanBird 5y ago
  > Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations I'd recommend you to actually read on the absolute horror the Helots had to go through Only French Haití or Congo Free State can come to mind as being similar, the Helots were very different even from other Greek states, let alone Rome, Egypt or Cartage
- suifbwish 5y ago
  I thought we were talking about Sparta. Why not bring up other unrelated stuff while you are at it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
The idea that "Sparta" was close to "80% enslaved people" is confused and I hold the author of the linked article responsible for not clarifying the confusion. "Sparta" is the name of the principal city of the city-state of Lacedaemon, which comprised the regions of Laconia and Messinia in the Peloponnese. The inhabitants of the city of Sparta are in ancient sources referred to as Lacedaemones ("Λακεδαίμονες") and are the people we, in the modern day, know as as Spartans or Spartiates ("Σπαρτιάται"). The people inhabiting the greater area of the Lacedeamonian city-state, the inhabitants of the settlements in Laconia and Messinia, were never referred to in any ancient text as "Spartans" or "Lacedaemones" and they were only referred to, to the extent they were ever mentioned, as "helots" ("είλωται") or, simply, as the Spartans' slaves. Any reference to those people as "Spartans", let alone "Lacedaemones" is a modern invention and only serves to deepen the confusion I highlight here. In fact, I am only aware of a single modern "source" that commits this confusing error: the blog post linked above. If we were to give those people a modern name devoid of political connotations, that would be "Lacones" ("Λάκωναι") or "Messinians" ("Μεσσηνοί"), the inhabitants of the regions of Laconia and Messinia. So it makes no sense to say that "Sparta" was "80% enslaved people" or the other errors committed in the linked article. It might make sense to say that "Laconia and Messinia (resp. Lacedaemon) was 80% enslaved people", although that would greatly weaken the intended invective against Spartans. It would certainly make sense to point out that Spartans, i.e. the inhabitants of the city of Sparta, had a huge number of slaves in proportion both to their own numbers and in comparison to the number of slaves of other Greek city-states of the same historical period(s), but again that would not be a proper attack on the myth of Sparta, which is what is intended. Of course it makes every sense to point out the cruelty of Spartans, but in that case, if we call the helots "Spartans", also, the confusion only deepens. All such nuance is left out of the article linked above which makes it very, very misleading and confuses people who are used to getting their knowledge of history from second- third- and further- hand accounts, like the one in the linked article, or the movie 300, etc. Unfortunately once something is elevated to mythical status there is nothing more profitable than to tear it down, even if this tearing down is based on the same poor knowledge of history that allowed it to be elevated in the first place.
- spaced-out 5y ago
  >The idea that "Sparta" was close to "80% enslaved people" is confused and I hold the author of the linked article responsible for not clarifying the confusion. ... >The people inhabiting the greater area of the Lacedeamonian city-state, the inhabitants of the settlements in Laconia and Messinia, were never referred to in any ancient text as "Spartans" or "Lacedaemones" and they were only referred to, to the extent they were ever mentioned, as "helots" ("είλωται") or, simply, as the Spartans' slaves. He's referring to the entire Spartan state, which at that time included Messinia. It's accurate to say it was composed of ~80% enslaved people. That's clear if you read the article. The fact that most helots were from other ethnic groups doesn't change the fact that they were living under the rule of the Spartan state.

hutzlibu 5y ago

The implications of 80% enslaved people are indeed very harsh. Which makes this "painting a portrait of a grim, evil empire." quite accurate. I cannot find much noble ideals in the "glorious" spartans.

