Why is sparta so popular?

[CrazedSwede]

I mean they were good soldiers. Not gods. Sure they loved battle but werent all mighy gods? Is it the film 300?

[Chaunsey]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Themistocles:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από DrTruman:

you still have nothin spartan, believe me. I live in Italy but i am not an ancient roman :)

Lacedaemonia is such a poor land, full of stones no soil, no foreigner would ever immigrate to that region for a better life, believe me. Only the people which were borned there and loved this land would stay there. Also, nobody was able to annex Lacedaemonia but Romans which left it as it was so the people there have pure blood. We have our own dialect which are pretty like the Doric Greek (Spartan) so, I see no reason for not to be a Spartan descendant. In the end of the day, if I am not a Spartan descendant, then who I might be? It doesn't makes sense.

you are laconian, butthat doesnt mean you are of the "spartan" ethnic minority.

even back in those days spartans were a minority, thier social system led to a very low birthrate, their population was never larger than that of a medium sized town today, but spread out over vearious towns and villages.

there were far more helots and perioikoi in the region than proper "spartans", there is certainly the chance that you have spartans in your ancestry, but most of your ancestry likely leads back to other lacedaemonian populations, and perhaps people of from surrounding regions as well.

it would take an expensive and long genetic study to figure out who and to what degree, the people of that region are descended from the actual spartan society.

[Lee Swaggington IV]

honestly i am a spartan fan for the man fact that they almost perfected combat of their time and are seen to be the best warriors of their generation, they have nothing much else going for them apart from that but i find spartans just to be an extremely intresting people

[Lower G.I.]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από All Things Trivial:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Lower G.I.:

The Spartan phalanx was not "far superior" than that of other city states. Thebes, as you mentioned, destroyed the Spartan phalanx on multiple occasions. And the Macedonians after Thebes. It was widely recognized at the time of the Roman incursions into Greece that Macedon fielded the most potent military force available in the Greek lands. The rest of Greece went to war with Rome after they figured out Rome was occupying Macedon for good. Too many epic tales of the defeat of the mighty against all odds at the hands of the Greeks (and managing to pull it off in the past) made the rest of Greece ignorant of the truth of the situation. Which is why Greece was fully occupied by Rome shortly thereafter.

In same numbers with length and breadth the same Sparta would prevail, this is widely listed and documented in contemporary sources from the time period. The Thebans used numbers, loading their left flank with their best troops who far outnumbered the small spartan contingent and the Macedonians used spears with a far greater reach hence the spartan combat ability was superior but it was irrelevant. Furthermore the Macedonians appreciated the utility of cavalry, skirmishers and the like giving them an inherent advantage which was why they were considered better and in fact were. Given the same equipment was present on both sides and there were equal numbers of phalanx troops only the Spartans would be the victors because of the way they trained. Bear in mind a typical spartan army was a tiny percentage of Spartan warriors the rest being filled by peroikoi and helot levy troops. With only 9000 men and civil unrest they could not commit more. So many opponents targeted them directly or held them in place and flanked them by wiping out their centre. This was where the majority of losses were inflicted, by better rounded armies

I don't deny that Sparta had the edge in individual warriors, although if we're talking about the period of Phillip II and Alexander, I would say the margin is very slim. If you're looking to pit a single spartan hoplite phalanx against the macedonian phalangite, I would agree with you that the spartan phalanx would be the likely victor.

The original point that you stated, however, is that the spartan phalanx was far superior. It was not. Superiority is not besting an opponent on a unit to unit basis. If you have superior numbers, you use them. More importantly, as you stated, the macedonians fielded a more various force that used cavalry and light skirmishers than sparta did not traditionally, which allowed it to crush the typical greek phalanx - sparta included - regardless of the numbers of troops (to an extent). That's not evening mentioning that the macedonian phalangite required less training, less armor, and less cost to produce, allowing greater numbers on the battlefield.

