I saw a PBS documentary on the Spartans tonight, and I'm here to tell you: I've had enough about that damn city state.

The Discovery Channel, the History Channel, PBS, etc., all roll out shows on the Spartans. But aside from adding a bit of legend (Thermopylae) to Western lore, what did they really contribute? They were a cruel, tyrannical state whose way of life was based on mass slavery (which even their Greek contemporaries found unsetteling), a rigid caste system, and brute force, supplemented by draconian intervention by the state in the everyday lives of the citizens. Why are they deserving of all this attention?

Where are the accolades for Athens, the city that almost single handedly created Western civilization? The city that beat the Persians on both land and sea? The city that invented democracy, that provided the world with priceless gifts of art, architecture, literature, histiography and philosophy? An economic and military superpower of its age, and one of the greatest cities of all time. If you had a choice, which would you have rather been: a Spartan, or an Athenian?

Lets get off the Spartans for awhile and check out the Athenians, a city whose story is much more important and just as interesting.

That would be a fine request.

However, I've never seen any of this. I would like to get a glimpse of what life was like in the day. Cruel, brutal, and short I take it?

The documentary "The Rise and Fall of the Spartans" is first class and top quality; probably one of the best docs on ancient history! But there are a lot of others that aren't so good.

Sparta was the most important city in ancient Greece. In civ3, Athens is the capital, but this is not justified for ancient times, as Sparta was hegemon of Greece from the the end of the archaic period to Epaminondas.

You are right though, that Athens doesn't get the attention it deserves. There are far too many docs on the Egyptians and Meso-Americans, and they usually say nothing. But I don't think there can ever be too many on a society as distinctive and interesting as that tiny polis we call Sparta! ;)

I agree with calgacus...."The Rise and Fall of the Spartans" was an excellent in depth study of this important, if obscure, people.
And I really think that calling a couple of programmes, in thirty years of television viewing, an "all roll out shows on the Spartans" is a little bit of an exaggeration....especially as not a week goes by without having the blasted Egyptians forced down our throats....yet again!
(Anyway, they did another program called "The Rise and Fall of Athens")

Try this little experiment:-
Go to your local library and see how many books there are on the Egyptians.
My library has hundreds, whole shelves of them....but NONE, NOT ONE, on the Assyrians! :crazyeye:

To get a true perspective on history we should look at all obscure ancient peoples, even the evil ones, and not keep harping on about the favourites like Athens, Rome and Egypt. ;)

You complain of the Assyrians. I wonder how many people at the History Channel have even heard of the Akkadians...

As to the Athens/Sparta debate, I'll just go with Pella, the capital of Macedonia... ;)

In addition, their foorball team is going to crash and burn again this year! :cool:

Sparta was the most important city in ancient Greece. In civ3, Athens is the capital, but this is not justified for
ancient times, as Sparta was hegemon of Greece from the the end of the archaic period to Epaminondas.

By the time Sparta had undoubtedly and officially became hegemon, it was shortly before its downfall.
Sparta may have had the greater military strength, but the fact that it needed four wars (460ish BC, the two Pelopponesian wars and the Corinthian war) to gain the hegemonial position in 386 BC, and losing it entirely in 371 BC proves that, although it was very powerful, it was not powerful enough to keep its main adversaries, Athens, Persia and Thebes in check.
There has never been a clean Spartan hegemony in Greece. Actually, even the one gained after the Corinthian War was by permission of Persia.
As a matter of fact, there has never been a real Greek hegemony in Greece, that is the hegemony of a Greek state which was not successfully challenged by any Greek state. Only two powers had actually had hegemony over Greece in classical times, the Persians from 386 to about 350 BC (it was gradually lost under Artaxerxes III) and the Macedonians, and both weren't Greeks.

Sorry, don't get cable. But if their is anything to learn from the last, is that when custom civilization with a particular ideology (as with Athens, Sparta, and the other poles) have to compete with ad hoc, nationalistic societies making things up as needed (Makedon, and, prior to the Hellenic invasion, Parsa), the ad hocers usually win. Your ideologies aren't going win it for you.

