▲ 51 points
back
123 comments
Adulation of the Spartans is less about historical exactitude and more about creating a model that everyone can look to in order to build esprit de corps. Human societies have very often done this, and not just in the USA.
Americans often did this before by making heroic-warrior myths out of American Indian tribes that were on the losing side of historical conflicts just like the Spartans. Just think of all the American Indian imagery in the Boy Scouts from its early years, high-school sports teams named after such tribes, etc. Of course now, use of Native American motifs is seen as cultural appropriation, but the Spartans are far removed enough in time – and viewed as the same race as modern privileged classes – that use of Spartan motifs is safe from such accusations.
> Adulation of the Spartans is less about historical exactitude and more about creating a model that everyone can look to in order to build esprit de corps.
Very good, but why does it have to be a brutal -- for the standards of the time -- slave state that wasn't even particularly good at war?
The current situation in Ukraine should be proof enough that the myth of manly men doing manly things does not produce armies that are actually effective. Almost everything Sparta fanfiction does is actively counterproductive.
Sparta was a totalitarian state well beyond the wildest dreams of Hitler or Stalin. Bertrand Russell does an excellent job The History of Western Philosophy of showing how depraved they were (as does Devereaux), how they influenced Plato (himself a disgruntled Athenian aristocrat who resented his social class' loss of power when Athens became a democracy, then collaborated with the Spartan occupation of Athens after the latter lost the Peloponnesian War).
Using the imagery of a people who were a historical loser does not necessarily imply that you, too, will lose battles. After all, things like Apache helicopters are named after historical losers, but one can still win battles with them.
Could you expand more on your view about the current situation in Ukraine?
After all those trampoline axe throwing videos, I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear that Spetznaz were wiped out at an airport on day one.
Maybe through the lens of culture war nonsense the Ukraine war proves that. Ukraine's army isn't more effeminate lol, they're just less associated with Fox News
Basically pentagon is setting American military power to be defeated into 2nd class power from which nevet to recover. You can already see Russians obliterate anything sent over Ukraine battlefields by NATO, especially US. We will see in our lifetime our American Leutra where just half a century ago Americans defeated Nazi. It is such a bad idea to use Sparta as though Americans never read history...ops the recent Jada Black Cleopatra confirmed that.
Sparta was a incredibly brutal army masquerading as a state. Like all great powers they were successful until they weren't.
It's weird how we forget Athenian brutality in the whole Athens/Sparta dichotomy. There Melian dialogue is literally them shaking down their neighbors and then brutally murdering them drug cartel style, and Sparta won the Peloponnesian war by being more diplomatic. We uncritically buy into both of their propaganda about themselves
"Where some states have an army, the Prussian Army has a state", as a wit later put it.
But yeah, reading Thucydides (also an out-of-sorts Athenian) leaves you with a lingering doubt about the inherent goodness of political regimes - "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
> There Melian dialogue is literally them shaking down their neighbors and then brutally murdering them
"The strong do as they will. The weak submit."
If this interests you, I'd recommend the ACOUP blog articles by Bret Devereaux on this subject.
https://acoup.blog/category/collections/this-isnt-sparta/
Audio format
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcIwe3bxds8ZvX9wL0Vf2hz...
I was just about to say this reads like a Bret Devereaux article...and it is.
Bret Devereaux is the author of the submitted article.
I missed that somehow. I guess that explains why reading it reminded me so much of the blog post!
Thucydides, an Athenian who fought the Spartans and also spent some time with them, would beg to disagree. Spartan diplomacy, while not very eloquent, was nevertheless very effective during the Peloponnesian War, with Athenian allies frequently doing their utmost to desert to the enemy. Spartan troops, while few in number, prove extremely effective in combat, usually routing their direct opponents and only losing the occasional battle due to their allies' unsteadiness. Even the battle at Pylos, cited by Mr. Devereaux as a major defeat, comes very close to being a second Thermopylae, with a small group of Spartan warriors stranded on an island and holding off against all odds for months, until a freak accident burns out all the trees and reveals their lack of strength to the enemy. Finally forced to take to the seas, inexperienced Spartan admiral Lysander concocts a brilliant strategy and utterly destroys the Athenian fleet at Aegospotami.
