Collections: This. Isn’t. Sparta. Part II: Spartan Equality

This is Part II of our seven part look at Sparta (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, Gloss., Retrospective). Last week we took a look at our sources for Sparta and then examined the Spartan child-training system, the agoge. We found that our sources look nothing like the grizzled veterans who narrate films like 300, being instead mostly wealthy (and snobbish!) Greeks from outside of Sparta. We also found that the Spartan agoge was more like a child-soldier training program – something out of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda – than any kind of education system as we understand it.

This week, we’re going to expand our look at Spartan society and examine the claim of Spartan Equality. We’ll do this first by looking at the various classes of people in Sparta – citizens, non-citizens and slaves – and then by looking at the issue of wealth equality among the Spartan citizenry.

A helpful note to any new readers – this series seems to be reaching a lot of first time folks (welcome!) – Collections are part of my regular update schedule every Friday, so part III of this series will appear next Friday and so on. I sometimes have mid-week updates, time permitting, but obviously my day job comes first – especially now that classes have started.

As always, a helpful glossary of terms is here if you need it, but I’ll be defining things as we go, so you should be a-ok.

As always, if you like what you are reading here, please share it; if you really like it, you can support me on Patreon. And if you want updates whenever a new post appears, you can click below for email updates or follow me on twitter (@BretDevereaux) for updates as to new posts as well as my occasional ancient history, foreign policy or military history musings.

The Myth of Spartan Equality

Now, 300 – and indeed, many pop-culture representations of Sparta – do not always tell us in words that Spartan society was equal. Rather, what they tend to do is show us that it is. Visual language in film is, if anything, more powerful than dialogue, but it can be harder to really pin down. But let’s put in the effort – if just so that I’m not accused of attacking a straw-man. When 300 shows us the Spartans living in town, they look like this:

It’s hard to capture this in a still screen shot, but as the camera pans in a circle around the main characters, there are at least 10 Spartans, dressed exactly like the two in the back, all milling around.

And in on the march, they look like this:

It’s strange – the ancient sources portray the Spartiates, if anything, as a bit vain, combing out their hair before battle, decorating their shields and so on. This image of neatly identical Spartans is decidedly a-historical.

Identical, interchangeable Spartans. What’s interesting here is that Frank Miller and Zach Snyder have taken such pains to emphasize the identical nature of each of these men to the point of breaking with things we know about them. Each Spartan in the film has an identical shield with an identical lambda (Λ) on it, but we actually know (Plut. Mor. 234.41) that individual Spartans painted their shields with a variety of individual devices. Likewise, the Spartans brought their own armor ‘for their own sake’ (cf. Plut. Mor. 220.2) and it is safe to assume, given the variety of armor and helmets in Greece of the period, that the Spartan battle line would have itself had a fairly wide variety of styles.

The Spartans of Samurai Jack’s telling – one long line of identical Spartans, save for the king and his foreign, time-traveling guest.

Fortunately, this implicit visual signalling of ‘Spartan equality’ is often converted into explicit, written explications. To take just one example, this article by Nick Burns in the New Republic praises Spartan “relative economic equality” and “cultural egalitarianism” and goes on to say:

Lycurgus, the founder of the Spartan regime, is said to have decreed that only iron bars would be accepted as currency. It became so difficult to make or accumulate money, since it had to be carted around in huge wheelbarrows, that citizens gave up on their desire to make a fortune and reconciled themselves to living on a largely materially equal basis to their fellow-citizens.
Lycurgus also had all the citizens eat together at common tables, in an effort to prevent the development of luxurious habits and to make sure private relationships, even familial ones, did not undermine the community.

We’ll come around to the person of Lycurgus next time (spoilers: semi-divine mythical founder figures should not be treated like historical figures). In a – I should stress civil and polite – twitter conversation with me afterwards, Nick Burns clarified his view:

This idea – the degree of equality and cohesion – is what I prefer to call the Myth of Spartan Equality, and it’s going to be our target today.

Where does this idea come from? Well, it comes from the same pro-Spartan sources we discussed last time. Plutarch claims that Lycurgus’ decision to banish money from Sparta essentially removed greed by making all of the Spartans equal (Plut. Lyc. 9.1-4) – or equally poor – though we should note that Plutarch is writing 900 years after Lycurgus (again, probably not a real person) was supposed to have lived. Xenophon notes approvingly that Lycurgus forbid the Spartans from engaging in productive business of any kind, making them thus unable to accumulate wealth (Xen. Lac. 7.1-6). Land was supposed to be distributed equally to each full Spartan citizen – the spartiates or homoioi (we’ll define these terms in a second) in equal plots called kleroi.

This idea – the Myth of Spartan Equality – is perhaps the single ‘biggest idea’ in the conception of the Spartan state, rivaled only by the myth of Spartan military excellence (don’t worry, we’ll get there!). There is something deeply appealing, at a bedrock emotional level, to the idea of a perfectly equal society like that. And that myth of equality has prompted all sorts of thinkers from all sorts of eras (Rousseau, most famously) – including our own – to be willing to look past Sparta’s many, many failings.

And on the face of it, it does sound like a very equal society – practically a collectivist utopia. It is a pleasant vision. Unfortunately, it is also a lie.

Meet the Spartans: A helot of a lot of helots.

Let’s begin by sketching the shape of Spartan society. The Greek term for the basic political unit of Greek life is a polis (plural poleis). Originally, this word meant ‘town’ or ‘city’ but over time it came to mean something close to ‘community’ or ‘state.’ It was possible to have a polis without a city (as Sparta did) or a city without a polis (for instance towns and cities which did not self-govern). Instead a polis was identified in our ancient sources with a body of citizens (e.g. ‘the Spartans,’ ‘the Thebans,’ ‘the Athenians,’ etc), and also includes the government those citizens set up, and the territory that government controls.

While every polis had a body of citizens at its core, poleis also included various non-citizen underclasses: foreigners and slaves, typically. Citizenship in Greek cities was hereditary and strictly regulated, so ‘foreigners’ here might mean families which had lived in the polis for generations, but which weren’t part of the original citizen body. Nevertheless, only the citizenry – however it was defined – had full legal and political rights: these free non-citizens often had to pay the full burden of being citizens (taxes, military service, etc), without any of the benefits (voting, serving on juries, access to public services, etc).

So every Greek polis had a three-level layer-cake of status: the citizen body, free non-citizens (like foreigners), and non-free persons (slaves). You could – and the Greeks did – divide that top group by wealth and birth and so on, but we’ll get to that a bit later in this post and the next. For now, let’s stick with the three-level layer cake. Sparta follows this scheme neatly.

