3 ms·

Yes, statistical analysis of their victories and defeats. It's an excellent book. I'd recommend it.

myfartsarefoul 5y ago
Are the battle outcomes fair comparisons? What if they had great warriors but poor decision makers? Could they have fought poorly matched battles for the sake of conserving resources, etc? I don’t care about Sparta one way or another. But simply “looking at numbers” can be deceiving.
- kelnos 5y ago
  Does it matter, though? A loss is a loss. It doesn't matter if they lost because their warriors were weak, or if their leaders were poor strategists. They still lost, and a big part of the mythos around Sparta (at least to me) is that they were a city of strong warriors who won most of their battles.
arisAlexis 5y ago
Book name?
dragontamer 5y ago
It doesn't matter how "tough" Spartans were. They were largely illiterate and terrible at logistics. Its hard to win battles when you're terrible at supply lines. And its hard to keep track of supplies if you don't know how to read or write. ---------- I've commonly heard that Spartans were good at fighting but bad at war. Turns out that a band of illiterate warriors is largely a bad idea for an army composition. If the war goes on too long, they simply run out of supplies and leave (Or, if they're forced to fight, they run out of supplies and lose)
- hef19898 5y ago
  Ever since decisive battles stopped being a thing with industrialization, I know one European country that started and lost two world wars due deficits in strategy, operations and supply. Tactically it wasn't too bad so.
- arisAlexis 5y ago
  Someone on the internet "commonly heard". Ok.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    The propaganda of an elite class of warriors is useful. It's basically why the US Marines exist, and such stories are useful for recruitment and morale purposes. (Furthermore: Army can pickup on the engineering, supply and logistics problems). But there is also the truth and history that we want to learn about sometimes. I think the Spartan mythos was useful to other Greeks, and the Spartan mythos remains useful today (in the form of US Marines). But the myth is distinct from the real and actual history. It is beneficial to peel back the propaganda sometimes and analyze history for what it is. Spartans did not win battles more often than others. Spartans couldn't field an army for extended periods of time. Etc. Etc. And yet we have these stories and written history of how great a warrior they were. Thus: they probably were good at fighting (almost universally accepted). But war is more than just a fight. All the other bits of war were hampered by Spartan society, most noticably their illiteracy.

Are the battle outcomes fair comparisons? What if they had great warriors but poor decision makers? Could they have fought poorly matched battles for the sake of conserving resources, etc? I don’t care about Sparta one way or another. But simply “looking at numbers” can be deceiving.

kelnos 5y ago
Does it matter, though? A loss is a loss. It doesn't matter if they lost because their warriors were weak, or if their leaders were poor strategists. They still lost, and a big part of the mythos around Sparta (at least to me) is that they were a city of strong warriors who won most of their battles.

arisAlexis 5y ago

Book name?

dragontamer 5y ago

It doesn't matter how "tough" Spartans were. They were largely illiterate and terrible at logistics. Its hard to win battles when you're terrible at supply lines. And its hard to keep track of supplies if you don't know how to read or write. ---------- I've commonly heard that Spartans were good at fighting but bad at war. Turns out that a band of illiterate warriors is largely a bad idea for an army composition. If the war goes on too long, they simply run out of supplies and leave (Or, if they're forced to fight, they run out of supplies and lose)

hef19898 5y ago
Ever since decisive battles stopped being a thing with industrialization, I know one European country that started and lost two world wars due deficits in strategy, operations and supply. Tactically it wasn't too bad so.
arisAlexis 5y ago
Someone on the internet "commonly heard". Ok.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  The propaganda of an elite class of warriors is useful. It's basically why the US Marines exist, and such stories are useful for recruitment and morale purposes. (Furthermore: Army can pickup on the engineering, supply and logistics problems). But there is also the truth and history that we want to learn about sometimes. I think the Spartan mythos was useful to other Greeks, and the Spartan mythos remains useful today (in the form of US Marines). But the myth is distinct from the real and actual history. It is beneficial to peel back the propaganda sometimes and analyze history for what it is. Spartans did not win battles more often than others. Spartans couldn't field an army for extended periods of time. Etc. Etc. And yet we have these stories and written history of how great a warrior they were. Thus: they probably were good at fighting (almost universally accepted). But war is more than just a fight. All the other bits of war were hampered by Spartan society, most noticably their illiteracy.