The article was written by an historian who is well aware of Thucydides. He's written a lot about him on https://acoup.blog/ including a discussion of why we shouldn't take his views on Sparta without a grain of salt.
"To put it bluntly, these guys are all snobs. Thucydides and Xenophon were both aristocratic Athenians (they got to be generals, rather than common soldiers), frustrated that democracy – in their view – let the fickle, uneducated and poor ‘masses’ make decisions that ought to have been left to their ‘betters.’... For these authors, Sparta is a mirror to hold up to the politics of Athens – speaking well of Sparta is a way of criticizing what they dislike about Athens (which is the democracy)... These men conclude that Sparta is fantastic because Sparta seems fantastic for men like them – rich, educated, adult citizen men."
I am well aware of prof. Devereaux's blog and have even donated to it in the past. Also I hope you realize that just because someone is a historian it doesn't mean all other historians would agree with him. Pick ten random books on ancient Sparta, the odds are that most will take a position very different from "Spartans were losers".
>Despite Sparta’s reputation for superior fighting, Spartan armies were as likely to lose battles as to win them, especially against peer opponents such as other Greek city-states.
This shows a misunderstanding of how military power and war works, particularly in the ancient world. It's not a football game, where the best team will dominate everyone else. It's about fear and intimidation as much as fighting. If you have a force that is capable of creating 50/50 odds against any given opponent, that is a very formidable enemy.
>Sparta has also become a political rallying cry, including by members of the extreme right who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Why does this always get brought up in articles where it's not relevant? Is my takeaway supposed to be that anybody who names anything after the Spartans is associated with a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over losing that election?
Also TFA's cited proof for this is a link to a Twitter thread about something questionable Joe Biden said regarding gun control? I cannot even speculate why OP would tell such an really verifiable lie, did he think nobody would click on his links?
I don't see any lies.
The link supports the claim is that 'Molṑn Labé' is used as a "political rallying cry", in this case by Rep. Jeff Duncan making a political rally cry in support of access to guns.
That is indeed a Spartan saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe .
It was also used "by members of the extreme right who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021." For example, from 'SPARTANS ON THE CAPITOL: Recent Far-Right Appropriations of Spartan Militarism in the USA and their Historical Roots' (found via Google Scholar, but the URL doesn't seem to work stand-alone from HN):
] The display of ‘Spartan’ symbols during the insurrection of 6 January 2021 represented the culmination of an increasing recent trend whereby the U.S. Far-Right has appropriated martial images of the Spartans (linked especially to the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC) to support their causes. Three strands of appropriation have been prominent: Three strands of appropriation have been prominent: first, exploitation of the phrase MOLON LABE, supposedly uttered at Thermopylae by Sparta’s king Leonidas, by the firearms industry and gun-rights activists as a selling-point and a rallying cry against restrictions on gun ownership; secondly, use of imagery from Zack Snyder’s film 300 (2006) by supporters of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign; thirdly, invocations of ‘Spartan’ military symbols and Sparta’s martial reputation to mobilise violence against the leftist movement labelled ‘Antifa’.
> Is my takeaway supposed to be that anybody who names anything after the Spartans is associated with a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over losing that election?
... No? I think it's supposed to be that perhaps your understanding is incomplete and there is context you aren't aware of? Perhaps a newer context than one used to, for example, choose the name "Spartans" for the Michigan State University mascot back in 1925?
> a bunch of idiotic boomers who were way too butthurt over ...
This describes just about all current political events, so take your pick of any of them - it's gonna be dumb.