At the top were the Spartiates, the full-citizen male Spartans. According to Herodotus there were once 8,000 of these (Hdt. 7.234.2); supposedly 9,000 based on the initial number of equal land plots (kleroi) handed out (Plut. Lyc. 8.3 – or rather than saying ‘handed out’ we might say ‘seized’). Of course these are tallies of Spartiate males, but women could be of citizen stock (but not citizens themselves) and we ought to imagine an equal number of spartiate women at any given time. For a child to be born into the citizen class (and thus eligible for the agoge and future full citizenship), he had to have a citizen father and a citizen mother. We’ll deal with the bastards a bit further down. Also, the spartiates were often also called the homoioi, sometimes translated as ‘peers’ but literally meaning something like ‘the equals.’ As we’ll see, that equality is notional at best, but this ideal of citizen equality was something Sparta advertised about itself.

I wonder about this market scene. Are these women meant to be helots or perioikai? If so, they are the only representatives of either that we see in the entire film, but I suspect at least some of them are intended as spartiate women. As we’ll see below, spartiate women would have little reason to haul raw wool though – they do not appear to have woven or spun their own cloth. Instead, Xenophon implies that helot women were forced to produce clothing for them.

The number of spartiates declined rapidly during the period for which we have evidence (from c. 480 onwards). While there were supposedly 8,000 male spartiates in 480 there seem to have only been 3,500 by 418 (Thuc. 5.68), just 2,500 in 394 (Xen Hell. 4.2.16) and just 1,500 in 371 (Xen. Hell. 6.1.1; 4.15.17). We’ll talk about why this collapse occurred and its impacts more next week, but for now, I want to note it, because it raises some skepticism that there were ever as many spartiates as Herodotus or Plutarch would have us believe. Nevertheless, we’re going to accept the figure of 8,000 for now.

Over time, Sparta developed a bewildering array of sub-citizen underclasses which were ‘free,’ but enjoyed limited rights and had no say in their government. The largest and most important of these were the perioikoi (literally: ‘the dwellers around’). When the Spartan polis formed, the poor farmers around the core villages seemed to have reduced to helotage (we’re getting there, I promise) but the outlying settlements, while subjugated by the Spartan state, remained free. The perioikoi did not attend the agoge, had no say in government and no role in Spartan ‘equality’ (meaning they were excluded from all of the benefits the Spartan state provided) but they were allowed to manage their own affairs (save that they had to fight in the Spartan army). Almost all of the good, productive land seems to have been reserved for the kleroi of the spartiates, so the perioikoi were mostly economically marginal – shoved onto the bad farmland – but they did make up the artisan class who will have made the armor, weapons and tools required by the spartiates. The skiritai were a special group of perioikoi who dwelt up in the mountains – they served differently in the army, but otherwise do not seem to have been legally different from the perioikoi. For this post, we’ll treat them together.

Alongside the perioikoi, we have also the hypomeiones and mothakes. The hypomeiones seem to consist of the men (and their descendants) who had been spartiates, but had been stripped of citizen status for some reason, usually poverty (but sometimes cowardice). Since it was normally impossible to re-obtain citizenship – even for children – they constituted a permanent underclass with rights much like the perioikoi. The mothakes (singular: mothax) seem to have been the bastard off-spring of spartiate men and helot women (we’ll come back to this) – Xenophon (Xen. Hell 5.3.9) refers to these men as nothoi (literally ‘bastards’). Some mothakes were sponsored into the agoge by wealthy spartiates, but they could never be citizens and thus never be entitled to the things full spartiates had, so they too represent an effectively permanent underclass in Sparta.

Finally, over time there accrued small groups of freed helots, the Neodamodes and the Brasideioi (the latter seeming to just be a specific group of the former). These were settled on the edge of Spartan territory (on land disputed with Elis). So apart from being given the worst garbage real-estate in all of Sparta, they seem to have had functionally the same position as the rest of the non-citizen underclasses.

Estimating the size of the various free non-citizen Spartan underclasses is essentially guesswork – our sources are profoundly uninterested in these people because – as we discussed last week – our sources are mostly elite snobs who are interested in writing about other elite snobs and thus care little for the lower classes. Estimates are made harder in that it seems fairly clear, given the evidence, that the hypomeiones, mothakes and neodamodes all increased in number over time. Still, perioikoi battle deployments tend to equal or exceed Spartan numbers, even in 480, so it seems safe to assume there are somewhat more perioikoi than Spartiates. I’ve tentatively offered 30,000 as a guesstimate of their total number c. 500 B.C., rising significantly over time. I think you could make a convincing argument that this number was significantly higher – especially if you are arguing for a smaller number of helots (see below). We’ll talk about all of these fellows more next week.

Finally, the helots, were slaves owned by the Spartan state who worked the kleroi owned by the spartiates (so you have the land, but the state owns the labor) and owed some portion of their produce (seemingly quite a lot of it) to the spartiates. The helots came in two big groups – the Laconian helots had lived in Sparta before the polis formed and had been reduced to helotage at that time. The Messenian helots were the free residents of the neighboring community of Messenia when it was conquered by Sparta in the early 600s, at which point almost the entire population was reduced to being helots. There were c. 200,000 helots, vastly outnumbering every other group in Sparta, or all of them combined.

Ok, I know that’s an awful lot of information – Sparta has a bewildering array of underclasses – but it’s important because of how it impacts the make-up of the Spartan state. Pictured below is a rough estimate of the population of Sparta in c. 480, by class:

Notes: The number of male spartiates (and corresponding citizen women) is higher than Herodotus’ 8,000 to account for children who ought to make up c. 1/3 of the population. Technically, they were not spartiates until they completed the agoge, but I have included them here, since they are of citizen status.
Estimating the number of Perioikoi and other free non-citizens is essentially guesswork. Here I have reasoned from the perioikoi serving with the Spartan army, who in the early 400s, seem to be roughly equal in number (generally) to the number of Spartiates present at any given time.
There have been efforts by more recent scholars to ‘downgrade’ the size of the helot population – Thomas Figueira has presented a valuable synthesis of such efforts (it’s a good read if you are into such things) which reduces the helot population to 110-120k or so. I think the modeling done is valuable, but essentially creates a lower bound (what is the smallest number of helots who could support this system) which assumes, in my mind, an unreasonably efficient extraction system, so I have gone with some of the slightly older estimates which I think probably come closer to reality. But I wanted to note briefly that somewhat (but not radically) lower estimates exist – in all estimates, the spartiates are outnumbered by helots several times over. In terms of the argument here, it hardly matters if the spartiates are outnumbered 5:1, 7:1, 8:1 (the ratio above) or as has been suggested for later periods, 16:1 or more. What matters is that the overwhelming majority of human beings living in Spartan territory were helots.

