Civ: Spartans

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

While both of those articles are pushing against a romanticized version of Sparta, something that is to be applauded. I wouldn't recommend taking what they say as the gospel truth. According to my research, Sparta was probably somewhere between the two extremes.

Which claim do you find too extreme? When they say Sparta relying heavily on slavery?

[ShadowOfHassen]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Which claim do you find too extreme? When they say Sparta relying heavily on slavery?

 

What I thought was wrong was the consistent attempt of both the articles to take the (although probably too idealized) mindset of Sparta we have and run in the entire other direction (How horrible Sparta was). Rarely is history black and white, and arguing that Sparta was actually black instead of white is really of no use. It would be much better to show the full color of the civilization.

For example: Yes, Sparta did rely on the Helots for manual labor. However, it was technically less like slavery and more like oppressed serfdom -- not to say that Sparta didn't own slaves, but the Helot population as a whole weren't slaves. The Helots were more like a really low class. If my memory serves me right, when I researched Sparta I read that the Helots had their own towns, and some translated inscriptions from the area that seemed to suggest that helots weren't constrained to the Spartan's minimalist lifestyle, and sometimes lived more lavishly than their "oppressors"

Also, I have not found a single piece of evidence that Sparta treated the people they conquered worse than any other civilization did. That sounds a bit strange, unless you recall that there were a few other people who lived in Sparta with the Spartans and Helots and while they were still second rate citizens they weren't mistreated like the Helots.

I think the second article has a grain of truth in it, but like the other article, he took it too far to try to prove a point.

Edited January 23 by ShadowOfHassen

[Genava55]

18 hours ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

For example: Yes, Sparta did rely on the Helots for manual labor. However, it was technically less like slavery and more like oppressed serfdom -- not to say that Sparta didn't own slaves, but the Helot population as a whole weren't slaves. The Helots were more like a really low class. If my memory serves me right, when I researched Sparta I read that the Helots had their own towns, and some translated inscriptions from the area that seemed to suggest that helots weren't constrained to the Spartan's minimalist lifestyle, and sometimes lived more lavishly than their "oppressors"

18 hours ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

Also, I have not found a single piece of evidence that Sparta treated the people they conquered worse than any other civilization did.

You are confusing the Perioikoi and the Helots. The Perioikoi lived in cities and were free men. The Helots lived in the countryside, in villages.

If I can quote an excerpt from the book "Greek Slave Systems in their Eastern Mediterranean Context c.800-146 BC" to answer you, here it is:

<< What we might call ‘communal intervention’ went much further, however, than merely the occasional borrowing of a helot without the permission of his owner. The Old Oligarch, writing in the 420s, laments the inability of Athenian citizens to strike capriciously any slaves within their reach, a practice that he fondly notes is possible in Sparta ([Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.10–12). This ability of non-owners to beat slaves is further attested by the Hellenistic historian Myron of Priene, known for his pro-Messenian and anti-Spartan attitudes. Myron writes that the Spartans forced the helots to wear degrading clothes, prescribed for them an annual whipping (to remind them they were slaves), and permitted magistrates to execute any helots whose physical size and vigour they thought inappropriate for a slave—fining the helot’s owner as well for letting him reach such girth (FGrHist 106 F2 ap. Athen. 14.74. 657c–d). This might sound sensational, but the rationale of such measures— that is, targeting large, powerful helots who might be potential rebel leaders—is observable in fifth- and fourth-century sources as well. Aristotle’s description of the krypteia is perhaps the best example of this. According to his account, from time to time youths would be sent into the countryside armed with daggers and carrying only the most meagre rations. They would hide during the day, emerging at night to kill any helots whom they found abroad on the roads (surely some manner of curfew is implied). They would also infiltrate the fields and dispatch those who were particularly large or vigorous (Arist. fr. 538 [Rose] ap. Plu. Lyc. 28. 1–4; cf. Arist. fr. 611.10 [Rose] ap. Herakleides fr. 10 [Dilts]). Aristotle further noted (ap. Plu. Lyc. 28.4) that the ephors declared war on the helots each year, thus absolving those Spartiates (surely for the most part the krypteia) who murdered helots from miasma, effectively granting them a ‘licence to kill’. All of these sources tally with the remark of Critias (in the epigraph to this chapter) that at Sparta were to be found the most enslaved and the most free of men, which must refer to helots and Spartiates: helots—of all Greek slaves—were subject to the most oppressive and unusual means of control; Spartiates—of all free Greeks—were those most liberated from the need to perform manual labour.

