Sparta: the latter years

[skiguy]

Just finished reading the book The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Greece by Paul Cartledge (a Cambridge Univ historian).  What I found most interesting was after the war. Sparta was defeated and had nearly all power stripped, yet many of the other city-states weren't.  I think the reason for this is because they feared the Spartans and chose to keep them isolated.  It was until Roman times a few centuries later that Sparta regained some prominence.

[Vojkan]

That book is full of outdated ''facts'' that are now proven to be myths. This book, unlike Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, from the same author, disappointed me a lot, and questioned Mr. Cartledge's knowledge a lot...Pederasty, Lakonian sword, infanticide etc...those are the things such a scholar should know are not true.

Spartans suffered heavily at the start of 5th century BC...Argive wars in 490's. Persian invasion in 480's, after that Argive and Tegean wars in late 470's. Immediately after that Sparta was hit by a cataclysmic earthquake (approx 7.2 Richter, at least 10 Mercalli) which killed and destroyed most of the Sparta,followed by a revolt of Messenian helots,which took 4 years to stop..Sparta never recovered, and by the end of that century, what was 8000 strong Spartan males in 480 BC fell to only 400 in 420's. Enough said...Greece in general fell into a large crisis, war techniques had to be adjusted, previous system was unsustainable in Sparta, men power was not enough,they were decimated,and the system crumbled. Mind set was changed, they were no more an elite. They improvised heavily until 370 BC, being a mere shadow of former glory, when they fell at last.

It is very important to grasp Spartans from 600-470 BC are not the Spartans from 470-430 and especially not the ones from 420-370. Many things changed although the name remained the same.

[Phidippides]

I checked, and The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Greece was published in 2004.  I can understand that scholarship might change over a long period of time, but....in only 8 years??  Is the field of Greek studies really changing at light speed that a book from 2004 would be "full of outdated 'facts'" by 2012??

[Vojkan]

Yes, unfortunately. Since he is basically reinforcing the very old (Victorian age) myth and misconceptions about Spartan society.

From the top of my head:

Mentor and student relationship being sexual(homosexual) is purely 19th century idea, born with a simple misinterpretation of Greek language. And scholars long abandoned that one, even homosexuality in general let alone INSTITUTIONALIZED pederasty and surogatte fathering . Cartledge went on a on, twisting the whole Spartan society to fit this nonsense and of course came to some strikingly odd conclusions. I wander why would such an expert dismiss very clear evidence against homosexuality in Sparta, by Xenophon, Aristotlee etc, not to mention other implications, with famous heterosexual poets, even anecdotes from Herodotus, archaeological evidence of men and women in marriage, and complete lack of any artistic depiction or literary evidence of anything other than heterosexual relationship...politics?Maybe.

Cartledge says hoplite may have well be taken the name of the shield - hopla, although for the last decade it is a well known fact term hopla means all equipment for war,including shield which was an aspis. So hoplite is ''man in full equipment for war''

Insisting on the lack of Spartan cultural achievement disregarding the fact Spartans had a famous and unique style of pottery painting, bronze work found all the way in France, on of the seven wise men etc etc.

Insisting on repression done over the helots when it is now clear LAKONIAN helots were not treated badly nor did they think they were slaves, and even enjoyed more rights and better life than the free men of other poleis. They have even chosen to die alongside Spartans at Thermopyles.

Setting the crisis of Sparta at the end of Peloponnesian war rather than before the start of it, consequently moving the peak of their power to post Persian invasion era. Which is a big big miss. Dismissing there the clear evidence of catastrophe of 465 BC. (where it suits him he will accept plainly some nonsense from Pausanias or other, Roman authors, but where it doesn't suit him he will dismiss the clear archaeological evidence of a great catastrophe, backed by contemporary literary evidence.)

Reinforcing the never mentioned mustache shaving custom, especially in the time of king Leonidas.

It is a well known fact there was no such thing as type of sword called ''Laconian sword'' mentioned by him, let alone Spartans being famous for it.