Finally, if the spartan phalanx was far superior, you would have to question why Cleomenes III of Sparta adopted the macedonian style phalanx. And the rest of the Achaen league for that matter. It was widely known that the previous phalanx organization that the Greeks had used, Sparta included, was inferior to the Macedonian model. You can sugar coat it all you want. Sure, the spartan hoplite was more versatile. Sure, they were better trained. And yet they still lost and adapted to the phalanx style the macedonians used. So no, I utterly reject any notion that the spartan phalanx was "far superior" to any phalanx fielded by Macedon after Phillip II.

[Cергал]

I would rather choose Syacuse, Athens or Epirus over Sparta. The film was just embellishment and bravado. Ελλαδα!

[Relnor]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Zemlyane:

I would rather choose Syacuse, Athens or Epirus over Sparta. The film was just embellishment and bravado. Ελλαδα!

What happened in Syracuse around the time of the 1st Punic War is more dramatic and interesting than anything "300" could put out =p

[ATT]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Lower G.I.:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από All Things Trivial:

In same numbers with length and breadth the same Sparta would prevail, this is widely listed and documented in contemporary sources from the time period. The Thebans used numbers, loading their left flank with their best troops who far outnumbered the small spartan contingent and the Macedonians used spears with a far greater reach hence the spartan combat ability was superior but it was irrelevant. Furthermore the Macedonians appreciated the utility of cavalry, skirmishers and the like giving them an inherent advantage which was why they were considered better and in fact were. Given the same equipment was present on both sides and there were equal numbers of phalanx troops only the Spartans would be the victors because of the way they trained. Bear in mind a typical spartan army was a tiny percentage of Spartan warriors the rest being filled by peroikoi and helot levy troops. With only 9000 men and civil unrest they could not commit more. So many opponents targeted them directly or held them in place and flanked them by wiping out their centre. This was where the majority of losses were inflicted, by better rounded armies

I don't deny that Sparta had the edge in individual warriors, although if we're talking about the period of Phillip II and Alexander, I would say the margin is very slim. If you're looking to pit a single spartan hoplite phalanx against the macedonian phalangite, I would agree with you that the spartan phalanx would be the likely victor.

The original point that you stated, however, is that the spartan phalanx was far superior. It was not. Superiority is not besting an opponent on a unit to unit basis. If you have superior numbers, you use them. More importantly, as you stated, the macedonians fielded a more various force that used cavalry and light skirmishers than sparta did not traditionally, which allowed it to crush the typical greek phalanx - sparta included - regardless of the numbers of troops (to an extent). That's not evening mentioning that the macedonian phalangite required less training, less armor, and less cost to produce, allowing greater numbers on the battlefield.

Finally, if the spartan phalanx was far superior, you would have to question why Cleomenes III of Sparta adopted the macedonian style phalanx. And the rest of the Achaen league for that matter. It was widely known that the previous phalanx organization that the Greeks had used, Sparta included, was inferior to the Macedonian model. You can sugar coat it all you want. Sure, the spartan hoplite was more versatile. Sure, they were better trained. And yet they still lost and adapted to the phalanx style the macedonians used. So no, I utterly reject any notion that the spartan phalanx was "far superior" to any phalanx fielded by Macedon after Phillip II.

No need to descend into being insulting, I am sugar coating nothing and if you are going to be infantile I shall not give you the time of day any longer. I concede perhaps 'superior' was a bad word choice and your final paragraph summarises quite aptly the misapplication I have made, certainly the Spartans were forced to adapt by Macedon given how as you state the Spartan phalanx was more expensive, allowed less troops to be fielded and so forth. Undeniably the Macedonian phalanx grew to superiority under Phillip II however I am evaluating from a wider historical standpoint and therefore may have not been as clear as I intended.

I was stating spartan individuals were better, Macedonians were better as a whole. Hope that clears up the confusion which I admit is my fault. They adapted because their dated styles cost them dearly in battle which was a historical trend in Spartan history as for all their prowess defeat was usually inflicted by clever commanders who used their phalanx against them (in terms of rigidity of formation required etc)

[Nemean Lion]

I grew up on Michigan State University campus. That's why. :)

[I would luck me]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ghost of BG:

I grew up on Michigan State University campus. That's why. :)

Ugh. You Spartans are the worst.