Perhaps there is no ideal. Only reality...

I don't know about you but I am sick of the same old History that is offered by PBS, History Channel etc...

It is always primarily US History
with the occasinal British, Greek or Egyptian

or if your lucky you might be treated to some other European history like Russian, or French.

Wheres Arabic History? Indian? Chinease? etc......

I was ecstatic when I got History International thinking that I'[d finnally get some well rounded WORLD History, but nope just same ole same ole

Actually History International does seem to have ALOT less "US" history geared programming, though most of it seems more British geared or at least WWII geared (yeah I know History has alot of WWII stuff as well, but you can't deny that war's importance). I agree more foreign and well rounded History programing is called for, but I still greatly enjoy the History Channel (have it on most of the time I'm watching TV) occasionally putting on Discovery or TLC. I guess as a result I have a great understanding about US and to a lesser extent European history. But you travel outside of that and my knowledge while greater then most is still rather minute in the grand scheme of things. Though I've become great friends with an Anime fan and as he exposes me to more and more Anime, I gain a greater understanding of Japanese history as he explains the settings and historical basis for some of the series.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel


By the time Sparta had undoubtedly and officially became hegemon, it was shortly before its downfall.
Sparta may have had the greater military strength, but the fact that it needed four wars (460ish BC, the two Pelopponesian wars and the Corinthian war) to gain the hegemonial position in 386 BC, and losing it entirely in 371 BC proves that, although it was very powerful, it was not powerful enough to keep its main adversaries, Athens, Persia and Thebes in check.
There has never been a clean Spartan hegemony in Greece. Actually, even the one gained after the Corinthian War was by permission of Persia.
As a matter of fact, there has never been a real Greek hegemony in Greece, that is the hegemony of a Greek state which was not successfully challenged by any Greek state. Only two powers had actually had hegemony over Greece in classical times, the Persians from 386 to about 350 BC (it was gradually lost under Artaxerxes III) and the Macedonians, and both weren't Greeks.


Sparta is in fact, the clear hegemon of Greece before and during the Persian Wars, which is why she leads the Greeks in that war, despite Athenian successes. After the war, the Athenians have to trick the Spartans so that they can build walls.

I don't get your distinction between "real" hegemony and the other sort. Macedon and Persia had hegemony over Greece, yes, but so did Sparta and Thebes. Theban hegemony didn't last more than a decade, but Spartan hegemony lasted more than a century. That's slightly more than a temporary thing. Hegemon did not been a conquering or super-dominant power, it just meant a power that was stronger than the rest and acknowledged as natural leader of Greece. That was Sparta's status at the beginning of the 5th and at the beginning of the 4th century. :p

Well, I don't think Sparta or any other power ever posessed hegemony over Greece.
I define hegemony (over Greece) as the power over Greece that is not succesfully challenged by any other Greek power.
As such, Sparta came close to this prior to the first Greek-Persian Wars in the early 5th century, but considering the fact that they had no real impact on the parts of Greece north of the Pelepponesos (a one-off influence on Athenian policy which resulted in disaster doesn't count for me, sorry), I don't think that you could call this a panhellenic hegemony.
Wrapping it in really pro-Greek words (sue me if you want, as I'm "pro-Persian"), Sparta also blew their chances of 'saving' Greece. They failed to appear at Marathon because of internal troubles (despite what they had the rest of Greece believe, they actually were busy crushing a Messenian revolt).
Maybe the true years of Spartan hegemony over Greece would have been between the end of the Pelopponesian wars and the begin of the Corinthian wars. During war, nobody had hegemony, as every power was challenged by the other, and during the course of the war, were not able to check the other power- this would only be possible when one of the powers surrendered.
After the Corinthian War, it was Persia who had hegemony over Greece, with the Spartans being their loyal (err... more or less) servants.

Concluding, I think the Spartans were the ones who came closest to having hegemony over Greece, but never really did so and enjoy it.
And, I hate, hate, hate the Spartans.

