10 ms·

If you like this there's a meaty seven part blog series by historian Bret Devereaux about the mythology surrounding Sparta. It offers an account of what Sparta

If you like this there's a meaty seven part blog series by historian Bret Devereaux about the mythology surrounding Sparta. It offers an account of what Sparta and the Spartan military was really like as well as how the Spartan mythos evolved. https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-i-spartan-school/ https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-p...

arisAlexis 5y ago
Opinion is a big part of history. One historian's analysis is not fefinitive proof rather a view that may be close to the truth.
- Lazare 5y ago
  Yes, but... ...the analysis of one historian is just that. But the analysis of many historians is more likely to be true, and the consensus of the entire field, held for decades, is even more likely. Certainly more likely to be true than a popular conception primarily driven by comic books, Hollywood films, and popularizations written by non-historians. It's also worth looking at the historian's analysis, and questioning what sources they have, what they're claiming to know, and how plausible it is for them to make those claims. If your analysis, let's say, starts and ends with "Plutarch said it, and we should trust Plutarch", well, when Plutarch wrote about Sparta and its peak, he was writing about time as distant to him as Elizabethan England is to us, and with no more first hand knowledge.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    >and the consensus of the entire field, held for decades, is even more likely. Yes, but at one point, the widely held belief was that the earth was the center of the universe, the earth itself was flat, and the sun was a god being pulled through the heavens in a chariot of fire. So, sometimes consensus isn't right either. Just a bunch of people agreeeing because it is the path of least resistance.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      That doesn't make anti consensus opinion right by definition. In case I am not part of the experts in any given field, I have not ground to stand on to challenge that consensus. And looking back at history, the scientific consensus is changing all the time. Quite often with the obsolete one staying on as a pop cultural trope.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        >I have not ground to stand on to challenge that consensus. Good thing Copernicus didn't follow this line of thinking. Anytime someone comes up against group think, there is always the resistance against it. It's only natural. Being willing to listen to the unpopular opinion to at least evaluate it before dismissing it out of hand is what separates science. It is the responsibility of the "dissident" to persuade and show evidence. People should not switch beliefs willy-nilly.
        p_l 5y ago
        Except Copernicus was an expert in the field and thus his repudiation of established model had a basis to stand on including thorough work to support his claim.
        afthonos 5y ago
        Copernicus was an expert. Those who have spent years laboring to understand a subject do occasionally ignore the bright upstart who has mastered the field and then proves them wrong. But that doesn’t oblige them to credit ignorance as serious argument in the name of “being willing to listen to unpopular opinion”. And this isn’t about credentialism either. You can tell the lion by his claw; a knowledgeable non-credentialed expert will not be dismissed as easily.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I think I'll consider consensus among historians as having more credibility than mythology developed for movies and comic books. And even if the consensus opinion is wrong, that doesn't make the non-consensus opinion correct, it just makes it another unverified, poorly-sourced possibility.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Great point. Imagine the perspective for future historians to write about North Korea. 3,000 years from now. Every nation would have been long gone, but sheer strangeness of that regime will make it immortal in a way, not unlike Sparta.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Academic history has its own fashions and political movements, even over decades; if we look at academic history from 50 years ago we see plenty of cases where the popular conception was closer to the truth than the academic consensus, much less any given review article from a single academic. Devereaux make some insightful points but he also has some very clear biases of his own; you only have to compare how he writes about a lack of written culture in Native American tribes to see that he's holding Sparta to a very different standard.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  However, objective truth exists. The simple facts (particularly on their military and economy) undermine quite a lot of the Spartan myths.
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
The article you link is the worst kind of telling of history: overflowing with bias, preaching and pontificating and making moral judgments left and right about things that happenned more than 2000 years ago. It is an internet rant, designed to provoke clicks and outrage, and its only reason of existence is the existence of the film, 300, a fantasy, that presents a fantastical image of Sparta, that the author then proceeds to deconstruct as if it were reality, or as if anyone claimed was reality. It is one gigantic straw man. Instead of consuming one person's opinion, second-hand, why not read the original historical sources? For example: The Polity of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, by Xenophon https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1178 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1178 The History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142 History, by Herodotus https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2707 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2707 (Volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2456 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2456 (Volume 2) On Sparta, by Plutarch https://www.amazon.com/Sparta-Penguin-Classics-Plutarch/dp/0140449434 https://www.amazon.com/Sparta-Penguin-Classics-Plutarch/dp/0... And so on. Read history; and make up your own mind.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  These authors and their works are all cited and discussed in the series. Some of the authors you cite even bash each other; Thucydides calls Herodotus a bit of a fabulist.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    Ah yes, the infamous Thucydides snap.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    I don't care about that. Above, I suggest to read up on the original sources and make up your mind, rather than consuming someon else's opinions, then spreading them across the internets as if they're some kind of holy fact. Do you have any objection to that? Read the origional sources. Do you disagree with that suggestion?
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
Would add Historia Civilis’ “The Constitution of Sparta” video [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/ppGCbh8ggUs https://youtu.be/ppGCbh8ggUs
TechnoTimeStop 5y ago
Sounds like CHINESE PROPAGANDA

arisAlexis 5y ago

Opinion is a big part of history. One historian's analysis is not fefinitive proof rather a view that may be close to the truth.