[Petros]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Chaunsey:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Themistocles:

Lacedaemonia is such a poor land, full of stones no soil, no foreigner would ever immigrate to that region for a better life, believe me. Only the people which were borned there and loved this land would stay there. Also, nobody was able to annex Lacedaemonia but Romans which left it as it was so the people there have pure blood. We have our own dialect which are pretty like the Doric Greek (Spartan) so, I see no reason for not to be a Spartan descendant. In the end of the day, if I am not a Spartan descendant, then who I might be? It doesn't makes sense.

you are laconian, butthat doesnt mean you are of the "spartan" ethnic minority.

even back in those days spartans were a minority, thier social system led to a very low birthrate, their population was never larger than that of a medium sized town today, but spread out over vearious towns and villages.

there were far more helots and perioikoi in the region than proper "spartans", there is certainly the chance that you have spartans in your ancestry, but most of your ancestry likely leads back to other lacedaemonian populations, and perhaps people of from surrounding regions as well.

it would take an expensive and long genetic study to figure out who and to what degree, the people of that region are descended from the actual spartan society.

Do you think that Spartans were only from the city of Sparta? No. In Ancient times the "Spartans" as you foreigners call them, were not called Spartans but Lacedemonians, and thats why they had the Λ on their shield, from Λακεδαιμονία. If they were called Spartans they would have an Σ from Σπάρτη on their shield. The Kingdom was called Lacedemon and the People Lacedemonians or Lacones. Also the Helotes, did not had the right to have their own land, they were part of the Oikos, they were an item of their Lord, they were not free to make a family and a life, so it is impossible. And these facts, make me a Lacedemonian, descendant of the people of the Ancient Kingdom of Lacedemon.

[Chaunsey]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Themistocles:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Chaunsey:

you are laconian, butthat doesnt mean you are of the "spartan" ethnic minority.

even back in those days spartans were a minority, thier social system led to a very low birthrate, their population was never larger than that of a medium sized town today, but spread out over vearious towns and villages.

there were far more helots and perioikoi in the region than proper "spartans", there is certainly the chance that you have spartans in your ancestry, but most of your ancestry likely leads back to other lacedaemonian populations, and perhaps people of from surrounding regions as well.

it would take an expensive and long genetic study to figure out who and to what degree, the people of that region are descended from the actual spartan society.

Do you think that Spartans were only from the city of Sparta? No. In Ancient times the "Spartans" as you foreigners call them, were not called Spartans but Lacedemonians, and thats why they had the Λ on their shield, from Λακεδαιμονία. If they were called Spartans they would have an Σ from Σπάρτη on their shield. The Kingdom was called Lacedemon and the People Lacedemonians or Lacones. Also the Helotes, did not had the right to have their own land, they were part of the Oikos, they were an item of their Lord, they were not free to make a family and a life, so it is impossible. And these facts, make me a Lacedemonian, descendant of the people of the Ancient Kingdom of Lacedemon.

ok, first off, if helots were not allowed t breed they would have ceased to exist within the first 50 years of their domination by the spartans. regardless the ancient spartan system ended more than 2000 years ago. those helots and non spartiate laconians have had a long time to breed, and they have always outnumbered the "spartans".

dont get too hung up on specific names, im talking about the actual spartiate class vs the rest of the lacedaemonian peoples.

im sorry but its ridiculous for you to be from the region but to automatically assume your bloodline comes straight from a small minority over 2000 years ago.

[Petros]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Chaunsey:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Themistocles:

Do you think that Spartans were only from the city of Sparta? No. In Ancient times the "Spartans" as you foreigners call them, were not called Spartans but Lacedemonians, and thats why they had the Λ on their shield, from Λακεδαιμονία. If they were called Spartans they would have an Σ from Σπάρτη on their shield. The Kingdom was called Lacedemon and the People Lacedemonians or Lacones. Also the Helotes, did not had the right to have their own land, they were part of the Oikos, they were an item of their Lord, they were not free to make a family and a life, so it is impossible. And these facts, make me a Lacedemonian, descendant of the people of the Ancient Kingdom of Lacedemon.

ok, first off, if helots were not allowed t breed they would have ceased to exist within the first 50 years of their domination by the spartans. regardless the ancient spartan system ended more than 2000 years ago. those helots and non spartiate laconians have had a long time to breed, and they have always outnumbered the "spartans".

dont get too hung up on specific names, im talking about the actual spartiate class vs the rest of the lacedaemonian peoples.

im sorry but its ridiculous for you to be from the region but to automatically assume your bloodline comes straight from a small minority over 2000 years ago.

