Hellenistic Sparta

[Gurkhal]

Sparta isn't my favorite among the Greeks but there's certainly an interesting history for it during the Hellenistic Age.

While Archaic and Classical Sparta gets the most attention I find that the Hellenistic Sparta and the "reactionary revolutionaries" who after Sparta's defeat to the Thebans sought to essentially take Sparta back in time by kicking it forward. I think of Spartans kings like Agis IV, Cleomenes III and Nabis, who sought to bring about progressively more reachings reforms, to win back the "Good Old Days". But every time Sparta seems to have regained its strength with the reforms, a much large power was ready to kick them down again. First it was the Macedonians and then the Romans who brought down the hammer to finally force Sparta to abandon its dreams of greatness.

So to start the discussion with a question, do you think the Spartans could have made it to at least temporarily, before the Roman tide would sweep them away, to wrestle control of Greece back to iself and keep it for some decades? Or had to much time past for a single city to wield such power again, even locally? And is there any Spartan leader after Leuctra which has captured your interest?

My own answers to the questions are; No, that time has passed and that Cleomenes III and Nabis are figured that I find more interesting than Spartan leaders from the Classical era.

And all other discussion about Hellenistic Sparta (and I suspect we'll drift into Archaic and Classical Spartas well) is welcome.

And yes, my interest and "insight" comes mostly from reading "In the Name of Lykourgos" by Miltiadis Michalopoulos. Which I can very much recommend.

 

[Yakman]

No. And even when Sparta was at its height, it was as the leader of a coalition. They were never as strong as Athens.

 

[keynes2.0]

Or had to much time past for a single city to wield such power again, even locally?

Sparta had what, 40,000 citizens to draw from? Factor in gender and age (even with spartan extremity) and you have maybe 15,000 men you can put in the field. A single Roman consular army would have more then that.

 

[Gurkhal]

No. And even when Sparta was at its height, it was as the leader of a coalition. They were never as strong as Athens.

Very true about Sparta. But on the other hand, without the tributes from the other poleis in the Athenian Empire Athens wouldn't have been able to afford their massive fleet. Neither Sparta nor Athens stood alone at the height of their power. They was always dependent on relationships with others, even if I agree that on a one-on-one basis Athens was stronger than Sparta.

Sparta had what, 40,000 citizens to draw from? Factor in gender and age (even with spartan extremity) and you have maybe 15,000 men you can put in the field. A single Roman consular army would have more then that.

Sparta never had close to 40 000 citizens. More like 15 000 citizens at their aboslute height, and with a large number of both helots and perioikoi to keep the state functioning. But then again a consular army wouldn't only be Roman citizens, so if the Romans can bring in their Italian allies, I see no reason as to why the Spartans couldn't bring in their own allies and mercenaries to the fray.

As for the comparison between the Roman and Spartan armies during this time I'll note that Kleomenes III could get some 18 000 - 20 500 men into battle against the Macedonians, 6000 or so of whom were Spartiates - many of them newly made thanks to the king's reforms.

 

[BaronNoir]

Sparta had what, 40,000 citizens to draw from? Factor in gender and age (even with spartan extremity) and you have maybe 15,000 men you can put in the field. A single Roman consular army would have more then that.

Actually, after Leuktra, there was 800 Spartan full citizens. There was fairly comprehensive plans to remedy to this situation, to reach 4500 citizens, detailed by Plutarch in Life of Agis and Life of Cleomenes.

(Antique authors were not exactly known for precise terminology, but Sparta goes that way in terms of citizenships

Actual full fledged citizens : the Equals (proper Spartans)
Spartan citizens who lost some of the rights (they were ''cowards'' or they could not afford their places at the mess halls) : still Spartans, but not Equals.
Périèques : Subject cities, with however full citizen rights (but not political rights) = Lacedemonians

Lacedemonains/Laconian presumably included cities in Laconia/Morea that were allied and not subjects of Spartans. The avant guard of the civic army was usually made of ''Skyrites'', a small community of Laconians who were specifically allies and not vassals (but who had very little say)

 

[Yakman]

Very true about Sparta. But on the other hand, without the tributes from the other poleis in the Athenian Empire Athens wouldn't have been able to afford their massive fleet. Neither Sparta nor Athens stood alone at the height of their power. They was always dependent on relationships with others, even if I agree that on a one-on-one basis Athens was stronger than Sparta.

You forget - Athens took over almost all of their original allies over the course of the Peloponnesian War.

Athens compared to Sparta had almost no "allies" amongst the Hellenic states - it had tributaries and essentially occupied vassals. it was much stronger than Sparta ... until it wasn't.