Let us sum up so far. The picture painted by our contemporary sources is that individual Spartans were able to own helots, and this included the power to sell them, though not outside Spartan territory; they could not manumit them in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, their helots could be commandeered by their fellow citizens for minor tasks, and could be disciplined by them as well. Most remarkably, the state could manumit or even kill these apparently privately owned slaves. It is now necessary both to explain why these rules existed and then to determine whether or not such measures of communal intervention push helotage outside our classificatory scheme of private ownership. >>

Another one:

<< The most famous act of state brutality of this ilk is the alleged massacre of 2,000 helots narrated by Thucydides (4.80), who says that a proclamation was made to the helots inviting those who thought they had served the state well in war to come forward and receive their freedom. Those who answered the summons processed around the temples, but then promptly disappeared; nobody knew how each individual died. >>

[ShadowOfHassen]

10 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

You are confusing the Perioikoi and the Helots. The Perioikoi lived in cities and were free men. The Helots lived in the countryside, in villages.

If I can quote an excerpt from the book "Greek Slave Systems in their Eastern Mediterranean Context c.800-146 BC" to answer you, here it is:

<< What we might call ‘communal intervention’ went much further, however, than merely the occasional borrowing of a helot without the permission of his owner. The Old Oligarch, writing in the 420s, laments the inability of Athenian citizens to strike capriciously any slaves within their reach, a practice that he fondly notes is possible in Sparta ([Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.10–12). This ability of non-owners to beat slaves is further attested by the Hellenistic historian Myron of Priene, known for his pro-Messenian and anti-Spartan attitudes. Myron writes that the Spartans forced the helots to wear degrading clothes, prescribed for them an annual whipping (to remind them they were slaves), and permitted magistrates to execute any helots whose physical size and vigour they thought inappropriate for a slave—fining the helot’s owner as well for letting him reach such girth (FGrHist 106 F2 ap. Athen. 14.74. 657c–d). This might sound sensational, but the rationale of such measures— that is, targeting large, powerful helots who might be potential rebel leaders—is observable in fifth- and fourth-century sources as well. Aristotle’s description of the krypteia is perhaps the best example of this. According to his account, from time to time youths would be sent into the countryside armed with daggers and carrying only the most meagre rations. They would hide during the day, emerging at night to kill any helots whom they found abroad on the roads (surely some manner of curfew is implied). They would also infiltrate the fields and dispatch those who were particularly large or vigorous (Arist. fr. 538 [Rose] ap. Plu. Lyc. 28. 1–4; cf. Arist. fr. 611.10 [Rose] ap. Herakleides fr. 10 [Dilts]). Aristotle further noted (ap. Plu. Lyc. 28.4) that the ephors declared war on the helots each year, thus absolving those Spartiates (surely for the most part the krypteia) who murdered helots from miasma, effectively granting them a ‘licence to kill’. All of these sources tally with the remark of Critias (in the epigraph to this chapter) that at Sparta were to be found the most enslaved and the most free of men, which must refer to helots and Spartiates: helots—of all Greek slaves—were subject to the most oppressive and unusual means of control; Spartiates—of all free Greeks—were those most liberated from the need to perform manual labour.