Marriage customs as well...just pure idiocy. Many many reinforced myths and very strange choice of centuries that were covered in this book make it just another Osprey class work.

All in all, his work is highly influenced by anecdotal history, mostly by Roman era authors and later, and they have been suspicious for a long period of time now. It is striking how such an expert can fall into such a trap, of tabloid facts. They do seem catchy, for some homework doing pupil in distant land of US, but almost none of them are true.

[DonaldBaker]

Mentor and student relationship being sexual(homosexual) is purely 19th century idea, born with a simple misinterpretation of Greek language. And scholars long abandoned that one, even homosexuality in general let alone INSTITUTIONALIZED pederasty and surogatte fathering . Cartledge went on a on, twisting the whole Spartan society to fit this nonsense and of course came to some strikingly odd conclusions. I wander why would such an expert dismiss very clear evidence against homosexuality in Sparta, by Xenophon, Aristotlee etc, not to mention other implications, with famous heterosexual poets, even anecdotes from Herodotus, archaeological evidence of men and women in marriage, and complete lack of any artistic depiction or literary evidence of anything other than heterosexual relationship...politics?Maybe.

This is incorrect.  Most scholars still adhere to the homosexual mentor-ship relationship. 

[Vojkan]

This is incorrect.  Most scholars still adhere to the homosexual mentor-ship relationship.

What is incorrect please?

That myth has been debunked long ago, the fact many scholars still claim that is due to the many factors, none of which have any influence on historical factual truth. Many of them still claim Spartans were throwing babies down the pit, but in 2007 archaeology proved different...etc,examples are numerous.

If you don't know how exactly it was debunked I will be happy to explain.

In short. Not a single evidence other than the WRONG translation of two words in Greek are evidence of homosexual relationship. While there is an abundance of evidence against it. Judging by the evidence you could even call Spartan society a homophobic one (since WE KNOW they had laws against it).

Almost every scholar today translates MOLON LAVE as ''come and take them'', while any Greek could tell you translation is very different.

Bad thing is English and US historians are teaching Greek history, and not many of them were actually in Greece let alone speaking Greek language (thinking about B.Hughes reading epitaph to 300 in some strange language that was supposed to be ancient Greek)

[DonaldBaker]

Read Plato's Timmaeus son.  It's as plain as day what goes on.

[Vojkan]

Plato, of course. Now, are we talking about homosexuality in Sparta or homosexuality in Greece as a whole. Maybe we need another separate topic for this? Also it is important to notice homosexuality does not appear either in art or literature before Classical time, even late Classical time. Labeling societies, some of which, like Sparta ended their glorious history somewhere in this period, on account of some practice geographically or socially far away is devastating to history...I can just imagine what would some men 2000 years from now think about our sexual practices, will US and Brazil be labeled as nations in which homosexuality is encouraged and all men love boys, or other men? There is certainly a great deal of evidence pointing to it(by the same twisted logics that puts institutionalized pederasty in Sparta, of all the poleis). Can we make that kind of conclusion then if we can label Spartans INDIRECTLY(using practices of other parts of Greece), and only from bad translation of two simple words...

I have a great example of this in my own language. We have a few centuries old song that says ''The boy, Lazarus, was scolded by his mother''

The exact same word for ''scold'' is used as a very common slang for sex or better say act of giving sex to someone, literary f******. In fact is is the most common term today, alongside polite one used by females which is ''sleeping with''.

I can only imagine some German or British (most common ones in Greek case) scholar coming here saying it was normal in our society for mothers to engage in sex with their sons    We would laugh to that.

The same happened with Greeks. History-or at least a version of narration- can be used to promote an agenda.

But let's stick to Sparta. Sparta had no single homosexual representation in either art or poetry. Not one. While there were many that were heterosexual representations. Also by understanding the Sparta system you will find out how hard it would actually be to be homosexual there, let alone encouraged to be like that, as if someone could make you...