You may not realize it but Athens ws only the hero of the Persian Wars but in the Peloponessian war they were the enemy of most of Greece and most city-states ralled around Sparta. On the island of Melos the Athenians razed the island, killed all the men and enslaved the women and children all because they wanted to stay independent and not ally with any city-state. Sparta was not the only blood thirsty city-state, all of them were. Thats how it worked in ancient greece. In fact, after the Peloponessian War Sparta was one of the few cities opposed to razing Athens and probably saved it from destruction. I think the US bases a lot of it's military ideals on Spartan principles as well. You guys should read this book called "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield. It is a very accurate and gripping book on the Battle of Thermopylae. I kinda admire the Spartan ideal but i wouldn't want to be one. Too disciplined for me.

Honestly, the thing I'm most sick of about the Spartans is the Thermopylae myth.

I agree; all Sparta and no Corinth makes Hellas a dull Greek.

What myth about it? It was an actual historic event.

the myth is that it meant something-- it didn't , the greek fleet later beat the persians halting the invasion. so the spartans died well but for no reason:(

well they were delayed and gave the Athenians more time to prepare the fleet and stop them from launching a pincer invasion in mainland greece

Originally posted by Punkymonkey
well they were delayed and gave the Athenians more time to prepare the fleet and stop them from launching a pincer invasion in mainland greece

not true, the persians had to go though thermopyle BECAUSE the greek fleet prevented any landings-- and they only held them up 2 days-athens still got burned down

well 7 days actually, they were camped outside thermopylae for several days first. It was still a delay and allowed for more preparation for the Battle of Salamis

Had Leonidas tried an open field battle without sending the greatest part of his army home, the chances of a Spartan victory would have been greater, I think. Look at your history -the Persians never won an open field battle against the Greeks (although the defeat was sometimes very slim). Except, perhaps, Cunaxa.

Leonidas wanted to die as a hero.
That's one thing I really, really, really hate.

What's wrong with wanting to die a hero? Why would you hate that?

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Had Leonidas tried an open field battle without sending the greatest part of his army home, the chances of a Spartan victory would have been greater, I think. Look at your history -the Persians never won an open field battle against the Greeks (although the defeat was sometimes very slim). Except, perhaps, Cunaxa.

Leonidas wanted to die as a hero.
That's one thing I really, really, really hate.

They fought in the pass because they would have lost an open field battle. Supposedly the numbers according to Herodotus, so you should be a little doubtful, were about 7000 to 2,000,000 (keep in mind it probably a much lower number). Now if they fought in the open-field the Persian cavalry would have decimated the Greeks. They fought in the pass so it would only be infantry, which they were superior in. The Greeks only won most of their battles by a hair thin margin. In those instances too the Persians were denied their cavalry support. Also Leonidas wanted to die because of the legend that either Sparta lose a king or will be destroyed itself so it may have had an influence on his plan of retreat

What's wrong with wanting to die a hero? Why would you hate that?

It's bull****. What use does it have for someone to die a death he could have avoided? And sending other people to death as well, in this case Spartans and Persians, most of the latter being conscripts who propably didn't even want to fight this war? If Leonidas wanted to die as a hero, that's his own problem, but sending other people to death for this proves that he must have been an incredible arsehole.
And all that glorification afterwards is even worse.

Punkymonkey, I think you have a point there, though your last sentence only emphasizes why I hate the Spartans.

Maybe it's just my personal opinion of the fact that it is wrong to send other people to death.

I disagree on Cunaxa being a Greek loss- they were mercenaries, and they lived, it was the persians whom hired them whom sufferd the defeat

Or rather, it was Cyrus the Usurper who was defeated. The cause of the mercenaries was lost, but the 10,000 themselves weren't defeated militarily!

yep, calgacus has put it in better words then I have :)

also Stefan, remember that not only Leonidas willing to die for his homeland, and all hellas, but his troops as well, I also think that you do not know just how important the ideal of being rememberd after death is to the ancient Greek religion, this concept, kleos I think it is called in greek, is what drove Achilles to his chioce, and many other greeks, and indeed Romans as well to the choices they chose, for the fear of not being remembered after death is indeed somthing to fear even more then death itself, for what has ones life amounted to, when at the end of it no one will honour your tomb with a "offering" (flowers are the continuation of this tradition) or your name by sayng it- The Spartans were know as the most religious (or at least most superstitious) of the Greeks, and it comes as no surprise that it is that ideal which Sparta chose for itself, and Leonidas lived up to, the only way he knew he could, and indeed, his sacrifice for all Hellas seems to have indeed suceeded