WHOA! I hear you say. That’s a a lot of slaves. Like, a ton of enslaved people. But then – ancient slavery was common, right? Was this normal for a Greek polis? Well, let’s compare this chart – done exactly the same way – of Athens in roughly the same period:

Note: Really, we should speak in ranges, but it’s hard to convey that graphically. Estimates for the number of citizens range from 60,000 to 140,000 – but Thucydides’ figure (Thuc. 2.13.6-8) argues strongly for a number around 100,000, consistent with the c. 30,000 hoplites Athens was to have had. The number of metics is largely guesswork, but most estimates assume they are significantly outnumbered by the citizenry in the fifth century. It is also often assumed that the metic population was male-shifted, given who was likely to go abroad to do business in ancient Greece (but note also many metics were multi-generational residents of Athens).
The number of slaves is an unknown – the two ancient figures cited seem to be impossible on a population-density-basis. Probably the number of slaves equaled or even slightly exceeded the size of the citizen body.
The overall size of the population in Attica (the territory of Athens) should be somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000. I’ve gone with M. H.Hansen’s 1986 figures here – unfortunately, a lot of the newer work on Greek demography, like M. H. Hansen’s The Shotgun Method (2006) or J.-N. Corvisier La population de l’Antiquité classique (2000) are more focused on estimating total population, rather than population breakdown by social class.
I should also stress that estimates for the population of individual Greek poleis are deep guesswork. In many cases, Beloch (1886) – no, that is not a typo, 1886 – remains a standard reference.

Athens was a very wealthy city, which both drew in many foreign merchants and businessmen, but also was able to import huge numbers of slaves (all things Sparta most emphatically did not do) and yet the citizen body is still a much larger proportion of the total population. To give an ancient, but non-Greek comparison, these pie charts compare Athens (5th century B.C.), Sparta (c. 480), Sparta after the decline of the spartiates had taken hold (371 B.C.) and Roman Italy c. 218 (on the eve of the Second Punic War):

Note: obviously all of this is somewhat approximate, but the general pattern holds. I would say that these charts do a bit of a disservice to the Italian allies (or ‘socii’) who generally had greater rights and privileges than Athenian metics or Spartan perioikoi. Unlike either of those groups, the socii were full citizens of their own communities (which they still lived in) and thus had a say in their own self-government (if not foreign policy). Roman law offered considerably more protections to most socii, even in Rome, then did Athenian or Spartan law. Figures for Roman Italy follow Brunt (1971), because I had it to hand. I actually prefer Launaro’s estimate (Peasants and Slaves (2011)) for exciting technical reasons that aren’t worth getting into here – the graph would not look very different at all in terms of relative percentages.
I should note one key difference: the Roman ‘pie’ if drawn to scale would be twenty times larger than the Athenian or Spartan ones. I should also note that estimates of the population of Roman Italy are far more reliable than those for Greece – the evidence is much better.
Note that if we had a second Roman chart, dated to, say, the death of Augustus (14 A.D.), the grey slice would be twice as big, but almost the entire orange slice would be blue.

So the point here is, if we want to talk about life in Sparta, roughly 85% of that conversation should be about the life of the helots. So let’s talk about them.

It’s a helot life, for us.

I want to open by stressing just how insane the previous statement is, that helots made up not only a simple majority of the human beings living under the Spartan state, but in fact a huge super-majority. For comparison, about a third of the population of the American South in 1860 was held in slavery and we rightly call that a ‘slave society.’ Societies where an absolute majority of persons are held in slavery are extremely rare, but Sparta’s massive super-majority of enslaved persons is – to my knowledge – unique in human history.

We are very poorly informed about the helots. Our snobbish sources – recall last week – are, for the most part, singularly uninterested in them, so we’re left putting together a patchwork of information. That in turn leads into situations where students of ancient Greece can can up with the wrong impression if they don’t have all of the sources in mind (we’ll see this is a common trend with Sparta – reading just Xenophon or just Plutarch can be deeply misleading).

First, let us dispense with the argument, sometimes offered, that the helots were more like medieval serfs than slaves as we understand the ideas and thus not really slaves – this is nonsense. Helots seem to have been able to own moveable property (money, clothing etc), but in fact this is true of many ancient slaves, including Roman ones (the Roman’s called this quasi-property peculium, which also applied to the property of children and even many women who were under the legal power (potestas) of another). Owning small amounts of moveable property was not rare among ancient non-free individuals (or, for that matter, other forms of slavery).

No, what legally separated helots from douloi (chattel slaves in most Greek societies) was that they were slaves of the Spartan state rather than of individual Spartans – this had nothing to do with any sense of greater freedom they might have had. Indeed, Plutarch relates the saying that “in Sparta the free man is more free than anywhere else in the world, and the slave more a slave” (Plut. Lyc. 28.5). He can only be referring to the helots here. Indeed, Plutarch’s statement is telling – the helots were treated poorly by the standards of ancient chattel slavery, which is, I must stress, an incredibly low bar. Ancient societies treated enslaved people absolutely horribly and yet somehow the helot lot was commonly thought worse.

But the final word on if we should consider the helots fully non-free is in their sanctity of person: they had none, at all, whatsoever. Every year, in autumn by ritual, the five Spartan magistrates known as the ephors (next week) declared war between Sparta and the helots – Sparta essentially declares war on part of itself – so that any spartiate might kill any helot without legal or religious repercussions (Plut. Lyc. 28.4; note also Hdt. 4.146.2). Isocrates – admittedly a decidedly anti-Spartan voice – notes that it was a religious, if not legal, infraction to kill slaves everywhere in Greece except Sparta (Isoc. 12.181). As a matter of Athenian law, killing a slave was still murder (the same is true in Roman law). One assumes these rules were often ignored by slave-holders of course – we know that many such laws in the American South were routinely flouted. Slavery is, after all, a brutal and inhuman institution by its very nature. The absence of any taboo – legal or religious – against the killing of helots marks the institution as uncommonly brutal not merely by Greek standards, but by world-historical standards.

We may safely conclude that the helots were not only enslaved persons, but that of all slaves, they had some of the fewest protections – effectively none, not even protections in-name-only.

Wow, those are some lovely fields of grain. So much grain. I wonder who farms it?

But what do the helots do?

The answer is mostly ‘they farm’ but getting more specific than that get sticky fast. But we may try to keep this brief: helots were enslaved agricultural laborers. Helots were owned not by individual spartiates, but by the Spartan state, where they were assigned – through whatever method we do not know – to work the plots of land (kleroi, see above) assigned to the spartiates who, as noted above, we forbidden from engaging in any kind of productive labor. The helots seemed to have lived in their own villages and settlements – no great surprise, as the Messenian helots seem to have been far more numerous than the Laconian ones and the spartiates themselves did not live in Messenia in any great numbers. It does seem that the Messenian helots were gathered in a smaller number of nucleated villages rather than split up as farmsteads, probably to make it easier for the small number of spartiates stationed there to keep watch on them. And they seemed to have produced not only simple cereal staples, but the full range of agricultural products: wheat (Xen Lac. 5.3 – we’ll come back to this), barley, grapes and wine, figs, olives and olive oil, cheese, textiles (wool) and animal products, including meat and fish.

