| |

Sparta: The Fall of the EmpireMHQ | 9 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post The key privilege enjoyed by a Similar was the opportunity to participate full-time in public affairs: military training, battle, oversight of the youth, and state government. Money-making was meant to be strictly irrelevant to his life. (Many did make money, but they had to be sneaky about it.) All adult Similars were members of the Citizen Assembly of Spartans (the Apella), and as such they had the right to acclaim all matters of state policy (especially decisions on whether or not to go to war). Normally, however, their approval was indicated only by shouting in favor of the decisions reached by an inner elite of Spartan magistrates.
In addition to two hereditary kings, who served as religious officials and field marshals, Sparta was run by five state officers called Ephors (Overseers), elected annually by their Similar equals. The Ephors were in turn advised by a body of twenty-eight Elders, who were chosen from the ranks of the senior Spartans. There was much room for confusion in this system; the lines of authority between the two kings and the Ephors were unclear, and much depended in practice on the personality of individuals. Clashes between competitive, headstrong kings and intransigent Ephors led to deadlocks in Spartan policy. Those deadlocks were sometimes broken by personal initiatives, alternately bold or foolish. Sparta’s most ambitious king was notably remembered as ‘Cleomenes the Mad.’ Though at the end of his life, his behavior became extremely violent and erratic, it was Cleomenes’s aggressive policy with his neighbors that may have set up the madness accusation. The internal social rigidity of Sparta was weirdly complemented by highly erratic foreign policy.
The Spartan Similar did not enjoy much physical comfort–at least in public. ‘Similarity’ meant avoiding any public display of wealth or taste for luxury. Each Spartan was expected to dress in rough clothes exactly like his fellows, to maintain his family in a simple house no different from that of other Spartans, to dine on the rough fare (especially a black bean soup famous among the Greeks for its unpalatability) provided in the mess units. He would spend most of his life in public, under the jealous and watchful eyes of his fellow Similars. He would not spend much time at home. His male children, of course, were growing up in the herds, under the same harsh regime that he had endured.
He spent little time in the company of his wife; indeed he might lend her to another Similar for breeding purposes. Spartan women were expected to accept this sort of treatment without demur, and to devote themselves to inculcating the doctrine of obedience, bravery, and duty in their children. It is a Spartan mother who, perhaps apocryphally, enjoined her son to return from a military mission ‘with his shield or on it’–a victor or a corpse.
For a long time, from the mid-seventh century through the early fourth, this austere system worked to produce the best soldiers in the Greek world. The Spartan Similar spent his entire life preparing for the rigors of battle, and he became extraordinarily good at it. This does not mean that he was a berserker, capable of defeating multiple opponents in single combat. The fifth-century historian Herodotus imagined a conversation on the topic of military valor between Demaratus, an exiled Spartan king living in Persia, and Xerxes, the king of the Persian empire: In 480 B.C. Xerxes was preparing to invade Greece with a huge army, and he was interested in learning about what sort of men he might encounter. Hearing that the Spartans were the best warriors in Greece, he summoned Demaratus. Since Xerxes expected to fight at odds close to ten to one, he supposed that he would not encounter any great difficulties. But Demaratus quickly disabused him: it was not outstanding capacity for fighting as individuals that distinguished the Spartans; rather it was the intense discipline and training that allowed them to fight effectively in the close order of the hoplite phalanx. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Tags: Ancient-Medieval, Historical Conflicts
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
9 Comments to “Sparta: The Fall of the Empire”
Why did the movie 300 show a Army of 10,000 spartans ready to fight and tell of a fall of spartan’s behalf?
By Dan on Oct 2, 2008 at 8:37 pm
only 300 were spartans; the others were allied states. The commander of the operation told them to flee, because defeat was inevitable, but had the
spartans remain to do the job as long as the could.
By bob on Nov 13, 2008 at 6:04 pm
No at the end of the movie the spartan army numbered 10,000 because it was the Battle Of Plataea and was when the Greeks defeated the Persian army
By Michael on Jan 10, 2009 at 4:41 am
how did the marching spartan army remain in step?
By ella on Jan 10, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Well, I would say that if your society was militaristic there would be no problem getting your military to funciton, esecially if all your warriors would gladly die for there state.
By Jacob on Feb 24, 2009 at 2:17 am
true that, they were the best, I bet the even samuri couldn’t take the Spartans. If they wanted to they could have done what Alexander the Great did, but I guess they didn’t think the world was worth ruling.
By John on Mar 23, 2009 at 1:04 pm
dan, bob, and mike – it was a movie…how old are you, man? hollywood NEVER portrays military history accurately…like…ever. stop basing historical facts and/or questions from stuff made by directors who probably have never even fired a gun.
ella – these days, if you look at marching bands, you’ll notice a beat in the drum – depending on the operating procedure of the band, at the beat, they all will make sure their left / right foot hits the ground everytime that beat hits. that’s why during these days, there was a battledrum of some sort – if not, cadence callers, or something to that effect.
john – depends on how you see the picture. spartan might depended on the strength of their phalanx with 3 objectives – fix, flank, and finish. if you pay attention to the strategies of japanese warriors during the day of their samurai, i’d have to contest and say that samurai tactics would win. if spartans marched into the dense forests of east asia, the samurai would ensure he would put spoiling attacks and full-scale ambush lines in place to breakup the unison of the phalanx.
By JimmyJames on Apr 23, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Spartans were really Hoplite soldiers that were highly praised for their combat
By Renick on May 14, 2009 at 11:56 pm
I agree with john. The spartans were the best at what they did for the time. But as time went on better stratigies developed. There is a reason why later armies gave up on the phalanx. A phalanx- even a spartan phalanx would be trashed any army that new how to counter it. It could not move over difficult terain and cannot effectivley defend its flanks.
By John Greystoke on Jun 2, 2009 at 12:16 pm