With understanding the erastis and eromenoi words in Greek, and their meaning, foundation on homosexuality in Sparta ceases to exist. I am of course not saying there were never homosexual cases in Sparta (to be more exact and correct myself we are not talking about adult male homosexuality which almost never appears in Greece, and when it does it is punished, but paedophilia so I am not sure why homosexuals even defend this mirrage), there always is, in every society, even parents misuse their children for sex.

But the practice was not only frowned upon but forbidden in Sparta. (no doubt it happened on separate occasions)

Erastis & Eromenos (Lover and Beloved or Inspirer and Listener(why does this have to be homosexual I don't understand - remember they were no English so other languages have words in different meanings)) were not of physical nature and when they were it was considered immoral most of the times. All who have read ancient texts notice the use of Erastis & Eromenos sometimes as a good thing but when physical love is involved it is of an immoral nature.From my readings i have understood that it was a composite issue and view.

The Erastis/eromenos bond remained important later in life (don't know where do you come from but in Medditeranean godfathers are very important in our life, and that originated from erastis and eromenoi relationship), and the fact that it does is evidence that it was far more and other than sexual bond. One of my favorite instances of twisting evidence to match preconceptions or agenda is the citing of a tale about a Spartan warrior who died fighting over his Erastes rather than let his body be taken. As if there is no bond between men that is worth dying over unless it involves genital insertion! On the contrary, as proved numerous times in history..I myself would fight far worse if the loved one was endangered as well. And then another where Agiselaos' son would not seek preference for a friend with out getting sex in return.

That Agiselaos (look at the date of this tale) spends much of his time fighting the urge to play with Persian youths is unreliable evidence for what happened at home. As I said, pedophiles did exist, hence the laws against them in Sparta.

I also enjoy the fact that scholars have taken the fact that anal intercourse was known colloquially in CLASSICAL Athens as "Laconian style" as evidence for homosexuality. Perhaps modern scholars are unaware that you can do this with a woman too! 

In a culture where women marry at a comparatively late age, economic pressures push to small family size, and birth control options are limited, this becomes an important option.    Girls in many societies today do that for the same reason.

We have more evidence for Spartan sexuality from primary sources than we do for the mechanics of hoplite combat, yet so often this is ignored and anecdotes or analogies are strung together in their place. I'll let the ancients speak:

 Xenophon is quite clear, though so often dismissed, is clear when he
 states (Constitution of the Lakedaimonians.2.1):

 [12] I think I ought to say something also about intimacy with boys,
 since this matter also has a bearing on education. In other Greek
 states, for instance among the Boeotians, man and boy live together,
 like married people; elsewhere, among the Eleians, for example,
 consent is won by means of favors. Some, on the other hand, entirely
 forbid suitors to talk with boys. [13] The customs instituted by
 Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an
 honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal
 friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and
 believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was
 clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned
 the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain
 from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with
 their children and brothers and sisters with each other. [14] I am
 not surprised, however, that people refuse to believe this. For in
 many states the laws are not opposed to the indulgence of these
 appetites.


 Aristotle specifically addresses the homo eroticism of military
 cultures and tells us Sparta is different from those who allow opened
 homosexuality (and he is no apologist for Sparta as has been claimed
 for Xenophon). http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/aristotle-
 sparta.html

 "the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate,
 and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he
 has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and
 luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly
 valued, especially if the citizens fall under the dominion of their
 wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a
 few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would
 seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all
 warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This
 was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness;
 many things were managed by their women."

 You really have to twist these quotes, or dismiss them, to render the meaning unclear. Sadly, true homosexuals in the modern sense of adult men involved in a romantic relationships were not free at all in ancient Greece to live openly that way. It is a shame that modern groups point to the greater acceptance of the physical use of men as a sexual outlet, but only if you were the "active" role, in the ancient world to bolster support for an emotional connection. Especially since the emotional tie, without sex, was much more accepted then.


Also key to the subject is understanding modern terminology.