Sparta was a Kingdom and its CAPITAL was Sparta, not the whole Kingdom. The real name of the Kingdom of Sparta is Lacedemonia, with Sparta as its capital. Ancient Greek Philosophers were not talking about Spartans, but for Lacedemonians. I learn Ancient Greek, I translate Ancient Greek as everybody in Greek schools and I have never seen in any text the word "Spartan" and at its place there is the word "Lacedemonian". The term Spartan is an Englsih term, and it does no exist in Greek, a Spartan is a civilian of the City of Sparta, and only that. And as I told you, nobody would come to live in Lacedemonia, its land is very poor, not fruitful at all, only rocks. Only Lacedemonians lived and live there because its our land, and we respect it.

[Snorri Nosebiter]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Themistocles:

Do you think that Spartans were only from the city of Sparta? No. In Ancient times the "Spartans" as you foreigners call them, were not called Spartans but Lacedemonians, and thats why they had the Λ on their shield, from Λακεδαιμονία. If they were called Spartans they would have an Σ from Σπάρτη on their shield. The Kingdom was called Lacedemon and the People Lacedemonians or Lacones. Also the Helotes, did not had the right to have their own land, they were part of the Oikos, they were an item of their Lord, they were not free to make a family and a life, so it is impossible. And these facts, make me a Lacedemonian, descendant of the people of the Ancient Kingdom of Lacedemon.

Sparta and Lacedaemon were used interchangeably.

The Lambda on the shield signifies the mythological Lacedaemon- the son of Zeus from whom the Spartiates beleved they were descended -and not the region itself.

In ancient Greece, if you were from Lacedaemon, you were a Laconian, not a Spartan. If you were from Sparta, you were a Spartan. If you were of the aristrocratic bloodline and undrwent the training in the Agoge, you were a Spartiate.

Every spartiate, helot and many perioikoi were Laconian, Many of them were Spartan. Only the men who fought in the phalanx were considered Spartiates.

[Liturgy Of The Great Cold]

because this is Spaaartaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Snorri Nosebiter]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Themistocles:

The term Spartan is an Englsih term, and it does no exist in Greek, a Spartan is a civilian of the City of Sparta, and only that.

then why does Homer mention Menelaus as the 'King of Sparta'- by name, in Koine Greek -in the Iliad?

[Petros]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mr Eyl:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Themistocles:

Do you think that Spartans were only from the city of Sparta? No. In Ancient times the "Spartans" as you foreigners call them, were not called Spartans but Lacedemonians, and thats why they had the Λ on their shield, from Λακεδαιμονία. If they were called Spartans they would have an Σ from Σπάρτη on their shield. The Kingdom was called Lacedemon and the People Lacedemonians or Lacones. Also the Helotes, did not had the right to have their own land, they were part of the Oikos, they were an item of their Lord, they were not free to make a family and a life, so it is impossible. And these facts, make me a Lacedemonian, descendant of the people of the Ancient Kingdom of Lacedemon.

Sparta and Lacedaemon wre used interchangeably.

The Lambda on the shield signifies the mythological Lacedaemon- the son of Zeus from whom the Spartiates beleved they were defended -and not the region itself.

In ancient Greece, if you were from Lacedaemon, you were a Laconian, not a Spartan. If you were from Sparta, you were a Spartan. If you were of the aristrocratic bloodline and undrwent the training in the Agoge, you were a Spartiate.

Every spartiate, helot and many perioikoi were Laconian, Many of them were Spartan. Only the men who fought in the phalanx were considered Spartiates.

No, sorry but the Λ refers to the Land of Lacedemonia and I am absolutely sure about it. Also, Sparta is the capital of Laconia, so what you say does not really makes sense. A Spartan is a Laconian and a Lacedemonian at the same time. The Helots were people from conquered regions of Sparta, like Messenians, and at the last years of Sparta, Spartans which had not money to pay taxes.