(Super Pedantic Note: This range of production is one reason why I’d argue that the efforts of scholars like Figueira and Hodkinson tend to set a lower bound to the number of helots (picking up my note to the chart above) – they’re working from a simplified model of agriculture producing entirely in barley and wheat (I should stress this is not bad practice – you pretty much have to do this to get anything out of the limited evidence we have). But the huge range of agricultural production the helots are engaged with pretty much demands many helots engaged in tasks that are not wheat and barley cultivation and yet more helots engaged in supporting them. Such models also assume that helot labor was efficiently allocated, which would be very strange for ancient agriculture – peasant households are almost always ‘labor inefficient’ (too many hands, too little land or capital), on this, see Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire (2005)).

We don’t know what percentage of the agricultural goods produced by helots was required to be turned out to the spartiate family which owned their kleros. Plutarch gives a (evidently maximum?) figure of 82 medimnoi of barley to be paid annually to a single Spartiate household by the helots of their kleros (Plut. Lyc. 8.4, but note Cartledge (1979), 170 on the troubles with this passage) – this is, it must be noted a huge amount, roughly ten times the rations of a Roman soldier. Tyrtaeus, writing in the 7th century B.C. (our earliest source for Sparta) in a fragment says that the helots, “like donkeys suffering under heavy loads, by painful force compelled to bring their masters half of all the produce that the soil brought forth” (trans. West, Greek Lyric Poetry (1993)). Half is a tempting figure, but it’s also a nice, awkwardly round and poetically convenient figure which may not represent reality. But we do not have the necessary evidence to determine the average size of a kleros or the number of helots who might work it, so it is hard to figure out how burdensome this would have been (save that we may assume ‘very much so’ given the sheer quantity demanded – 50% is a very high rent indeed).

But I think it is worth stressing just how extreme the division of labor was. Helots did all of the labor, because the Spartiates were quite possibly the least productive people to ever exist (the perioikoi presumably also produced a lot of goods for the spartiates, but being free, one imagines they had to be compensated for that out of the only economic resource the spartiates possessed: the produce of helot labor). The spartiates were forbidden from taking up any kind of productive activity at all (Plut. Lyc. 24.2). Lysander is shocked that the Persian prince Cyrus gardens as a hobby (Xen. Oec. 4.20-5), because why sully your hands with labor if you don’t have to? Given the normal divisions of household labor (textile production in the Greek household was typically done by women), it is equally striking that not one of Plutarch’s “Sayings of Spartan Women’ in the Moralia concerns weaving, save for one – where a Spartan woman shames an Ionian one for being proud of her skill in it (Plut. Mor. 241d). Xenophon confirms that spartiate women did not weave, but relied on helot labor for that too (Xen. Lac. 1.4) a point we’ll return to next week.

The helots were also made to fight. We are told by Herodotus that the Spartans brought 35,000 helots to fight at Plataea (479 B.C., Hdt. 9.28.2) and helot forces of light infantry appear elsewhere in the sources. But slaves of all kinds attached to ancient armies are often omitted in the sources; one wonders how many helots were forced to remain with Leonidas in his doomed last stand at Thermopylae – it is a safe bet it was more than the 300 spartiates present (along with c. 1,000 perioikoi, Diodorus 11.4). One cannot imagine the helots were enthused to give their lives for a state which hated and brutalized them, but rarely loyal helots were rewarded with freedom (e.g. the Brasideoi). The helots seem to have comprised essentially the entire Spartan logistical system – carrying food and supplies – although as we’ll see, Spartan logistics are hardly impressive.

Missing from this image of a Spartan army on the march: several hundred helots being forced to haul all of the baggage and equipment. Also missing: 900+ perioikoi who the spartiates forced to come on their suicide mission with them.

Given the huge disparity in numbers between the helots and the spartiates, you may reasonably ask: how did the spartiates maintain control? The answer appears to be, in a word: terror.

As noted above, the spartiates had a legal and religious fiction which enabled them to murder helots at any time for any reason – or no reason – without legal or religious consequences. And now is when we return to the krypteia, which we last met as a rite of passage for young spartiate men graduating from the agoge – now we meet the same institution, as a tool of terror.

Some Sparta-friendly scholars have tried to minimize the role of the krypteia, but it is hard to avoid the impression of the sources that this was a pervasive and deeply violent institution. Plutarch describes its function: the members of the krypteia would fan out in secret over the countryside, murdering helots they caught by night or else sneaking into the fields and murdering helots thought too strong, brave or independent minded. Even Plutarch describes the institution as abominable, and thus tries to distance it from Lycurgus, but as already noted his date (post 460 B.C.) does not work, since Herodotus considers the institution to already have some considerable antiquity to the events of 480 (Hdt. 4.146.2).

Thucydides relates an incident (Thuc. 4.80) where the Spartans – in a ruse – offered 2,000 helots who had fought bravely for them in war their freedom, before shortly after murdering all of them. Herodotus’ report (Hdt. 4.146.2) that the Spartans do all of their executions at night also speaks to the terror of the krypteia – one assumes these executions are without trial, which in turn means they can only be executions of the helots.

Even when they were not being murdered, the helots were treated with cruelty. Plato (Laws 6.776c-778a) politely presents the institution as contentious and while noting that ill-treatment as a factor that leads to slave revolts (along with commonality of language), also notes that such revolts are frequent among the Messenian helots with the clear implication that the Messenia helots revolt very often because they are very badly treated. Plutarch relates humiliating rituals where helots would be compelled to get badly drunk and humiliated in front of the communal mess (the syssitia) as an object lesson, or else made to sing humiliating songs (Plut. Lyc. 28.4-5). Various fragments from the Greek historians relate other demeaning humiliations enforced on the helots, with varying degrees of reliability – Kennell, Spartans (2010), 83-87 has a good roundup.

Given how very little our sources care for the lives and experiences of any enslaved people, the unanimity of their testimony that life as a helot was awful is nothing short of astounding. This is an institution that shocks the conscience of ancient slaveholders.

No, really, that’s a lot of grain. Surely there will be some farmers in this movie? No? No farmers at all?

A Child’s Fingerprints

Taking my ancient historian hat off for a moment and putting on my military historian hat (helmet?), it seems very likely, working from more modern parallels, that this brutality was itself a product of the agoge. Organizational culture studies of modern militaries – which had the advantage of a wealth of evidence we simply do not have for the ancient world – have turned up strong connections between violence and brutality within the military apparatus (for instance, in training) and the violent and brutal behavior of those militaries when they are among civilians.