They did win the war with Athens…
Hard to take seriously anyone who calls the victors of the Peloponnesian War and the only Greek city-state not subjugated by Phillip of Macedon “losers.” This is just people taking the opposite stance of Spartans being good warriors because they know right wingers fetishize Spartans. Both are people who care little about historical truths and more about “owning” their culture war enemies.
Did you at least read the article before taking a side? The author is a historian who happens to have spent quite a bit of time researching this and makes a very compelling argument.
Every empire that ever was and is no more are also losers then I guess. I guess all the native populations that got owned by invading armies and more advanced technology coming from Europe in the Discoveries were losers too. This whole loser thing is funny until it's about someone you identify with, so better not even start it.
Does anyone bother to write that the gauls were losers? Vercingetorix got owned!
The Spartans get way too much hype but they also had a fairly respectable run for a while. They beat Persia and then Athens. Were the athenians even bigger losers?
The author can’t refute the two instances I gave so not sure it matters.
always disappointing when people switch topic to titles when they can't bring counter-argument.
That isn't really an accurate take.
Most 'right wingers' only fetishize Sparta based on what they learned from the movie 300. Kind of like a lot of 'right wingers' say they are Christian, but have never read the bible and have no idea what they believe in. (for example, Jesus didn't actually support killing neighbors with guns).
Like from the Movie 300, it is made out like Athens are 'gay', 'boy lovers'.
When it is pretty clearly documented that Spartans were very homosexual. Since the movie changed this, 'right wingers' feel ok fetishizing them. (and, I do like how you used the word "fetish" here, it almost makes me think this was a long con reverse troll post).
Look into Sparta inheritance laws. Most land was owned by rich widows. Those also dominated political life. Kings had to borrow money from them!
Sparta was basically matriarchal society with very low fertility. At time of Alexander the Great, they could only field 1000 soldiers. He did not even bothered to conquer them.
Compare it to US. How many soldiers could they put on field? UK can realistically deploy only 10k soldiers.
I was always under the impression that the glorification of Sparta started and ended at the battle of Thermopylae, the willingness to fight and die alongside your brothers in arms is venerated just as we Remember the Alamo.
All in all, this FP just reeks of a leftist hit-piece, Sparta is so associated with right-wing toxic masculinity and so must be pilloried. After all, they’ve already torn down beautiful statues venerating heroes, now own to the intangible idols.
Traitors who fought their country for slavery weren't heroes. The Founding Fathers were
When the American Revolution erupted, society in the Colonies was split pretty evenly between those who rebelled and those who wanted to remain under England. The American Founding Fathers are representative of a side that ultimately won by doing things like burning down many loyalists’ homes, or tar-and-feathering them, and then exiling them to Canada or the West Indies, in order to cow the other loyalists into keeping quiet. Sure, that is a bit less heinous than fighting to perpetuate race-based chattel slavery. But there is no reason to view the American Founding Fathers as heroes unless you are of that small portion of the world’s population that has been through American schools and still has an attachment to the mythology presented in civics classes there.
" Traitors who fought their country for slavery weren't heroes. The Founding Fathers were"
Someone said a few years ago:
"On the one hand, we had people who fought with gun and sword to murder, rape, and otherwise exploit my people. On the other hand we had people who fought with pen and parchment to murder, rape, and otherwise exploit my people."
The first right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence (not declaration of liberty or equality or rights) is the first sentence: the right to dissolve political bonds. And the US actually did it again after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederate were replaced by the Constitution.
Please explain to me how the states which dissolved their bonds with the United States and declared their independence from it (many of which had done so during the Revolution and had ratified both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution while slavery was legal, and several of which did not secede until after the U.S. fired on Ft. Sumpter) were different in exercising the right to dissolve political bonds?
Bonus points if you can do it without saying but but muh racist. If you don't accept the first sentence of the Declaration the rest of it is null and void.