Let us sum up so far. The picture painted by our contemporary sources is that individual Spartans were able to own helots, and this included the power to sell them, though not outside Spartan territory; they could not manumit them in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, their helots could be commandeered by their fellow citizens for minor tasks, and could be disciplined by them as well. Most remarkably, the state could manumit or even kill these apparently privately owned slaves. It is now necessary both to explain why these rules existed and then to determine whether or not such measures of communal intervention push helotage outside our classificatory scheme of private ownership. >>

Another one:

<< The most famous act of state brutality of this ilk is the alleged massacre of 2,000 helots narrated by Thucydides (4.80), who says that a proclamation was made to the helots inviting those who thought they had served the state well in war to come forward and receive their freedom. Those who answered the summons processed around the temples, but then promptly disappeared; nobody knew how each individual died. >>

You are probably right about the Helots. However, I still haven't seen how the Spartans have mistreated the other Greek city states they had conquered, any more than other ancient civilizations. And I do think that both articles were written with a very specific points in mind, and reality was probably less extreme than they portrayed. If you can have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I think the point of the articles is that mythology omits large portions of Spartan culture and history and is probably not something we should emulate in modern times. 

[ShadowOfHassen]

24 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I think the point of the articles is that mythology omits large portions of Spartan culture and history and is probably not something we should emulate in modern times. 

They do say that, and for the most I'd agree. Secret police, slavery and the agoge are things almost no sane person would do today. However, the articles seemed to make the argument that because of those things the story of the 300 should not be held up as an example of bravery and sacrifice that should be emulated (as it has been up as since the day it happened)

[Genava55]

10 minutes ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

They do say that, and for the most I'd agree. Secret police, slavery and the agoge are things almost no sane person would do today. However, the articles seemed to make the argument that because of those things the story of the 300 should not be held up as an example of bravery and sacrifice that should be emulated (as it has been up as since the day it happened)

The article starts like this:

Many self-professed champions of freedom throughout the centuries have looked to ancient Sparta as an inspiration. The doomed stand of 300 Spartan warriors against the Persian Empire at Thermopylae in 480 B.C.E.—the subject of Zack Snyder’s 2006 film 300—has been particularly influential for figures ranging from Lord Byron rallying support for Greek independence from the Ottomans to Cold Warriors mythologizing the virtues of the “West” against the Soviet Union. It’s easy to ridicule such a simplistic view of history, and to point out that the Spartans might not have deserved their reputation as invincible warriors. But the blunders and brutalities of today’s champions of “Western civilization” follow Sparta’s example remarkably closely. This should give us pause.

 

So it is not the last stand of the 300 but the idealization of Spartans and of the city-state Sparta that is criticized.

Edited January 24 by Genava55

[ShadowOfHassen]

3 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

The article starts like this:

Many self-professed champions of freedom throughout the centuries have looked to ancient Sparta as an inspiration. The doomed stand of 300 Spartan warriors against the Persian Empire at Thermopylae in 480 B.C.E.—the subject of Zack Snyder’s 2006 film 300—has been particularly influential for figures ranging from Lord Byron rallying support for Greek independence from the Ottomans to Cold Warriors mythologizing the virtues of the “West” against the Soviet Union. It’s easy to ridicule such a simplistic view of history, and to point out that the Spartans might not have deserved their reputation as invincible warriors. But the blunders and brutalities of today’s champions of “Western civilization” follow Sparta’s example remarkably closely. This should give us pause.

 

So it is not the last stand of the 300 but the idealization of Spartans and of the city-state Sparta that is criticized.