I also think that you do not know just how important the ideal of being rememberd after death is to the ancient
Greek religion,

Well, actually I do know. I might have been a bit harsh on my judgement about Leonidas, but I've never felt anything than antipathy for him, so my posts were biased to begin with and shouldn't be taken seriously as part of a historical discussion.
The day might come where I will post a serious opinion on Leonidas. Maybe.

Originally posted by PresidentMike
Where are the accolades for Athens, the city that almost single handedly created Western civilization? The city that beat the Persians on both land and sea? The city that invented democracy, that provided the world with priceless gifts of art, architecture, literature, histiography and philosophy? An economic and military superpower of its age, and one of the greatest cities of all time. If you had a choice, which would you have rather been: a Spartan, or an Athenian?
I can enjoy the Spartans, but you are definitely correct there. When have you ever seen the Athenians on the History Channel, nevermind a hyped up documentary. :(

And also, you forgot that geometry basically hasn't changed since the days of Pythagorus and his Greek buds. :) Imagine that, what was learned milleniums ago has stayed the same...Damn, there's some intelligent guys. But, as you said, a culture that drafts seven-year-old boys into "boot camp" is more interesting than the one responsible for half the knowledge ot today's world. :p

Originally posted by Sodfather
I can enjoy the Spartans, but you are definitely correct there. When have you ever seen the Athenians on the History Channel, nevermind a hyped up documentary. :(


...er...."The Rise and Fall of Athens".....two one-hour episodes, televised last month perhaps?

Are you judging history by what is shown on TV?!
Yea Gods, READ A BOOK! :crazyeye:

well I remind you that the movie "Gates of Fire" will be out (eventually) and is about the battle of Thermopylae, and as I'm sure most have noticed, once TV stations get the hint that a movie is coming, if it concerns possible programming, they try to play off the hype of the movie,and in turn get more veiwers, which means more companies try to get commercials on, and they can charge more to those companies for air time- thats the real reason why there are so many Sparta specials out, trust me, after this it will be the Trojan war, Alexander the Great, and if it seems like a good movie (but it more then likelly wont be) Punic war stuff

Xen, you should read the book "Gates of Fire", it's an awesome read and according to the lastest gossip they might get George Clooney to play Leonidas so you should definately read the book

I've heard it was very good, though I can never find it in book stores, my own suggestion for a good history based read is "The Ten Thousand" about Xenophon and such :D

I'll keep an eye out for it. ;)

my own suggestion for a good history based
read is "The Ten Thousand" about Xenophon

You can also simply read the original by Xenophon, widely known as "Anabasis" or "Kyrou Anabasis", although that title refers to the first book only (there are several ones). It's easy to find, even for free on the internet (although it will no doubt have some disgusting antiquated English translation).

yes, but the 10,000 is a fiction based on it- it has a story line about one of Xenophons fellows as opposed to Xenophon himself, and while keeping VERY closlly in with the anabasis, still has its own little story with action and adventure (well that happend anyway...) and politicle intrigue, and even a little love :) a good all around read

and even a little love :)

There's love in the Anabasis too:

"The soldiers obeyed, except one of them secretly took something with him, because he, for example, found pleasure in a boy or one of the beautiful women (Anabasis, IV, 1, 15)"
:D
Well, if in doubt, you can still find some love here: I just LOVE this passage ;) :D
But in any case, I think there would be nothing wrong with a fiction about this. Fictious novels usually make for a better read anyway.

i am sick of spartans too!

Like i said, just wait a while, and the next big historiucal movei after gates of fire (more then likelly the upcoming Trojan War flic) wiull atke presendence, and then people can complain on how they are so sick of Troy...