Put in more blunt language: armies that abuse and beat recruits or junior soldiers in training and in peacetime will tend to abuse and murder civilians in occupied territory and in wartime. Violence also rolls downhill, it turns out. Soldiers who are abused by their superiors tend in turn to abuse their subordinates, both as a learned behavior, but also as a transference mechanism (they repair the humiliation of receiving violence by inflicting it on someone even more powerless than them). This relationship is best documented in the Imperial Japanese military (e.g. S. Ienaga, The Pacific War (1978), 46-54); but also observed in the German Imperial Army (I. Hull, Absolute Destruction (2006), 93-103 – though I should note that Hull focuses largely on the failure of command and political structures to apply the brakes to this tendency; see also for the Wehrmacht in WW2, O. Bartov, “The Conduct of War: Soldiers and the Barbarization of Warfare” (1992)) – and hey, what do you know, two other armies that somehow gained a reputation for ‘badass’ military effectiveness despite a comprehensive inability to achieve strategic objectives resulting in the complete annihilation of the state they were supposed to defend. It’s almost like we have a pattern.

Consider what the young spartiate – soon to be given the unrestricted power of life and death over his helot subjects – is learning in the agoge. When he is inducted, his mistakes are ‘corrected’ by the physical violence of the older boys (Xen. Lac. 2.2) in a system where the reward for ‘success’ is moving up the ladder of violence – that is, the young spartiate graduates from being just a victim of violence to being ‘rewarded’ by also being allowed – indeed, encouraged – to inflict of violence on boys still younger and weaker than himself.

Societies inculcate their values in childhood. Militaries inculcate their values in training. What values are being inculcated here?

We are not told that this pattern continues past the agoge (although Xen. Lac. 4.5-6 strongly implies it, noting that physical violence in resolving disputes was common) but – again speaking with my military history helmet on – of course it did. Why wouldn’t it? Unlike Rome or Athens, which drew bright legal distinctions between places where military discipline (and thus disciplinary violence) was permitted and where it was not (Roman citizens were legally immune from corporal punishment except when on campaign; beating a fellow Athenian citizen with the intent to humiliate him was hubris (a legally defined crime) punishable by death), Sparta was – our sources remind us – always mobilized for war and the spartiates were always under military discipline (Plut. Lyc. 24.1; Xen Lac. 3.2-5; on military discipline, cf. Xen. Anab. 3.4.49, where Xenophon lets his troops give a fellow soldier a beating for complaining, which may give us some insight into why Xenophon sees Sparta as an ideal society).

With all of this violence rolling downhill, there is only one place for it to stop, and that is the helots. The violence is a consequence of the damage inflicted on each generation of spartiates by the previous generation; broken men perpetuating a broken system (on the backs and with the blood of the helots) for the reasons we outlined last week. At the same time, it is the only tool the spartiates have for maintaining the helots in slavery, since their social system is singularly terrible at equiping them to build any other kind of legitimacy, a point we’ll return to in more depth at the end of this series (to put this in Arendt’s terms, the spartiate’s only tool is violence because their training completely eschews power, see H. Arendt, On Violence (1969). Arendt would, I think, identify this system as badly broken – violence filling the vacuum left by a lack of power – and that seems correct).

Alright, taking my military historian helmet off, putting my ancient historian cap back on, and onward to:

Drawing Boxes

What can we conclude from this?

I don’t mean to beat up more on poor Nick Burns – who I must stress, was perfectly civil in our twitter discussion and said nothing I have not seen in student papers and discussions in the past – but he exemplifies a certain kind of broken thinking about Sparta:

Burns essentially asks, “can’t we just draw a box around the spartiates and assess them on their own?” And what I hope the proceeding analysis has shown is that the answer is: no, you can’t. The helots and the brutality the Spartan state inflicts on them are integral to the system – they can’t be removed. Without helot labor, there is effectively no Spartan economy and no agricultural production to support the spartiate class’s leisure. The brutality is the vital tool of maintaining those laborers in a state of slavery, without it, the system cannot ‘function’ in its abominable way. Without the helots, Sparta’s military power collapses – not only because of the loss to the spartiates, but also because the helots seem to make up large forces of light infantry screens.

But no, seriously, this movie has literally erased around 95% of all of the humans in this society, in order to focus completely on the spartiates. I whine about Game of Thrones caring so little for the Smallfolk, but even Benioff and Weiss didn’t just delete them all.
Also, these 300 Spartans are apparently going to march hundreds of miles to Thermopylae with no food, water, clothing, tents or supplies of any kind. Good luck with that.

And in sheer numerical terms, the helots were Sparta. If we want to talk about drawing boxes, the box we ought to draw is not around the spartitates, but around the helots. The helots so decisively outnumber the spartiates that any assessment of this society has to be about the quality of helot life (which is terrible). To draw boxes as Burns wants would be like putting a box around Jeff Bezos and declaring that America was the first all-billionaire society. In actual fact, American millionaires represent roughly the same percentage of America as the spartiates represent of Sparta, roughly six percent.

This is a fundamental flaw in how we teach Sparta – in high schools and in college. We teach Sparta like it was a free citizen society with a regrettable slave population that, while horrific, was typical for its time – something more like Rome. But it wasn’t: Sparta was a society that consisted almost entirely of slaves, with a tiny elite aristocracy. The spartiates were not the common citizens of Sparta, but rather the hereditary nobility – the knights, counts and dukes, as it were. We should as soon judge 17th century France by the first two estates as judge Sparta only by the spartiates.

But by now you are wondering – this sounds like a conclusion, but there’s still a bunch of post left (that scroll bar is moving awfully slow!) – what does this pedantic fellow have up his sleeve? Well here it is: even if, even if we accept Burn’s boxes – even if we draw a wall around the spartiates – to be clear, we should not do this – but even if we do, Sparta still fails to live up to its myth of equality.

The Myth of the Homoioi

Now I want to be clear, the guys who called themselves homoioi were not a myth – obviously the spartiates existed. But I want to tackle that word homoioi. It means ‘peers’ but literally translates as ‘equals’ or ‘those who are the same.’ The ideal was straight-forward – each homoios (meaning each spartiate householder) had an equal plot of land, an equal share of (enslaved, brutalized, terrorized) helot labor, an equal place in the Spartan ‘mess’ (the syssitia), an equal voice in the Apella (the Spartan voting assembly). They were equals. The crux of this is economic equality – no poor spartiates, no rich spartiates.

Herodotus implies this. Xenophon tells us this. Aristotle and Plato report this ideal. Plutarch comments on it repeatedly. And it is complete nonsense.

Let’s start with Plutarch. Plutarch (writing c. 100 A.D.) says that this ideal existed under in the past Lycurgus (who we’ll get to later), but that was in the past and that at some point (he puts it in the reign of Agis II and Lysander), wealth flowed in and corrupted the system (Plut. Lyc. 30.1-2). Sure, he says, Sparta isn’t an equal paradise now, but it used to be – back in the time of Xenophon, more or less.

So we back up to Xenophon. Xenophon (writing in the early 300s B.C.) says that this equal ideal absolutely existed..wait for it… but that was in the past and at some point (he’s living in the reign of Agis II, so it must be earlier), the Spartans got rich and traveled abroad and it corrupted the system (Xen. Lac. 14.1-5). Sure, he says, Sparta isn’t an equal paradise now, but it used to be – back in the time of Herodotus, when the Spartans led the Greeks against the Persians!