throwaway20371 5y ago

> Another interesting bit was how it's historically rare for slave-owning societies to have more than 50% of their population enslaved Probably worth noting, then, that in 1860, South Carolina and Mississippi had over 50% population enslaved, and four more states over 40% population enslaved. Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations, I'm curious whether Spartans were more or less like Americans in this regard. A glorious empire built on brutality and moral superiority.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations What?
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Roman slaves at least had a path to freedom. Or a good portion of them did. Many (not majority) became citizens eventually (or their children did) and many in fact became quite prosperous. Their slavery wasn't based on racial status, but on class, and slavery wasn't considered genetically predetermined, but a product of status and conquest. "Graduation" out of slavery was actually possible. American slavery being built on "race" and white supremacy offered no such path. Even "mixed race" descendants suffered. Even after slavery was abolished, former slaves were (and often are) still treated abhorrently.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > "Graduation" out of slavery was actually possible. This is also true of American slaves. > Their slavery wasn't based on racial status, but on class, and slavery wasn't considered genetically predetermined, but a product of status and conquest. So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved?
    - Hizonner 5y ago
      > This is also true of American slaves. Bullshit. By the 19th century (which is the century everybody talks about) it was almost legally impossible to free a slave in the American south (things like, say, a $200 tax in Florida... which was more money than most people saw in a year). Even when possible it was essentially never done. > So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved? In many of the US slave states, if you were a free black person, regardless of who your parents were, you had to either leave the state within a fixed time, or you would be enslaved. So, yes.
      - metalliqaz 5y ago
        enslaved to whom?
        wavefunction 5y ago
        Caught by "slave catchers"/kidnappers and sold at slave auctions.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        > By the 19th century (which is the century everybody talks about) it was almost legally impossible to free a slave in the American south (things like, say, a $200 tax in Florida... which was more money than most people saw in a year). Believe it or not, most slaves were owned by fairly wealthy people.
  - stickyricky 5y ago
    Rome lasted for 2,100 years. I'm not sure you can generalize the quality of life of a free person, let alone a slave. > Roman slaves at least had a path to freedom You need to be specific. Are we comparing Connecticut in 1784 AD to Gaul in 50 BC? Or Connecticut in 1783 AD to Gaul in 59 BC? Because the two comparisons are very different.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  OP speaks the truth. At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them) In the Roman empire, selling oneself as a slave was even seen as a last resort when capital was urgently needed (like when a debt repayment was ordered by a magistrate and a person didn't have enough money and fungible possessions to pay it). Slaves could also buy their freedom, and were sometimes even given their freedom as a gift. Of course, there were cruel masters as well as kind ones. But prior to the African slave trade, the institution itself wasn't remotely as brutal or morally abhorrent, because it wasn't built on a social commitment to racism. American racism was fueled in part by the abhorrent belief that Africans were of a separate race (i.e. subspecies) that was inferior in a Darwinian sense, thus dehumanizing them in people's minds. This sentiment appears sometimes in 1800s American literature. (And if I may say so, I think it bears a remarkable resemblance to some Nazi antisemitic propaganda.)
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > Slaves could also buy their freedom, and were sometimes even given their freedom as a gift. Again, this is not a difference between ancient slavery and American slavery. Why do you mention it? > Of course, there were cruel masters as well as kind ones. But prior to the African slave trade, the institution itself wasn't remotely as brutal or morally abhorrent, because it wasn't built on a social commitment to racism. Now it seems like you're specifically trying not to respond to the claim that American slaves received crueler treatment than ancient slaves did.
    - Larrikin 5y ago
      You're arguing that exceptions and rare occurrences in American slavery are equivalent to the norms in Rome and for some reason trying to make American slavery seem like it really wasn't all that bad. Your style of responding also makes it seem like you're arguing the point that slavery wasn't all that bad in the US from a very specific view point
      - 5y ago
- throwaway20371 5y ago
  Speaking specifically of Greeks and Romans. And in general, Ancient peoples did not consider slaves to be as animals, but American slave-owners often held the belief that they were sub-human and not more than talking beasts. There was a class of Mycenaean slave that was close to a free man, who could own land and have status. Greek slaves could be involved in every economic activity except politics. Slaves were bankers, craftsmen and tradespeople. Male slaves might be personal assistants, shield makers, cutlers, bedmakers, while female slaves would be textile weavers and bakers. Not only were slaves not seen as denegerate inferiors, they were expected to be able to take over their masters' business when needed. Some of the most famous and respected philosophers were slaves. Slaves could earn wages, and use those wages to pay a fee to live and work alone, and even use their savings (or loans/gifts) to buy their freedom. Cretian slaves could own a house and livestock and pass it down to their family, which was also granted the same familial laws as freedmen. Debt slavery was common until it was abolished; people basically could become serfs until they paid off their debts, and then become free again. Some slavery was limited to a period of time, and slaves had rights / could be involved in legal disputes, and so win freedom or other rewards. Roman slaves perhaps were treated worse than Greek originally, and many more of them were used for agricultural labor, probably putting their experiences on par with American slaves. But as the Roman empire progressed, slaves gained many more rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome Worth nothing also that a lot of Spartan "historical information" is more myth and bullshit than evidence-based. Spartans were masters of propaganda. Helots may have been treated like shit, but apparently a lot of the reputation was inflated or made up by later historical writers. Helots could also be craftspeople, own land, raise crops, keep money, buy their freedom. They maintained family units and were less often dispersed than Greek slaves. Helot children born of Spartan citizen fathers would become members of the army as an intermediate rank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots
chuckee 5y ago
> Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations Not as cruelly as Arab-owned slaves (the trans-Saharan slave trade started in 650 AD, which is pretty close to ancient). Despite importing as much or more slaves than both Americas, there is barely any Black presence in North Africa. Try to imagine why. Source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-tcc-worldciv2/chapter/transsaharan-slave-trade/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-tcc-worldciv2/chapter/...
CyanBird 5y ago
> Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations I'd recommend you to actually read on the absolute horror the Helots had to go through Only French Haití or Congo Free State can come to mind as being similar, the Helots were very different even from other Greek states, let alone Rome, Egypt or Cartage
suifbwish 5y ago
I thought we were talking about Sparta. Why not bring up other unrelated stuff while you are at it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