When I read it, it seemed to be a bit of both. But that's something that we can easily agree to disagree. I do like how they're trying to inform people on what actually happened.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

This isn't Sparta seems like a questionable bit of scholarship to me for other reasons.  First, he overtly psychoanalyses his sources into what seem to be cardboard cutouts.  The fact of the matter is that while he argues they were snobby for disliking democracy, all of them had legitimate issues with the dysfunctionalities present in Athens given the abuses of power of various demagogues, the unjust execution of the admirals following Arginusae, and most obviously Socrates.  Also with infanticide, there is no reason to regard it as unique or even as necessarily something that did happen.  https://www.archaeology.org/news/10231-211214-greek-exposure-infanticide.  Also, he seems to put too much weight on the weakest source: Plutarch, while dismissing Xenophon's more first hand experience.  While I think there is insufficient data to weigh in decisively on the extent pederasty, Xenophon's witness is an important basis to cast doubt on it being a widely done practice.  Quite frankly, I find the accounts of brutality to just as likely to have been exaggerated by Athenians when juxtaposing the two.  He also criticises the education system on the idea of literacy as if that were a sole metric of learning.  Much of education during that time revolved around memorising oral traditions.  

Honestly, it feels strange that he is comparing it to modern standards when Sparta was hardly worse in some respects to Athens, which had a similar fraction of its populace capable of actually participating in the democracy and similarly relied on slavery which was likely in some cases as brutal.  The following blog post does a better job of representing that.

https://spartareconsidered.blogspot.com/2018/02/of-slaves-and-helots-short-comparison.html

I would also recommend an excellent article by Hodkinson "Was classical Sparta a military society?"  It also does a lot to provide a more nuanced take on Spartan life.  Devereaux actually does interact with Hodkinson in a later post, and I would be intrigued to further read on that.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Honestly, it feels strange that he is comparing it to modern standards

It's because it's talking about the modern idealization of Sparta 

[ShadowOfHassen]

Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's because it's talking about the modern idealization of Sparta 

On one hand, yes. But, @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded does have a point. One of the biggest red flags when I'm researching any history is seen if they try to apply or compare things to the modern day. If they do, usually I try to steer around them because almost always they have some point. An Agenda, if you will, that they are trying to play into. And when you try to compare things like that, a bias forms which can really taint what is being written.

Also, @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, I'm actually interested. In your research, how bad off were the Helots? I know they were bad compared to the modern sense. Was it as some history rights all war and oppression or was it less. I'm inclined to think less. What historical records we do have blend myth and reality often, and while we can't throw away what they have to say, it's a possibility that the same people who write about blood falling at Ceaser's death and the "river horses" might have also heard some pretty strange stories about the crazy Greeks who lived in the mountains.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

On one hand, yes. But, @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded does have a point. One of the biggest red flags when I'm researching any history is seen if they try to apply or compare things to the modern day. If they do, usually I try to steer around them because almost always they have some point. An Agenda, if you will, that they are trying to play into. And when you try to compare things like that, a bias forms which can really taint what is being written.

 

The article I posted makes the same point though.  Using an idealized view of Sparta for political or philosophical reasons. 

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's because it's talking about the modern idealization of Sparta 

Fair, yet I find the idea of him projecting trauma onto Spartans to be problematic.  Don't get me wrong; the educational system was harsh and did cause suffering, but the extent to which this led to psychological trauma is uncertain, and much of his arguments for this hinge on extreme views of child mortality, participation within the crypteia (and killing a helot being a must to become a Spartan), and extensive practise of pederasty.  

8 hours ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

how bad off were the Helots?

That is a tricky question to really say, but I would argue that they were about at the same level of other servile classes like Athenian slaves.  Certainly the fact that they could and did at times rise from that class is good, but the fact that they were systematically attacked shows other problems.  The fact of the matter is that like other downtrodden social classes, their voices and presence were always in the background of history, and I am perfectly okay with at my level of knowledge having a fairly agnostic view on the level of suffering they did or did not enjoy.  What irked me with the article however, was this idea that all boys had to kill helots as a sort of rite of passage into manhood.  Hodkinson rightly notes that the skills of the crypteia would give would have little battlefield utility, and rather, it would seem to be a way of finding the best of what could make up the future Spartan leadership as they worked with minimal instruction, acting on their own initiative.  

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

That is a tricky question to really say, but I would argue that they were about at the same level of other servile classes like Athenian slaves.

Did you see the following quotes?