(While you're at the explain how the three-fifths compromise actually strengthened slave states (who wanted to count each slave as 1 person) because it actually weakened them and also, most importantly, enshrined slaves as persons and not property in the Constitution with the consentand ratification of those states where slavery was still legal.)
I think a lot of it comes down to the usual ignorance of what the Spartans actually did and how they lived. A lot of focus is placed on their extreme lifestyles while a lot less is placed on their massive community of slaves (helots) and their secret police to manage them. It's funny, since the existence of a slave population which greatly outnumbered them shaped their society and led directly to their downfall.
They've also always been a very useful shibboleth for people trying to make the "Effete Athenians vs Manly Spartans" comparison.
> All in all, this FP just reeks of a leftist hit-piece, Sparta is so associated with right-wing toxic masculinity and so must be pilloried.
Can you point out any factual errors in it?
>After all, they’ve already torn down beautiful statues venerating heroes, now own to the intangible idols.
Which statues specifically are you talking about?
I suspect they are talking about the statues glorifying the confederate slave owning society.
As stated elsewhere I think. Right-Wing glorification of Sparta is really based mostly on the movie 300, and not on much 'historical fact'.
Not that this bad. Most of our romanticized notions are incorrect. I also loved the movie 300 and if that is the romantic ideal for manly fighting, then so be it. That is fine. Call this some kind of 'Spartan Fighting Spirit'. Just don't take it as fact. Kind of like the Arthurian Ideal of Knighthood and Chivalry. It is a very powerful symbol, even if not very 'accurate'.
One day we will be able to test political ideas in a realistic simulator. Then we will have the ability inform citizens of the effects of what they are being told.
When that happens, they will realize that the low merit ideas of authors such as this guy are useless.
The decline of Sparta was due to the greed of the elite, who became self-serving at the expense of the rest. Not because of the merit of Spartan soldiers.
>When that happens, they will realize that the low merit ideas of authors such as this guy are useless.
Which ideas are you specifically talking about?
>The decline of Sparta was due to the greed of the elite, who became self-serving at the expense of the rest. Not because of the merit of Spartan soldiers.
Did you even read the article? Spartan soldiers were the elite. One major reason why Sparta declined was that this severely limited the size of armies they could field. And, as the article argues (supported with lots of hard historical facts), their military merit was, overall, rather mediocre.
> Sparta declined was that this severely limited the size of armies they could field.
Agreed. That is a scalability problem, it does not mean they were a failure at large in every aspect.
Rolls Royce, Ferrari and Lamborghini products also don't scale as much as Toyota products but many people aspire to have them.
> their military merit was, overall, rather mediocre.
Their merit is studied in military academies around the world. Those are the types of studies that actually matter and can be tested in real situations of life and death.
Then some day after that, we'll realize that our simulations aren't as realistic as we imagined, and we'll be faced with entrenched ideas which enjoy the imprimatur of having "passed the simulator test" despite the questionable value that provides.
All models are wrong, some are useful; humanity will be dead long before that changes.
Even successful people have a success rate below 100%, and the more things you try the more failures you will accrue. For any successful person that has ever lived you can cherrypick all their failures and write an article like this.
The only person that doesn't fail is the person that never tries anything. Being successful is not about never failing.
This article completely ignores the Battle of Thermopylae which is probably one of the things Spartans are the most known for. In that sense, the author himself failed to portray Spartans fairly, making him a failed historian.
In 100 years this historian will be completely forgotten.
Isn't this kind of what the author was saying? Spartan Military and Elites were a closely overlapping Venn-diagram, and they both were corruptible.
I'm not seeing a wide enough divergence in what you are saying compared to the author to justify that the author has 'low merit ideas'.
Unless you are thinking the ruling class elites and the soldiers were very distinct groups? But that wasn't really the case was it? It was a military society right? So Soldiers and rulers were the same group. So why are you stating the decline was because of 'elite's but not the 'soldiers' thus the article was 'low merit', when those were same group?
Read this first.