Lazare 5y ago
Yes, but... ...the analysis of one historian is just that. But the analysis of many historians is more likely to be true, and the consensus of the entire field, held for decades, is even more likely. Certainly more likely to be true than a popular conception primarily driven by comic books, Hollywood films, and popularizations written by non-historians. It's also worth looking at the historian's analysis, and questioning what sources they have, what they're claiming to know, and how plausible it is for them to make those claims. If your analysis, let's say, starts and ends with "Plutarch said it, and we should trust Plutarch", well, when Plutarch wrote about Sparta and its peak, he was writing about time as distant to him as Elizabethan England is to us, and with no more first hand knowledge.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >and the consensus of the entire field, held for decades, is even more likely. Yes, but at one point, the widely held belief was that the earth was the center of the universe, the earth itself was flat, and the sun was a god being pulled through the heavens in a chariot of fire. So, sometimes consensus isn't right either. Just a bunch of people agreeeing because it is the path of least resistance.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    That doesn't make anti consensus opinion right by definition. In case I am not part of the experts in any given field, I have not ground to stand on to challenge that consensus. And looking back at history, the scientific consensus is changing all the time. Quite often with the obsolete one staying on as a pop cultural trope.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      >I have not ground to stand on to challenge that consensus. Good thing Copernicus didn't follow this line of thinking. Anytime someone comes up against group think, there is always the resistance against it. It's only natural. Being willing to listen to the unpopular opinion to at least evaluate it before dismissing it out of hand is what separates science. It is the responsibility of the "dissident" to persuade and show evidence. People should not switch beliefs willy-nilly.
      - p_l 5y ago
        Except Copernicus was an expert in the field and thus his repudiation of established model had a basis to stand on including thorough work to support his claim.
      - afthonos 5y ago
        Copernicus was an expert. Those who have spent years laboring to understand a subject do occasionally ignore the bright upstart who has mastered the field and then proves them wrong. But that doesn’t oblige them to credit ignorance as serious argument in the name of “being willing to listen to unpopular opinion”. And this isn’t about credentialism either. You can tell the lion by his claw; a knowledgeable non-credentialed expert will not be dismissed as easily.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I think I'll consider consensus among historians as having more credibility than mythology developed for movies and comic books. And even if the consensus opinion is wrong, that doesn't make the non-consensus opinion correct, it just makes it another unverified, poorly-sourced possibility.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Great point. Imagine the perspective for future historians to write about North Korea. 3,000 years from now. Every nation would have been long gone, but sheer strangeness of that regime will make it immortal in a way, not unlike Sparta.
- lmm 5y ago
  Academic history has its own fashions and political movements, even over decades; if we look at academic history from 50 years ago we see plenty of cases where the popular conception was closer to the truth than the academic consensus, much less any given review article from a single academic. Devereaux make some insightful points but he also has some very clear biases of his own; you only have to compare how he writes about a lack of written culture in Native American tribes to see that he's holding Sparta to a very different standard.
rsynnott 5y ago
However, objective truth exists. The simple facts (particularly on their military and economy) undermine quite a lot of the Spartan myths.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

The article you link is the worst kind of telling of history: overflowing with bias, preaching and pontificating and making moral judgments left and right about things that happenned more than 2000 years ago. It is an internet rant, designed to provoke clicks and outrage, and its only reason of existence is the existence of the film, 300, a fantasy, that presents a fantastical image of Sparta, that the author then proceeds to deconstruct as if it were reality, or as if anyone claimed was reality. It is one gigantic straw man. Instead of consuming one person's opinion, second-hand, why not read the original historical sources? For example: The Polity of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, by Xenophon https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1178 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1178 The History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142 History, by Herodotus https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2707 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2707 (Volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2456 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2456 (Volume 2) On Sparta, by Plutarch https://www.amazon.com/Sparta-Penguin-Classics-Plutarch/dp/0140449434 https://www.amazon.com/Sparta-Penguin-Classics-Plutarch/dp/0... And so on. Read history; and make up your own mind.

ceejayoz 5y ago
These authors and their works are all cited and discussed in the series. Some of the authors you cite even bash each other; Thucydides calls Herodotus a bit of a fabulist.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Ah yes, the infamous Thucydides snap.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  I don't care about that. Above, I suggest to read up on the original sources and make up your mind, rather than consuming someon else's opinions, then spreading them across the internets as if they're some kind of holy fact. Do you have any objection to that? Read the origional sources. Do you disagree with that suggestion?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

Would add Historia Civilis’ “The Constitution of Sparta” video [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/ppGCbh8ggUs https://youtu.be/ppGCbh8ggUs

TechnoTimeStop 5y ago

Sounds like CHINESE PROPAGANDA