 

[keynes2.0]

Actually, after Leuktra, there was 800 Spartan full citizens. There was fairly comprehensive plans to remedy to this situation, to reach 4500 citizens, detailed by Plutarch in Life of Agis and Life of Cleomenes.)

Well it's pretty easy to see why they always got knocked off their perch then.

 

[BaronNoir]

Antiquity army numbers are always extremely suspicious, especially for Greek city states. It's worth nothing that even on paper, Sparta was supposed to have 9000 citizens at top (the 9000 kleros/land lots divided by Lycurgus), so 9000 actual Spartans is a very high end number in all likehood.

A second, and a very bold political measure of Lycurgus, is his redistribution of the land. For there was a dreadful inequality in this regard, the city was heavily burdened with indigent and helpless people, and wealth was wholly concentrated in the hands of a few. Determined, therefore, to banish insolence and envy and crime and luxury, and those yet more deep-seated and afflictive diseases of the state, poverty and wealth, he persuaded his fellow-citizens to make one parcel of all their territory and divide it up anew, and to live with one another on a basis of entire uniformity and equality in the means of subsistence, seeking preeminence through virtue alone, assured that there was no other difference or inequality between man and man than that which was established by blame for base actions and praise for good ones.

Suiting the deed to the word, he distributed the rest of the Laconian land among the "perioeci," or free provincials, in thirty thousand lots, and that which belonged to the city of Sparta, in nine thousand lots, to as many genuine Spartans. But some say that Lycurgus distributed only six thousand lots among the Spartans, and that three thousand were afterwards added by Polydorus; others still, that Polydorus added half of the nine thousand to the half distributed by Lycurgus.

The lot of each was large enough to produce annually seventy bushels of barley for a man and twelve for his wife, with a proportionate amount of wine and oil. Lycurgus thought that a lot of this size would be sufficient for them, since they needed sustenance enough to promote vigour and health of body, and nothing else. And it is said that on returning from a journey some time afterwards, as he traversed the land just after the harvest, and saw the heaps of grain standing parallel and equal to one another, he smiled, and said to them that were by: "All Laconia looks like a family estate newly divided among many brothers.

TLDR : the fabrication and grossly inflated number is 9000. It would have been extremely unlikely that Spartans had ever been above 9000, since historically, there was terrible issues with a dearth of citizens.

 

[Gurkhal]

You forget - Athens took over almost all of their original allies over the course of the Peloponnesian War.

Athens compared to Sparta had almost no "allies" amongst the Hellenic states - it had tributaries and essentially occupied vassals. it was much stronger than Sparta ... until it wasn't.

I don't think that "took over" is the correct term for the relation between Athens and her allies. "Suppressed" is more like it given how many rebellions the Athenians faced and that's without going into the political mess of democracy vs oligarchy which was also an important part of the conflict between Athens and Sparta.

And I dare say that you use the term "alliance" in a bad way here. The Athenian allies were certainly held down and forced to pay up for Athens. But regarding both Sparta and Athens there were two great poleis who called the final shots and dominated the system. To put it short and ignoriing much of details and finer parts.

Antiquity army numbers are always extremely suspicious, especially for Greek city states. It's worth nothing that even on paper, Sparta was supposed to have 9000 citizens at top (the 9000 kleros/land lots divided by Lycurgus), so 9000 actual Spartans is a very high end number in all likehood.

A second, and a very bold political measure of Lycurgus, is his redistribution of the land. For there was a dreadful inequality in this regard, the city was heavily burdened with indigent and helpless people, and wealth was wholly concentrated in the hands of a few. Determined, therefore, to banish insolence and envy and crime and luxury, and those yet more deep-seated and afflictive diseases of the state, poverty and wealth, he persuaded his fellow-citizens to make one parcel of all their territory and divide it up anew, and to live with one another on a basis of entire uniformity and equality in the means of subsistence, seeking preeminence through virtue alone, assured that there was no other difference or inequality between man and man than that which was established by blame for base actions and praise for good ones.

Suiting the deed to the word, he distributed the rest of the Laconian land among the "perioeci," or free provincials, in thirty thousand lots, and that which belonged to the city of Sparta, in nine thousand lots, to as many genuine Spartans. But some say that Lycurgus distributed only six thousand lots among the Spartans, and that three thousand were afterwards added by Polydorus; others still, that Polydorus added half of the nine thousand to the half distributed by Lycurgus.

The lot of each was large enough to produce annually seventy bushels of barley for a man and twelve for his wife, with a proportionate amount of wine and oil. Lycurgus thought that a lot of this size would be sufficient for them, since they needed sustenance enough to promote vigour and health of body, and nothing else. And it is said that on returning from a journey some time afterwards, as he traversed the land just after the harvest, and saw the heaps of grain standing parallel and equal to one another, he smiled, and said to them that were by: "All Laconia looks like a family estate newly divided among many brothers.

