4 ms·

I think that their martial discipline and military life style is what they are famous for. Again, I think that the failure of the effectiveness of their of the

I think that their martial discipline and military life style is what they are famous for. Again, I think that the failure of the effectiveness of their of their military training simply shows that in war there are a lot of factors. Sth that can be seen even in our times, the US effectively lost in Vietnam or Iraq even though their military was far superior.

jean_tta 4y ago
You take for granted that the Spartans were good at war, and reconcile "Spartans good at war" and "Spartans lost to other city-states" by concluding that there are "a lot of factors". Why not revise your assumption that Spartans were good at war?
- blfr 4y ago
  They were certainly quite good at least at keeping numerically dominant helots down.
  - ProjectArcturis 4y ago
    Plenty of places in ancient times used terror successfully to keep large slave populations in their place. But if you count up Sparta's win/loss record in known battles against other armies, they're almost exactly 50%. And they were 0-2 against the Macedonian phalanx.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Kind of the opposite to Napoleon. Sparta fought one famous battle and is seen as invincible, Napoleon won almost all his battles, lost one decisive battle at Waterloo (incredibly close) and since then is seen as a looser. Propaganda is powerful tool.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Being good at war and being capable of keeping enslaved population via massive brutality and control are not the same thing.
- mountainb 4y ago
  Sparta won the Peloponnesian War, even though it relied on making major social and military changes (building a navy, relying more on auxiliary troops than core elite troops) to accomplish that. The other bit is that if one ais trying to draw a distinction between Athenian reliance on citizen-soldier hoplites and the reliance on crack troops reliant on masses of helots, that distinction was muddled during the Peloponnesian War as heavy infantry combat became much less relevant on all sides as naval warfare (manned by masses of both slaves and paid troops) became much more important. It also doesn't really make much sense to say that Sparta's reliance on its elite core lead to its eventual subordination to Macedonia. Macedon under Philip and Alexander was also built around an elite core -- the Companion Cavalry supported by the sarissa-armed infantry, which were relatively lightly armored compared to traditional Athenian/Spartan heavy infantry. It also doesn't really make that much sense to try to draw clear ethical distinctions between the Macedonians and the Spartans. One of the most common lines to read in the Campaigns of Alexander is "all the men remaining in the city were killed, and then the women and children were sold into slavery." What's clear is that Spartans gained the reputation for having the most elite heavy infantry during the time period, at the time when heavy infantry proved to be the most important type of fighter on land. Then, in a generation or two, elite heavy infantry became a lot less important, and Sparta had demographic difficulties in replenishing its numbers, particularly of its core elite fighters. Light infantry with significantly less training became more important, as did light cavalry (no stirrups invented yet). Naval fighting became a lot more important also. So, what they were the best at became of decreasing relevance, and also their intensive training methods abetted by extreme social stratification didn't scale to the intensity of the conflict during the Peloponnesian War. To win, they had to make a bunch of massive adaptations and ally with the Persians.
  - pradn 4y ago
    I don't think Sparta's victory in the Peloponnesian War proves they were better at war. The war was a stalemate on land between Sparta and Athens. Athens ruled the waves but couldn't parlay that into victory. Athens committed a major blunder in its invasion of Sicily and that allowed Sparta to win.
jcranmer 4y ago
Sparta is famous for having a really, really good PR agency. It's telling that their most famous military operation is fighting a rearguard action where they comprised less than 10% of the total forces. Their famous martial discipline and military life style? Our contemporary sources wax poetical about these... before footnotes saying that's what it should be and used to be, but isn't actually anymore. It should be noted that, when you compare the descriptions of Spartan military education with modern studies of child soldiers, you realize that's exactly what Sparta was: a society of child soldiers. It's the same procedures of indoctrination and ritual initiation. You want to extol their military life, go to the Lord's Resistance Army or similar counterparts today. Strip away the romanticism of Sparta, and you're left with a slave society whose military is based on child soldiers that struggles to fight battles next door, which is curb-stomped by next major military force to sweep in (the Macedonians), produced nothing of note in lasting cultural artifacts... but has the best publicists of the ancient world!
- robonerd 4y ago
  > Sparta is famous for having a really, really good PR agency. This is a very figurative claim, yes? It seems untrue otherwise. I've never heard of Sparta having a propaganda organization, least of all an outward facing one. Obviously their social structure indoctrinated their own into itself, but that's not the same thing as having a PR agency. As far as I'm aware, everything known/believed about the Spartans today comes from people who weren't Spartans, like Xenophon and Plutarch. The Spartans didn't write about themselves, or if they did, those writings didn't survive.
  - bargle0 4y ago
    It makes sense to talk up the guys you beat, since it amplifies your own achievements. Did the victors write about the Spartans?
    - robonerd 4y ago
      Neither Xenophon nor Plutarch beat Sparta, nor were beat by Sparta. Plutarch was writing about things the Spartans had supposedly said or done a thousand years before. Xenophon was an Athenian mercenary and military commander who fought alongside the Spartans, not against them, and became a Laconophile from the experience. The perception of his alignment with Sparta (and his association with Socrates) severely harmed his reputation in Athens. He was eventually banished by Athens after being on Sparta's side at the Battle of Coronea.

