[HN Gopher] Sparta Was Much More Than an Army of Super Warriors
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Sparta Was Much More Than an Army of Super Warriors
        
       Author : oedmarap
       Score  : 40 points
       Date   : 2021-09-30 20:26 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
        
       | ncmncm wrote:
       | Or, much less than an army of super warriors. They did not win
       | more battles than their rivals. I think of them as Greece's FARC,
       | distinguished mainly by their abuse of their own children and
       | everyone they depended on for their own survival.
        
         | anonporridge wrote:
         | Do you have a source that dives more into this? Specifically
         | breaking down how they weren't actually more effective,
         | contrary to what might be considered common belief.
        
           | dingoegret12 wrote:
           | It's not popular belief, it's popular culture. The onus is on
           | the myth makers to substantiate their claims. The idea of
           | super soldiers is anthological comedy. It's fantasy.
        
           | ceejayoz wrote:
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28711149
           | 
           | Specifically, part VI and VII of that series.
           | 
           | > In short: Sparta's overall military performance is
           | profoundly average over the Classical period. They don't even
           | manage a winning record!
           | 
           | > It is hard to avoid the conclusion that while Spartan
           | tactics may have been modestly better than most other Greek
           | states, Spartan operations were dismal, placing severe limits
           | on how effectively the Spartan army could be utilized.
        
             | labster wrote:
             | But they did have a winning record. Every year they
             | declared war on the helots and every year they won!
        
             | oh_sigh wrote:
             | I think Sparta was overrated militarily, but logically, a
             | great army may still have a losing record, because the only
             | people who would even dare fight them are ones who think
             | they can actually win. Imagine all of the wars which were
             | _never even fought_ , because their enemies were scared of
             | their army.
        
               | ceejayoz wrote:
               | The (long, but worthwhile) series goes through that
               | concept.
        
           | igorkraw wrote:
           | A sister comment linked to this wonderful takedown of the
           | brutal misery that was Sparta
           | 
           | https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-
           | sparta-p...
        
         | myfartsarefoul wrote:
         | Are the battle outcomes fair comparisons? What if they had
         | great warriors but poor decision makers? Could they have fought
         | poorly matched battles for the sake of conserving resources,
         | etc?
         | 
         | I don't care about Sparta one way or another. But simply
         | "looking at numbers" can be deceiving.
        
       | arisAlexis wrote:
       | I don't understand the point of the article. In quantitative
       | terms one can say that Y was better than X. Like: Usa in the 20th
       | century was better at creating technology. Why does the author
       | need to emphasize that Spartans were no better than other Greeks
       | as warriors as it's a bad thing? It's not discimination or racism
       | or whatever. I think it's because in modern times saying Y is
       | better than X is bad. Except for in sports. Weird.
        
         | zardo wrote:
         | >Why does the author need to emphasize that Spartans were no
         | better than other Greeks as warriors as it's a bad thing?
         | 
         | It's a popular trope, and it's not true.
        
           | arisAlexis wrote:
           | Well I am Greek and had read a lot of stuff also at school
           | about it. In ancient Greece they were considered as such. How
           | do you know it's a trope? Statistical data?
        
             | AmateurAtMost wrote:
             | Yes, statistical analysis of their victories and defeats.
             | It's an excellent book. I'd recommend it.
        
               | arisAlexis wrote:
               | Book name?
        
               | myfartsarefoul wrote:
               | Are the battle outcomes fair comparisons? What if they
               | had great warriors but poor decision makers? Could they
               | have fought poorly matched battles for the sake of
               | conserving resources, etc?
               | 
               | I don't care about Sparta one way or another. But simply
               | "looking at numbers" can be deceiving.
        
               | dragontamer wrote:
               | It doesn't matter how "tough" Spartans were. They were
               | largely illiterate and terrible at logistics. Its hard to
               | win battles when you're terrible at supply lines. And its
               | hard to keep track of supplies if you don't know how to
               | read or write.
               | 
               | ----------
               | 
               | I've commonly heard that Spartans were good at fighting
               | but bad at war. Turns out that a band of illiterate
               | warriors is largely a bad idea for an army composition.
               | If the war goes on too long, they simply run out of
               | supplies and leave (Or, if they're forced to fight, they
               | run out of supplies and lose)
        
               | hef19898 wrote:
               | Ever since decisive battles stopped being a thing with
               | industrialization, I know one European country that
               | started and lost two world wars due deficits in strategy,
               | operations and supply. Tactically it wasn't too bad so.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | LanceH wrote:
       | This reminds me of my relatively new pet peeve when watching any
       | military element in a movie. Every time they gather in a room,
       | the soldiers arrange themselves at attention as scenery. I get
       | that it's mostly symbolic of how organized and dedicated they
       | are, but having been in the military, the last thing a soldier is
       | looking to do is stand at attention.
       | 
       | Movie soldiery (wide term to include knights, personal
       | bodyguards, etc...) have this innate knowledge on how to form
       | ranks and break ranks in perfect unison with no commands.
       | 
       | The professional military is relatively rare throughout history,
       | but is somehow idealized and projected onto those factions which
       | did well militarily. Realistically the Spartans only had to be a
       | little better man for man than those around them in order to be
       | the best in the world.
        