TLDR : the fabrication and grossly inflated number is 9000. It would have been extremely unlikely that Spartans had ever been above 9000, since historically, there was terrible issues with a dearth of citizens.

I have question on the 9 000 number. Is that ALL the citizens or the adult male citizens? The two alternatives are pretty different from each other.

EDITED

 

[BaronNoir]

9000 citizens is specifically for a ''family unit'' of a man and his wife. The kleros (lot) purpose is in theory to provide food for the communal mess halls (the sissiytois). A Spartan had to participate to those banquets to have political rights. Therefore, in theory, only someone with one of 9000 lots could be a citizen.

However, as I tried to say, Sparta did have an underclass of people who were Spartans but not equals, mostly because they had lost their kleros or could no longer pay for the sissytois (as elsewhere in Greece, wannabe aristocrats made a clientèle by paying for poorer Spartans)

There is little doubt that ''proper Spartans'' (that is, the Equals or maybe the Peers), were a clear minority in the Spartan state, more than in any state in Greece. Beyond the Helots and the ''Spartans but not Equals'' there were lots of sub-groups of people who were of free status but without political rights

-Periekois (périèque in French), vassals of Sparta (one hundred polis according to tradition, and pretty damn small ones)
-A surprising number of freed Helots-laconophiles were careful to not say that while praising the Spartan education, but each Spartan boy had one, two, three servants with him, most of them being free to serve as light infantry after the agoge.

Example from a dude known for raging laconophilia even in the times, Xenophon.

(Context : Cinadon is conspiring against Sparta, and an informer spoiled the beans to the Éphores)

This Cinadon was a young man, sturdy of body and stout of heart, but not one of the peers. And when the ephors asked how he had said that the plan would be carried out, the informer replied that Cinadon had taken him to the edge of the market-place and directed him to count how many Spartiatae there were in the market-place. “And I,” he said, “after counting king and ephors and senators and about forty others, asked `Why, Cinadon, did you bid me count these men?' And he replied: `Believe,' said he, `that these men are your enemies, and that all the others who are in the market-place, more than four thousand in number, are your allies.'” In the streets also, the informer said, Cinadon pointed out as enemies here one and there two who met them, and all the rest as allies; and of all who chanced to be on the country estates belonging to Spartiatae, while there would be one whom he would point out as an enemy, namely the master, yet there would be many on each estate named as allies.

When the ephors asked how many Cinadon said there really were who were in the secret of this affair, the informer replied that he said in regard to this point that those who were in the secret with himself and the other leaders were by no means many, though trustworthy; the leaders, however, put it this way, that it was they who knew the secret of all the others—Helots, freedmen, lesser Spartiatae, and Perioeci; for whenever among these classes any mention was made of Spartiatae, no one was able to conceal the fact that he would be glad to eat them raw

(Of course, neither the snitch, Cinadon or Xenophon are very accurate witnesses, but that's one of the handful of indications people have to work with-a conspiracy that the Spartans took very seriously mentioned a huge, even for antiquity, 1 to 100 ratio between real citizens and non citizens. TBF, the numbers might be a bit skewed, since a Spartan before 30 was not supposed to go on the market-this was the job of his, ahem, ''friend'')

 

[BaronNoir]

In ancient Greece, there was no difference between the two. Only a male could be a citizen.

But aplenty of free males were not ''Peers'' in Sparta. ''Lacedemone'' had lots of category of second class citizens.

(''Lacedemonia'' was the name favored by Spartans and described their ''state''-while the territory might be constructed as the southern tip of Morea, the exact status of the bulk of ''Lacedemonians'' is hard to determine. They were not all ''Perièques'' and not all ''Helots''.(it's obvious that for Spartans, ''Sparta'', ''Laconia'' and ''Lacedemone'' were terms with precise social meanings) And you have to add to this royal mess the League.

 

[Gurkhal]

In ancient Greece, there was no difference between the two. Only a male could be a citizen.

That's not true. Women could be citizens even while they were without political rights. Both you parents had to be citizens in both Sparta and Athens for a child to be counted fully as a citizen, that is to say as either an Athenian citizen with political rights, if male, or as a Spartiate, or to have a woman's children be possible citizens, if their father was as well. A Spartan or Athenian full citizen would not have their children as full citizen if they hooked up with a metic woman.

 

[BaronNoir]

That's not true. Women could be citizens even while they were without political rights. Both you parents had to be citizens in both Sparta and Athens for a child to be counted fully as a citizen, that is to say as either an Athenian citizen with political rights, if male, or as a Spartiate, or to have a woman's children be possible citizens, if their father was as well. A Spartan or Athenian full citizen would not have their children as full citizen if they hooked up with a metic woman.