Homoerotic is not homosexual, a point that seems lost on so many authors. When commercials market perfume to women by having half-naked female models parade around the screen they are tapping into homoerotic imagery. Women find the image attractive and erotic. They do not want to have sex with her...I myself was a Greeco Roman wrestler for decades, I studied at Faculty of Sports, we all admired well toned and buff pals, heck guys even compare and compete in their size...yet no one ever said there is any homosexuality among guys today even though they were naked and made comments or admired other male body.

This is important because the image of boys "at the age when they are most beautiful" would have been equally likely to have been used by an ancient Greek beer commercial as a pretty girl. They could assign eros equally.

 There is a huge difference between saying that there was a homoerotic element to the link between "lovers" and assigning obligate intercourse.

[skiguy]

Yes, unfortunately. Since he is basically reinforcing the very old (Victorian age) myth and misconceptions about Spartan society.

From the top of my head:

Mentor and student relationship being sexual(homosexual) is purely 19th century idea, born with a simple misinterpretation of Greek language. And scholars long abandoned that one, even homosexuality in general let alone INSTITUTIONALIZED pederasty and surogatte fathering . Cartledge went on a on, twisting the whole Spartan society to fit this nonsense and of course came to some strikingly odd conclusions. I wander why would such an expert dismiss very clear evidence against homosexuality in Sparta, by Xenophon, Aristotlee etc, not to mention other implications, with famous heterosexual poets, even anecdotes from Herodotus, archaeological evidence of men and women in marriage, and complete lack of any artistic depiction or literary evidence of anything other than heterosexual relationship...politics?Maybe.

Cartledge says hoplite may have well be taken the name of the shield - hopla, although for the last decade it is a well known fact term hopla means all equipment for war,including shield which was an aspis. So hoplite is ''man in full equipment for war''

Insisting on the lack of Spartan cultural achievement disregarding the fact Spartans had a famous and unique style of pottery painting, bronze work found all the way in France, on of the seven wise men etc etc.

Insisting on repression done over the helots when it is now clear LAKONIAN helots were not treated badly nor did they think they were slaves, and even enjoyed more rights and better life than the free men of other poleis. They have even chosen to die alongside Spartans at Thermopyles.

Setting the crisis of Sparta at the end of Peloponnesian war rather than before the start of it, consequently moving the peak of their power to post Persian invasion era. Which is a big big miss. Dismissing there the clear evidence of catastrophe of 465 BC. (where it suits him he will accept plainly some nonsense from Pausanias or other, Roman authors, but where it doesn't suit him he will dismiss the clear archaeological evidence of a great catastrophe, backed by contemporary literary evidence.)

Reinforcing the never mentioned mustache shaving custom, especially in the time of king Leonidas.

It is a well known fact there was no such thing as type of sword called ''Laconian sword'' mentioned by him, let alone Spartans being famous for it.

Marriage customs as well...just pure idiocy. Many many reinforced myths and very strange choice of centuries that were covered in this book make it just another Osprey class work.

All in all, his work is highly influenced by anecdotal history, mostly by Roman era authors and later, and they have been suspicious for a long period of time now. It is striking how such an expert can fall into such a trap, of tabloid facts. They do seem catchy, for some homework doing pupil in distant land of US, but almost none of them are true.

Did you even read the book?  He mentions most of this in it.

[Vojkan]

He mentions them in an affirmative way, or at best in ''may have been'' way (hopla) when it certainly couldn't have been,
that is the problem.

Institutionalized pederasty, hopla for shield, Laconian sword etc are false facts..others are anecdotes which became facts today because they were based solely on some 2 century AD work, highly influenced by Roman era propaganda (which seems ancient enough for 21st century scholar when in fact it is 7 centuries apart from what it is describing), work which was already proven false in many ways...He is using all of them as unquestionable facts.


It took years to convince people that Spartans had lambda on their shields only from 420's BC onward..It is still very strong in the minds of people. I have no doubt these other myths will be hard to abandon, because most of them look so **** cool. right