On 23/01/2024 at 10:00 PM, Genava55 said:

You are confusing the Perioikoi and the Helots. The Perioikoi lived in cities and were free men. The Helots lived in the countryside, in villages.

If I can quote an excerpt from the book "Greek Slave Systems in their Eastern Mediterranean Context c.800-146 BC" to answer you, here it is:

<< What we might call ‘communal intervention’ went much further, however, than merely the occasional borrowing of a helot without the permission of his owner. The Old Oligarch, writing in the 420s, laments the inability of Athenian citizens to strike capriciously any slaves within their reach, a practice that he fondly notes is possible in Sparta ([Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.10–12). This ability of non-owners to beat slaves is further attested by the Hellenistic historian Myron of Priene, known for his pro-Messenian and anti-Spartan attitudes. Myron writes that the Spartans forced the helots to wear degrading clothes, prescribed for them an annual whipping (to remind them they were slaves), and permitted magistrates to execute any helots whose physical size and vigour they thought inappropriate for a slave—fining the helot’s owner as well for letting him reach such girth (FGrHist 106 F2 ap. Athen. 14.74. 657c–d). This might sound sensational, but the rationale of such measures— that is, targeting large, powerful helots who might be potential rebel leaders—is observable in fifth- and fourth-century sources as well. Aristotle’s description of the krypteia is perhaps the best example of this. According to his account, from time to time youths would be sent into the countryside armed with daggers and carrying only the most meagre rations. They would hide during the day, emerging at night to kill any helots whom they found abroad on the roads (surely some manner of curfew is implied). They would also infiltrate the fields and dispatch those who were particularly large or vigorous (Arist. fr. 538 [Rose] ap. Plu. Lyc. 28. 1–4; cf. Arist. fr. 611.10 [Rose] ap. Herakleides fr. 10 [Dilts]). Aristotle further noted (ap. Plu. Lyc. 28.4) that the ephors declared war on the helots each year, thus absolving those Spartiates (surely for the most part the krypteia) who murdered helots from miasma, effectively granting them a ‘licence to kill’. All of these sources tally with the remark of Critias (in the epigraph to this chapter) that at Sparta were to be found the most enslaved and the most free of men, which must refer to helots and Spartiates: helots—of all Greek slaves—were subject to the most oppressive and unusual means of control; Spartiates—of all free Greeks—were those most liberated from the need to perform manual labour.

Let us sum up so far. The picture painted by our contemporary sources is that individual Spartans were able to own helots, and this included the power to sell them, though not outside Spartan territory; they could not manumit them in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, their helots could be commandeered by their fellow citizens for minor tasks, and could be disciplined by them as well. Most remarkably, the state could manumit or even kill these apparently privately owned slaves. It is now necessary both to explain why these rules existed and then to determine whether or not such measures of communal intervention push helotage outside our classificatory scheme of private ownership. >>

Another one:

<< The most famous act of state brutality of this ilk is the alleged massacre of 2,000 helots narrated by Thucydides (4.80), who says that a proclamation was made to the helots inviting those who thought they had served the state well in war to come forward and receive their freedom. Those who answered the summons processed around the temples, but then promptly disappeared; nobody knew how each individual died. >>

 

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Fair, yet I find the idea of him projecting trauma onto Spartans to be problematic.

1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Hodkinson rightly notes that the skills of the crypteia would give would have little battlefield utility, and rather, it would seem to be a way of finding the best of what could make up the future Spartan leadership as they worked with minimal instruction, acting on their own initiative.  

Devereaux's comparison is interesting because it makes parallels with the current goals of indoctrinating childs in such ways. The purpose is not their efficiency in the battlefield but to maintain an oppressive system. I don't see it as something implausible as such systems existed in other societies. Devereaux writing style is rendering his argument as something bold and exaggerated but it has some truth in my opinion. 

[Genava55]

17 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

https://spartareconsidered.blogspot.com/2018/02/of-slaves-and-helots-short-comparison.html

Honestly, I have rarely seen a blog post written with such bad faith. In my opinion, the argumentation is of very low quality .