So we back up to Herodotus (writing c. 430 B.C., but about events as early as the late 500s). Except Herodotus notes explicitly two wealthy Spartans: Sperthias and Bulis – both clearly spartiates (they are going as representatives of the Spartan citizen body as ambassadors!) – who are “of noble birth and great wealth,” going on an embassy before 480 B.C. (Hdt. 7.134). So not only are they rich, they’re gegonotes eu (γεγονότες εὖ; literally ‘born well’), meaning they come from families which have been rich for a long time! The Spartans also evidently have debt-keeping (Hdt. 6.59) and toy with colonization (generally a response to land scarcity, Hdt. 5.42-46). So apparently Sparta wasn’t an equal paradise even then – or even well before that point!

So let’s back up even further, to the earliest literary evidence we have for Sparta – the lyric poets Alcman and Tyrtaeus, writing in the seventh century (Tyrtaeus c. 650, Alcman perhaps a few decades later). We’ve already noted Tyrtaeus speak of the suffering of the helots, but he also makes oblique references to social divisions and poverty (Tyrt. frag 6, 7, 10, West (1993), 23-4). Alcman, describing what seems to be a dancer’s chorus describes gold bangles, splendid headbands and other finery (Alc. frag 1, West (1993), 32.). I should stress that the limited productivity of ancient societies means that no society can provide such finery to all of its women – these women are showing off their uncommon wealth. I want to stress these poet’s work exist only in disjointed fragments and yet even in this very poor source base we have solid evidence for rich and poor spartiates.

To be clear with how far back we are here, historically – the critical event which creates the Spartan state we know, the conquest of Messenia and the reduction of the Messenians to helotry, happened – according to Tyrtaeus – in his grandfather’s generation. We’ve gotten to living memory of the origins of the Spartan state as we understand it, and we still have not gotten back to that ideal past of equality.

So let’s back up even further, back into the early seventh century or even the eighth century. We are now before all of our literary sources, but lo! archaeology and epigraphy (the study of inscriptions) comes to the rescue. And I will quote Cartledge on what they tell us, “there were rich and poor Spartans. This literary evidence [which we just discussed] is fully corroborated [emphasis mine] by archaeology (from the eighth century) and epigraphy (from the mid-seventh)” (Cartledge (1979), 165 – and no, that archaeological verdict has not meaningfully changed since then as far as I know). It isn’t corroborated any earlier than that because we have no evidence earlier than that.

So I want to be very, very clear: at every point where we have any kind of evidence whatsoever – no matter how limited, or difficult – we have evidence for significant disparities in wealth among the spartiates.

(This is not to say that there was never any change in the social stratification of Sparta. In contrast, there’s been some supposition – notably by Figueira – that it got quite a lot worse after the earthquake of 460 – we’ll talk about what that looks like next week)

Spartiate economic equality is a myth. It was a myth in 100 A.D. It was a myth in 360 B.C. It was a myth in 480 B.C. It was always a myth. It was never true.

Conclusions: Who Matters?

This is necessarily a somewhat artificial place to divide these posts. I promise we’ll get back to some of these issues – what wealth and power disparity among spartiates looks like, or why Lycurgus can do no wrong in the eyes of the sources – next week and the week after. But I want to take a step back and look at the issues we’ve addressed so far from the perspective of how we relate to history.

It is human nature, when we are told a story, to sympathize and identify with the teller of the story and the people they place at the center of the story. TV Tropes calls this Protagonist-Centered Morality and it is an apt term. We come to feel what the protagonist feels and value what they value. This is all the more true for the things and people the story omits – the unwary reader does not know what they do not know. For our sources, the Spartiates – and in particular, the wealthy, elite, successful spartiates – are the protagonists of the story of Sparta and so the morality of that story revolves around them.

In the study of history, of course, this is a trap – and a frequent one. Students naturally sympathize with the literate ruling class of past societies, seeing themselves in the shoes of military aristocrats and rulers (rather than the vast majority of farmers and laborers) both because that is the perspective our sources give, but also because that tends to be the history we teach: the history of power and politics.

All too often, I see students read the Greek contempt for the poor man, the non-citizen, or the slave with horror but then immediately turn around and replicate those patterns of thought in their own thinking about these societies (well of course the ‘mob’ cannot be trusted to rule – Thucydides and Xenophon said so – to which I am endlessly responding, ‘yes, but should you believe them?‘).

With Sparta, the case is worse still, because it is not a matter of falling into the contempt of your sources, but their disregard. The sources do not care about the helots, because the sources are wealthy Greeks who do not see slavery as a moral evil – if they are bothered by helotry, it is only because it is even crueler than normal Greek slavery. Xenophon is quite happy to ignore the helots entirely, whenever he can. Xenophon’s Constitution of the Lacedaimonians runs 118 sections, of which two mention the helots and neither by name or at any length (Xenophon uses either doulos (chattel slave) or oiketes (household slave), but in both cases, given Sparta’s social system, it is clear that a helot must be meant). It would be easy to forget reading it that the helots were there at all (harder, of course, in Xenophon’s Hellenica, since they end up being militarily important).

This is, I want to stress, an attempt by Xenophon to describe the whole of Spartan society, which omits around 93% of all of the people in it (Xenophon also omits the perioikoi), including literally everyone who produces anything of value, at all, whatsoever. If ever there was a sign a source needed to be read critically (friendly history teacher note: read all sources critically), this is it!

But, of course, we are not trapped by our sources. We can – and should – think about the many, many people our sources do not care about. We must ask if this society produces a better human experience – not just for the aristocrats our sources pal around with, but for all of the people. A society which exalts the few by immiserating the many isn’t the same as a society which actually improves the quality of life for the majority of the people within it. This is part of what I mean when I say that we may accept our sources facts, but need not accept their judgments: we do not need to agree with our snobbish sources that the best society is one that is best only for the elite.

So let’s recap:

The dominant human experience living in Sparta was being a helot. If we were to give an hour long lecture on the human experience of living in Sparta, we would spend fifty-one of those sixty minutes on the helots. That’s 51 minutes of murders, beatings, rapes, forced extraction, poverty and humiliation. After which there are five to six minutes on the lot of the perioikoi and then – just as everyone is stuffing their notebooks into the bags (dear my students: don’t do this, it drives me bonkers), we get to the spartiates.

Rather than being egalitarian, Sparta was in fact a deeply stratified society. More than 90% of the residents of the Spartan state belongs to one kind of underclass or another. Consequently, the spartiates shouldn’t be understood as composing the state or talked about in isolation, because they’re not a self-sufficient society. Instead, the spartiates are just a local nobility, the elite of a much larger, far less equal society.