jean_tta 4y ago

You take for granted that the Spartans were good at war, and reconcile "Spartans good at war" and "Spartans lost to other city-states" by concluding that there are "a lot of factors". Why not revise your assumption that Spartans were good at war?

blfr 4y ago
They were certainly quite good at least at keeping numerically dominant helots down.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  Plenty of places in ancient times used terror successfully to keep large slave populations in their place. But if you count up Sparta's win/loss record in known battles against other armies, they're almost exactly 50%. And they were 0-2 against the Macedonian phalanx.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Kind of the opposite to Napoleon. Sparta fought one famous battle and is seen as invincible, Napoleon won almost all his battles, lost one decisive battle at Waterloo (incredibly close) and since then is seen as a looser. Propaganda is powerful tool.
- watwut 4y ago
  Being good at war and being capable of keeping enslaved population via massive brutality and control are not the same thing.
mountainb 4y ago
Sparta won the Peloponnesian War, even though it relied on making major social and military changes (building a navy, relying more on auxiliary troops than core elite troops) to accomplish that. The other bit is that if one ais trying to draw a distinction between Athenian reliance on citizen-soldier hoplites and the reliance on crack troops reliant on masses of helots, that distinction was muddled during the Peloponnesian War as heavy infantry combat became much less relevant on all sides as naval warfare (manned by masses of both slaves and paid troops) became much more important. It also doesn't really make much sense to say that Sparta's reliance on its elite core lead to its eventual subordination to Macedonia. Macedon under Philip and Alexander was also built around an elite core -- the Companion Cavalry supported by the sarissa-armed infantry, which were relatively lightly armored compared to traditional Athenian/Spartan heavy infantry. It also doesn't really make that much sense to try to draw clear ethical distinctions between the Macedonians and the Spartans. One of the most common lines to read in the Campaigns of Alexander is "all the men remaining in the city were killed, and then the women and children were sold into slavery." What's clear is that Spartans gained the reputation for having the most elite heavy infantry during the time period, at the time when heavy infantry proved to be the most important type of fighter on land. Then, in a generation or two, elite heavy infantry became a lot less important, and Sparta had demographic difficulties in replenishing its numbers, particularly of its core elite fighters. Light infantry with significantly less training became more important, as did light cavalry (no stirrups invented yet). Naval fighting became a lot more important also. So, what they were the best at became of decreasing relevance, and also their intensive training methods abetted by extreme social stratification didn't scale to the intensity of the conflict during the Peloponnesian War. To win, they had to make a bunch of massive adaptations and ally with the Persians.
- pradn 4y ago
  I don't think Sparta's victory in the Peloponnesian War proves they were better at war. The war was a stalemate on land between Sparta and Athens. Athens ruled the waves but couldn't parlay that into victory. Athens committed a major blunder in its invasion of Sicily and that allowed Sparta to win.

jcranmer 4y ago

Sparta is famous for having a really, really good PR agency. It's telling that their most famous military operation is fighting a rearguard action where they comprised less than 10% of the total forces. Their famous martial discipline and military life style? Our contemporary sources wax poetical about these... before footnotes saying that's what it should be and used to be, but isn't actually anymore. It should be noted that, when you compare the descriptions of Spartan military education with modern studies of child soldiers, you realize that's exactly what Sparta was: a society of child soldiers. It's the same procedures of indoctrination and ritual initiation. You want to extol their military life, go to the Lord's Resistance Army or similar counterparts today. Strip away the romanticism of Sparta, and you're left with a slave society whose military is based on child soldiers that struggles to fight battles next door, which is curb-stomped by next major military force to sweep in (the Macedonians), produced nothing of note in lasting cultural artifacts... but has the best publicists of the ancient world!

robonerd 4y ago
> Sparta is famous for having a really, really good PR agency. This is a very figurative claim, yes? It seems untrue otherwise. I've never heard of Sparta having a propaganda organization, least of all an outward facing one. Obviously their social structure indoctrinated their own into itself, but that's not the same thing as having a PR agency. As far as I'm aware, everything known/believed about the Spartans today comes from people who weren't Spartans, like Xenophon and Plutarch. The Spartans didn't write about themselves, or if they did, those writings didn't survive.
- bargle0 4y ago
  It makes sense to talk up the guys you beat, since it amplifies your own achievements. Did the victors write about the Spartans?
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Neither Xenophon nor Plutarch beat Sparta, nor were beat by Sparta. Plutarch was writing about things the Spartans had supposedly said or done a thousand years before. Xenophon was an Athenian mercenary and military commander who fought alongside the Spartans, not against them, and became a Laconophile from the experience. The perception of his alignment with Sparta (and his association with Socrates) severely harmed his reputation in Athens. He was eventually banished by Athens after being on Sparta's side at the Battle of Coronea.