First of all, the anecdote of the 20'000 slaves fleeing Decelea is not really appropriate to speak about the condition of the Helots in comparison with the Athenian slaves. Nothing suggest those 20'000 slaves would become helots and nothing suggest those slaves choose to become helots. Most of the helots are actually local populations from Laconia and I don't think there is evidence of new helots imported from prisoners. So the 20'000 slaves would not have been made helots and they probably knew it. Furthermore, as a contradictory anecdote, slaves flew the city of Chios to join the Athenians who were besieging the city and they helped them (Thuc. 8.40.2). So really, this sort of anecdotes doesn't tell anything about the conditions of the slaves. Those are very specific situations and totally unrelated to the everyday life of the slaves.

H. P. Schrader also mentions that the Krypteia didn't exist during the Golden Age of Sparta, a claim that is dubious. Using Aristotle and Herodotus account's, Krypteia has probably an older origin. But anyway the whole argument of saying that the Krypteia didn't exist during the Golden Age of Sparta is simply dull, I don't see how it is used as a defense. This is Sparta but not the Golden Age Sparta so it doesn't count?

Finally H. P. Schrader mentioned that Athens committed a massacre of the population of Melos, as a sort counter-example to excuse the massacre of the 2000 helots who helped Sparta during the war and who thought they would receive freedom, but instead were slaughtered by their masters. Just this argument gave me a very bad opinion of this person, this is rhetorically the bottom-pit of intelligence. This is pure bad faith and a desperate argument. The situation at Melos has nothing to do with the slaves or with anything related to slavery. This is indeed a massacre but which happened at the heart of the war when Sparta already committed massacres too, notably killing all the Athenians prisoners after a battle etc. I don't think Sparta was worst than Athens on the respect of the enemies and of the prisoners (with the exception of the Messenians and the helots). But this whole argument has nothing to do with the slave conditions which is the topic of her article. H. P. Schrader is simply making a deflective argument, this is basically her saying "see, Athens was very bad too!" while giving an example related to a different topic.

In the end, a childish article.

 

Edited January 25 by Genava55

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Did you see the following quotes?

I did.  The reason I gave a vague answer was because I have not sorted through the pertinent sources and looked at scholarly work surrounding them enough to come to a decisive opinion.  I have no problem with regarding the helot class as oppressed, but the dystopian picture Devereaux paints seems frankly unsustainable precisely because there were so many helots.  Maybe I am wrong, and I would love to delve into the topic further, but at the moment, I will content myself with positioning my stance as inconsequential at best.  

7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Devereaux's comparison is interesting because it makes parallels with the current goals of indoctrinating childs in such ways. The purpose is not their efficiency in the battlefield but to maintain an oppressive system. I don't see it as something implausible as such systems existed in other societies. Devereaux writing style is rendering his argument as something bold and exaggerated but it has some truth in my opinion

The issue I found with his analogy was the ignoring of any positive elements of the education.  Were Spartans literate?  No, but that does not mean that they were ignorant in a time in which oral traditions were prevalent.  It is little surprise that surviving Spartan literature came in the form of poetry, which would have particularly thrived in an oral society.

3 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Honestly, I have rarely seen a blog post written with such bad faith. In my opinion, the argumentation is of very low quality .

Fair enough.  In seeing it, I naively assumed that there would be further scholarly work by the author to steelman the arguments, but it was foolish of me to gloss over some of its fallacious claims.  The point I was trying to get across more was that this article contrasted Sparta with its contemporaries, which I much prefer to say making it out to be ancient Nazis. 

I think a good number of my issues with the article lie in the overt tone that he uses that just gives the arguments a blunt feeling.  Likewise, I likely just dislike modern comparisons to ancient things; it feels as jarring as someone condemning how terrible of a Mormon Shakespeare was.  Frankly, those are opinions I should not let cloud my judgement as much as it did.