Nevertheless, the myth of spartiate economic equality is also false. There were always rich and poor spartiates, at every historical point we have evidence for. Part of the reason I leaned so hard on Cartledge – despite his scholarship being a bit older – is to show that we’ve known this for a while now. It is not a new revelation that all of our sources think Spartan equality ended ten minutes ago, despite being separated by centuries. Nevertheless, high school and even college (!) textbooks continue to credulously spout the myth – embracing the pleasant lie instead of the unpleasant truth.

Indeed, this credulous approach to the source tradition – accepting not only the facts they give, but also their guesses about what is to them the distant past and their judgments about the moral worth of a Sparta that probably never existed – is so common that it has had a name since the 1933, le mirage spartiate, coined by Francois Ollier. Rousseau and Jefferson had an excuse for their gullibility – we do not.

Next week, we’ll look at the ramifications of this kind of social stratification through the lens of Spartan families – helot families and spartiate families both…but also we’ll start taking a closer look at some of these free non-citizen Spartan underclasses and what they mean for understanding Sparta.

49 thoughts on “Collections: This. Isn’t. Sparta. Part II: Spartan Equality

  1. What was the source of inequality among Spartiates? It seems to me that if extracting value from helots was the only source of wealth, and they all actually had equal shares of land with the helots to work it, I would expect that to put a limit on the disparities that could arise. Was it that the kleroi were not actually equally distributed? Or was there some other way that some Spartiates could gain wealth over their peers?

    My understanding is that large wealth inequality, especially on a generational basis, has to come from capital, and by far the most important capital in the pre-modern world was land. So I assume wealthier Spartiates must have had more and/or better land than the poorer ones?

  2. FWIW, when I was taught about Sparta in highschool, the teacher made a point of discussing just how massive the helot percentage of the populace was. Perhaps I got lucky, but I didn’t feel like that population breakdown would have been a surprise to me as of grade 11. (It certainly wasn’t today, but I’m also 20+ years older and better-read, so that means less)

    Thanks for the series, though – I’m enjoying it so far, and might leave further commentary on parts 3-7.

    1. Months later on, but yes. The only comparable free/slave ratios I know of are in the Caribbean sugar colonies. It’s actually worse in some of them–in Jamaica in the eighteenth century, less than 10% of the population was free, and it may have dipped as low as 4% before the abolition of slavery. Other Caribbean colonies will be around the same.

      1. Also quite relevant: those slave islands did not keep a permanent underclass! The people imported there did not produce further generations – they died, and were replaced. In my opinion, it just isn’t comparable to Sparta, where the same group is kept down generation after generation.

        1. Another point of note: the slave colonies were that, colonies, and thus part of a larger empire, so I don’t think we should take their isolated demographics alone.

    1. Athens and the Roman Republic don’t have the same place in pop culture as Sparta. Athens mostly exists as part of Ancient Greece or in counterpoint to Sparta, and the early Roman Republic is a relatively minor component in the chronological slurry of pop culture Rome.

      It would still be neat, though.

      1. That sounds extremely strange to me. I am from Finland and I checked my old highschool notes for comparison, there are several pages on Athens and some on early Roman Republic. Sparta is a side sentence alongside other Greece city states. There is far more even about the Greek colonies outside of Greece such as in Italy. I really would want to know one day what US history books really teach since it impacts a lot on internet discussion, choices in academia and pop culture later on.

        Also the Cincinnati is amazing guy myth should be examined some imo.

  3. Really, really appreciate this series. Even though I have never watched the film, these myths about the society pervade our (Western) culture, so thus these posts are an eye-opener for me.

    And on to the usual belated proofreading corrections:

    Caption for chart of pop. of Sparta: number of Perioikoi and other -> number of perioikoi and other
    students of ancient Greece can can up with -> students of ancient Greece can come up with
    And they seemed to have produced -> And they seem to have produced
    freedom (e.g. the Brasideoi). -> freedom (e.g. the Brasideioi).
    The ideal was straight-forward -> The ideal was straightforward
    ideal existed under in the past Lycurgus -> ideal existed in the past under Lycurgus
    existed..wait for it… but -> existedwait for it… but (missing period/full stop inserted)
    For our sources, the Spartiates -> For our sources, the spartiates

  4. “The number of spartiates declined rapidly during the period for which we have evidence (from c. 480 onwards). While there were supposedly 8,000 male spartiates in 480 there seem to have only been 3,500 by 418 (Thuc. 5.68), just 2,500 in 394 (Xen Hell. 4.2.16) and just 1,500 in 371 (Xen. Hell. 6.1.1; 4.15.17). We’ll talk about why this collapse occurred and its impacts more next week, but for now, I want to note it, because it raises some skepticism that there were ever as many spartiates as Herodotus or Plutarch would have us believe. Nevertheless, we’re going to accept the figure of 8,000 for now.”

    Actually, that makes it *more* likely that there was large number of Spartiates. Number of 1500 in 371, 2500 in 394 and 3500 in 418 results in linear decrease of 42-43 Spartiates per year. Going by this, in 480 there would be 6000 Spartiates. So not exactly 8000, but still a large number.

    It is also interesting to note that most successful military societies always had strong middle class, and often military was drawn from the exact same middle class of small to medium landowners; examples would be Roman legionaries pre-Marian reforms and Byzantine thematic armies.

    1. 6,000 is a pretty major revision from 8,000 (which is in turn a lot less than the proverbial 10,000 homoioi of the sources). So you seem to be confirming my doubts?

      1. If you mean your doubt about there being 8 000 – 10 000 homoioi, yes. I still see 6 000 as being a significant number considering how few there were later, but maybe a question should be – how many homoioi Spartan state could have ideally supported? Byzantine Empire with its landed military managed to have some 1-2,5% of populace in military; with 200 000 total population, Sparta would have had 3% at its start. Though it is not a good comparison, seeing how Byzantine army was cavalry-heavy. And at any rate, Roman Republic should be better measure of military efficiency of Spartan system, seeing how it was temporally, organizationally and socially much closer to it.

          1. There’s a lot of complexity hiding behind those figures. The largest Athenian force was the Sicilian Expedition, which had 10,100 hoplites (not counting allies), 1,300 light troops, 30 cavalry and about 200 triremes (so around 40,000 rowers); but of course there was still a military force in Attica as well.

  5. What about inter state marriages? Would a high born Greek woman from say Athens married to a Spartan man be considered spartiate enough to pass that on to her children. Would her children be full citizens? It seems extremely likely people would inter marry. Was there any protocol for such a situation. Maybe a king can issue citizenship?

    1. I wouldn’t be surprised if citizenship would be passed on by the father in legitimate, state-sanctioned marriages, at least if the citizen-father recognized the child.

      1. In most cases there was no legal framework for legitimate, state-sanctioned marriages between a citizen and a non-citizen in a Greek polis in the way you mean.