Again, it's obvious that Sparta of all nations was remarkably liberal in granting citizenship, since (while revolutionary), Agis and Cleomenes simply expanded common measures of the classical times (sons of Helots could become full citizens, or at the very least périèques, since each spartan boy had 2-3 squires with him during his education)

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

That's not true. Women could be citizens even while they were without political rights. Both you parents had to be citizens in both Sparta and Athens for a child to be counted fully as a citizen, that is to say as either an Athenian citizen with political rights, if male, or as a Spartiate, or to have a woman's children be possible citizens, if their father was as well. A Spartan or Athenian full citizen would not have their children as full citizen if they hooked up with a metic woman.

Sparta is a bit of an exception, Women could own land there which was very unusual in Greece. They also had other smaller privileges like the allowance to drink wine and others. But even there women been no citizens. Also girls had access to physical training.
In Athens women been farther away from citizenship than the average male slave.
No rights to own something (bar some personal possesions which go the the male if she dies), no right to inherit no acess to public functions bar temples, no voting, no education no nothing.

 

[BaronNoir]

Without nitpicking, a key point of Sparta was that in theory it was impossible to sell land-proper Spartan had a kleros, but did not really owned it. But to use Aristotle own words..

For the lawgiver made it dishonorable to sell a family's existing estate, and did so rightly, but he granted liberty to alienate land at will by gift or bequest; yet the result that has happened was bound to follow in the one case as well as in the other

 

[Gurkhal]

Sparta is a bit of an exception, Women could own land there which was very unusual in Greece. They also had other smaller privileges like the allowance to drink wine and others. But even there women been no citizens. Also girls had access to physical training.
In Athens women been farther away from citizenship than the average male slave.
No rights to own something (bar some personal possesions which go the the male if she dies), no right to inherit no acess to public functions bar temples, no voting, no education no nothing.

I agree with you in that women were treated horrible in Athens but they could still be citizens even without rights as only the children of a male and female citizen could become citizens themselves.

For an example of this you can look at the trial of Neaira, when she was accused of presenting herself and her children as citizens of Athens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neaira_(hetaera)#Trial

 

[BaronNoir]

As Gylippus (the general who commanded the relief force to Syracuse) was accused by his peers (ZING) of having born of a helot mother, that case of figure was presumably not unheard off in Sparta (to be a ''real Spartan'', participating in the communal messes was truly the key point. As you had to be coopted in, Gylippus or Lysander might have received the help of a patron of some wealth. Totally not an eraste. At all.)

We can cynically say however that as Gylippus won, that issue was not pressed on.

 

[diegosimeone]

Sparta did not have an Imperial mindset. If it did, it's possible they'd dominate the Greek mainland and push Rome back if that was in their best interests. But instead, the Greeks were split up and some had allied with Romans to dominate over their fellow Greek rivals etc. This has been the case in even more ancient times and you basically rewind, play, repeat and you have the full history of Greece.

 

[diegosimeone]

Sparta is a bit of an exception, Women could own land there which was very unusual in Greece. They also had other smaller privileges like the allowance to drink wine and others. But even there women been no citizens. Also girls had access to physical training.
In Athens women been farther away from citizenship than the average male slave.
No rights to own something (bar some personal possesions which go the the male if she dies), no right to inherit no acess to public functions bar temples, no voting, no education no nothing.

The Athenian Agora (market) was mostyl run by [wealthy] women actually. The other women of course mostly had to run their households but they were also the customers of the Agora. The exaggerations about being compared to slaves has no basis. Women of Athens were outside their homes for the majority of the day. And women in other Greek parts were considered better off than the Athenian ones.

As for metics, it didn't really matter if you were male or female. If anything, it was more economical being a female metic in Athens. They also participated in the Agora, be it males or females.


Sparta on the other hand has always been more socially liberal and women enjoyed many rights that were probably ignored by civilization for over a millenia.

 

[Yakman]

Sparta did not have an Imperial mindset. If it did, it's possible they'd dominate the Greek mainland and push Rome back if that was in their best interests. But instead, the Greeks were split up and some had allied with Romans to dominate over their fellow Greek rivals etc. This has been the case in even more ancient times and you basically rewind, play, repeat and you have the full history of Greece.

Sparta's military prowess, while formidable, is always overplayed by the usual suspects. They weren't supermen - they lost many battles.

Moreover, Sparta's entire governing structure - which allowed for that formidable reputation - stunted any pretense of imperial ambition. They didn't MAKE anything, and they weren't strong enough to dominate even the Peloponnese.