The idea that "Sparta" was close to "80% enslaved people" is confused and I hold the author of the linked article responsible for not clarifying the confusion. "Sparta" is the name of the principal city of the city-state of Lacedaemon, which comprised the regions of Laconia and Messinia in the Peloponnese. The inhabitants of the city of Sparta are in ancient sources referred to as Lacedaemones ("Λακεδαίμονες") and are the people we, in the modern day, know as as Spartans or Spartiates ("Σπαρτιάται"). The people inhabiting the greater area of the Lacedeamonian city-state, the inhabitants of the settlements in Laconia and Messinia, were never referred to in any ancient text as "Spartans" or "Lacedaemones" and they were only referred to, to the extent they were ever mentioned, as "helots" ("είλωται") or, simply, as the Spartans' slaves. Any reference to those people as "Spartans", let alone "Lacedaemones" is a modern invention and only serves to deepen the confusion I highlight here. In fact, I am only aware of a single modern "source" that commits this confusing error: the blog post linked above. If we were to give those people a modern name devoid of political connotations, that would be "Lacones" ("Λάκωναι") or "Messinians" ("Μεσσηνοί"), the inhabitants of the regions of Laconia and Messinia. So it makes no sense to say that "Sparta" was "80% enslaved people" or the other errors committed in the linked article. It might make sense to say that "Laconia and Messinia (resp. Lacedaemon) was 80% enslaved people", although that would greatly weaken the intended invective against Spartans. It would certainly make sense to point out that Spartans, i.e. the inhabitants of the city of Sparta, had a huge number of slaves in proportion both to their own numbers and in comparison to the number of slaves of other Greek city-states of the same historical period(s), but again that would not be a proper attack on the myth of Sparta, which is what is intended. Of course it makes every sense to point out the cruelty of Spartans, but in that case, if we call the helots "Spartans", also, the confusion only deepens. All such nuance is left out of the article linked above which makes it very, very misleading and confuses people who are used to getting their knowledge of history from second- third- and further- hand accounts, like the one in the linked article, or the movie 300, etc. Unfortunately once something is elevated to mythical status there is nothing more profitable than to tear it down, even if this tearing down is based on the same poor knowledge of history that allowed it to be elevated in the first place.

spaced-out 5y ago
>The idea that "Sparta" was close to "80% enslaved people" is confused and I hold the author of the linked article responsible for not clarifying the confusion. ... >The people inhabiting the greater area of the Lacedeamonian city-state, the inhabitants of the settlements in Laconia and Messinia, were never referred to in any ancient text as "Spartans" or "Lacedaemones" and they were only referred to, to the extent they were ever mentioned, as "helots" ("είλωται") or, simply, as the Spartans' slaves. He's referring to the entire Spartan state, which at that time included Messinia. It's accurate to say it was composed of ~80% enslaved people. That's clear if you read the article. The fact that most helots were from other ethnic groups doesn't change the fact that they were living under the rule of the Spartan state.