        The Romans had this – they called it the ‘right of connubium’ (the right to marry a Roman citizen and have legitimate citizen children); it was awarded to allies with “Latin Rights” but not most subjects of the Roman Empire. This is why the special citizenship grants given to Roman soldiers had to have an umbrella clause including their children in the grant of citizenship, since Roman soldiers were unlikely to have citizen wives.

    2. Citizenship in Athens required a citizen father and a citizen mother, so any other combination of parents produces a metic (resident foreigner with no citizen status). Metics could only be raised to citizenship by an act of the full assembly – imagine the modern equivalent being if naturalization in the USA required each and every single new citizen to be approved by an act of Congress. Needless to say, it almost never happened.

      In Sparta, spartiates also had to have a spartiate father and mother. A few kings did ‘make new spartiates’ but these were huge, important events, it only happened a couple of times and it was generally in the context of serious unrest or major military needs. Attempting to do so occasionally got kings quite dead – the political resistance from the other spartiates was fierce.

      So the answer is: there is no protocol for the situation, by and large the child of such a union is a citizen of neither city and a foreigner in every land. Greek poleis wanted their citizens to marry other citizens. Intermarriage was thus quite strongly discouraged.

  6. “America is a free society, one of the few where equality has been achieved. Oh, we’re going to exclude everyone who isn’t a millionaire from the discussion, and also ignore that billionaires have far greater wealth and political influence than millionaires. And we’re also ignoring the misogyny. But once you do that, everyone’s equal!”

    1. True, but when two nations that are equally brutal fight, one of them needs to win. It seems fitting that the winner in that fight was the one with much less brutal allies.

    2. “Hitlers come and go, but Germany and the German people remain,” direct Stalin quote about how the Red Army had no intention of mass genocide, and of course the continued existence of all those East Germans despite decades of a puppet government run by Moscow, stands rather starkly in contrast to the quite open Nazi policy of mass genociding basically every Slav between Berlin and the Urals. Of the USSR and Nazi Germany, the USSR was the less brutal. Given the experience of Ukraine during the war (initial welcoming of German troops that rapidly soured for obvious reasons), if the German government hadn’t been the more brutal of the pair, there’s a fair chance an expansionist Germany might have dismantled the USSR, despite its technical inferiority.

    3. They didn’t start out that way. Germany driving east dished a lot of that stuff out. Total contempt for the Slavs. They could have made a 2 month alliance with the Ukrainians Stalin had starved out during the 30’s, hand them some rifles, herd them into Stalingrad, just use them as biomass to take the place while they drove and took the oil fields and by doing so, winning the war. They could have even occupied territory passively, anything to oppose Stalin. Nah. Machine gunned as they drove through their towns.

      It was very clear that extermination was a primary objective. Also clear was the contrast when it came to Western Europe. Take the oilfields and peace was a definite possibility, there was no real ideological barrier to a peace treaty. Exterminate the Jews, depopulate the USSR, eliminating the threat of communism?

      This is an ideal outcome for most of Europe, let’s not kid ourselves. Only Britain would have a problem, since effectively they would have lost the “Great Game.” The one fundamental truth of European history is that they feel no obligation to honour promises given to people of non-european descent. Clearly the Germans thought Russia belonged in that bucket. As far as I can tell, Russians see themselves as Europeans.

      But… that didn’t happen. Probably wouldn’t happen, the Red Army was what, 10 million strong by ’45? Now the shoe was on the other foot. If the basis of your perceived superiority is racial purity, there is a very straightforward way to level things out.

      It certainly was brutal, but like the man said:

      “Vae Victis.”

  7. “just as everyone is stuffing their notebooks into the bags (dear my students: don’t do this, it drives me bonkers)“

    Dear my post secondary institutions: don’t expect students to teleport to the other side of campus, nourish themselves with food and water, and engage in some small scrap of socializing to stay sane in the five minutes you’ve allotted between classes.

      1. Conversely, I went to University with students who only had their passing time to catch a 30 minute bus (assuming the bus was scheduled to arrive at the stop just as their first lecture ended) into the city to another building in order to attend their next lecture.

        They did not get 15 minutes, but it still wouldn’t have helped.

        Of course, they were engineering students. Maybe there was some form of object lesson.

        Even the campus itself took over 30 minutes to walk from one side to the other.

        All campuses (campii?) are bigger, but some campii are biggerer than others.

  8. Both states apparently even put together the same myth of equality. While reading this, I found myself comparing the role of the Spartiates not just to child soldier organisations but also to US police fraternities, especially in regards to the abuse and rights such as qualified immunity and control of an area through force. With the historical reasons for police in the US, I feel like there’s something to be made of that.

    Overall, this is a really good breakdown of the myth of Sparta, the realities shown in the history given by neighbouring states, and why fascists are attracted to the group. I’m not sure if I want to read any further than Chapter 2, as this seems to have made me physically ill, props to the author for doing this in response to 300 and the person behind it!

  9. In all the articles/reviews/commentaries/discussions of Sparta i’ve read (including this one) that mention in any depth Zack Snyder’s “300,” everyone always criticises what they see as the anachronisms, inaccuracies and – as this article does – omissions, without ever considering the possibility that this might be deliberate – that “300” might actually be about that Spartan Mirage, rather than any attempt at ‘accuracy’ or ‘historicity.’

    In fact, Frank Miller himself actually said he was doing exactly that when he created the comic. Does that make “300” more or less acceptable? i don’t know. But criticising it for leaving out all the helots, and the baggage trains, and anything other than the spartiates the story is about is like criticising Van Gogh’s “The Cafe Terrace” for leaving half the cafe tables empty when he created the painting.

    1. “The events are 90 percent accurate. It’s just in the visualization that it’s crazy. A lot of people are like, “You’re debauching history!” I’m like, “Have you read it?” I’ve shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it’s amazing. They can’t believe it’s as accurate as it is.”
      This is an actual quote from Zack Snyder about the movie. “The historical inaccuracies were deliberate, ackshually!!!” is not an excuse.

  10. Speaking as a layman and first time commenter this was to me the most eye opening read since the introduction to peasant farming in the bread series. My school certainly didn’t present Sparta as particularly different from Athens or Rome, and I suspect for many others 300 still is the pop culture go to informing their mental model of it exactly as it was to me until now.
    As a quick aside maybe a link to the bread series could be in order? I believe it would have been harder to follow along had I not experienced it already.

  11. Reading this, I’m thinking there should be a movement to change “Spartan” mascots and similar, for similar reasons to the move away from “Redskins”, “Indians”, etc. mascots.

  12. “As a matter of Athenian law, killing a slave was still murder (the same is true in Roman law).”

    Wasn’t it made illegal to kill slave during Diolectians time? So very late.

    Also regarding helots, they would have been certainly enslaved. However I think the serf comparisons come form them not being moved around. In this respects of spending most of their lives farming they would be serf like. You said yourself what a majority they were, so most of them would not not be in regular contact with the elites.

Leave a Reply