         | hef19898 wrote:
         | My pet peeve are troops holding positions and ranks (who would
         | do fight rank and file on a modern battle field?), only break
         | formation and charge (at running speed as if sprinting
         | increases damage by 1D10 in real life) the enemy, screaming
         | heroically. Hotzendorff and Codorna would be proud.
        
       | pmcpinto wrote:
       | On Sparta by Plutarch is an amazing book about the Spartan
       | civilization
        
       | xqcgrek2 wrote:
       | The Spartans had a good marketing and merchandising department.
        
         | pbaka wrote:
         | Branded loincloth ?
        
         | ldargin wrote:
         | Good one!
        
       | ldbooth wrote:
       | I was surprised to learn spartan society had pedophilia built in
       | similar to a mentor system. Will Durant wrote about it, but I
       | never hear anything in pop culture except the warrior bit.
        
         | barry-cotter wrote:
         | Twink and bear has a long history.
         | 
         | > The word eromenos describes an adolescent boy who is the
         | passive (or 'receptive', 'subordinate') partner in a homosexual
         | relationship (usually between males), opposite to the word
         | erastes (to love, the older and active partner) in Ancient
         | Greece.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eromenos
        
           | foldr wrote:
           | 'Twink' doesn't really connote a passive role though (you can
           | be a twink and a top). Similarly for 'bear'. Twinks can also
           | be post-adolescent. So I don't think 'twink' and 'bear' are
           | very good translations of these terms, which are based on
           | quite a different conception of gay relationships than the
           | one we have now.
        
             | barry-cotter wrote:
             | Happy to concede that it's more vague gesturing at "Look, a
             | similar thing was happening 3,000 years ago and is
             | happening today" than the same thing but it's not like it's
             | unrecognisable.
        
               | foldr wrote:
               | I wouldn't connect gay 'tribes' with sex between
               | adolescents and adults. Twinks aren't canonically
               | underage or in relationships with older men.
        
         | lrem wrote:
         | Wasn't that all of ancient Grece?
        
       | neaden wrote:
       | I think a big thing people miss with the Spartans is that they
       | didn't see themselves as the ideal warriors, they saw themselves
       | as the ideal Greek citizens. Part of that was being a warrior,
       | just as part of being a citizen in Athens was doing your military
       | service. But because of the enforced equality among the (slave
       | and land owning) citizen class, they were all expected to serve
       | in the same manner and have time for poetry, hunting, and the
       | other activities that a proper Greek citizen should do.
        
         | ashtonkem wrote:
         | That's really more of a myth than reality. If you read actual
         | reports of Spartan self reported history, they always report
         | that they _were_ equal in some mythical past, not that they
         | _are_ equal in the author's current time.
         | 
         | In reality there were pretty severe socio-economic differences
         | even among the slave holding citizen class. The equality among
         | the citizens is really propaganda, not reality.
        
           | neaden wrote:
           | Sure that's true. I just think the military aspect of it is
           | what gets focused on to the exclusion of everything else.
        
         | dragontamer wrote:
         | The Helots of Sparta were ritually slaughtered every year by
         | the Spartanite upper-class. That was how one graduated from the
         | Crypteia "school" of Sparta and became a man.
         | 
         | And needless to say: when the Helots weren't part of a ritual
         | slaughter by the upper class, they were looked down upon,
         | distrusted, and scapegoated as the ills of Spartan society.
         | Beatings of the Helots were ritual in nature: Helots didn't
         | need to do anything wrong to "deserve" a beating. It was simply
         | necessary to ensure that the Helots would never rise up against
         | the aristocrats / Spartan elite.
         | 
         | The whole "equality" thing is just a myth and whitewashing of
         | history. Spartans were awful people living in awful times.
         | 
         | > have time for poetry
         | 
         | Much of we know about Spartans is from what Athenians wrote
         | about them, because Spartans were largely illiterate (and
         | prideful of that too). Hard to have time for poetry if you
         | didn't have time in your youth to even learn how to read /
         | write.
        
           | barry-cotter wrote:
           | > Hard to have time for poetry if you didn't have time in
           | your youth to even learn how to read / write.
           | 
           | The Illiad and Oddyssey were composed and passed down by
           | illiterate bards. Epic poetry has always been a fundamentally
           | oral thing.
           | 
           | For examples of this see Serbian epic poetry
           | 
           | > Many of the epics are about the era of the Ottoman
           | occupation of Serbia and the struggle for the liberation.
           | With the efforts of ethnographer Vuk Karadzic, many of these
           | epics and folk tales were collected and published in books in
           | the first half of the 19th century. Up until that time, these
           | poems and songs had been almost exclusively an oral
           | tradition, transmitted by bards and singers.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_epic_poetry
        
       | bennylope wrote:
       | If you like this there's a meaty seven part blog series by
       | historian Bret Devereaux about the mythology surrounding Sparta.
       | It offers an account of what Sparta and the Spartan military was
       | really like as well as how the Spartan mythos evolved.
       | 
       | https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-p...
        
         | arisAlexis wrote:
         | Opinion is a big part of history. One historian's analysis is
         | not fefinitive proof rather a view that may be close to the
         | truth.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-09-30 23:00 UTC)