Zeus on his throne with his eagle
This article is part of the series:
Laws of Lycurgus
|List of Kings of Sparta
Apella of the Damos
Other Greek city-states • Law Portal
The helots (/, /; Ancient Greek: εἵλωτες, heílotes) were a subjugated population group that formed the main population of Laconia and Messenia (areas ruled by Sparta). Their exact status was already disputed in antiquity: according to Critias, they were "slaves to the utmost", whereas according to Pollux, they occupied a status "between free men and slaves". Tied to the land, they worked in agriculture as a majority and economically supported the Spartan citizens. They were ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered: every autumn, they could be killed by a member of the Crypteia without fear of repercussion.
- 1 Etymology
- 2 System
- 3 Treatment by Spartans
- 4 Helot revolts
- 5 See also
- 6 References
- 7 Sources
- 8 External links
Several theories exist regarding the origin of the name "helots." According to Hellanicus, the word relates to the village of Helos, in the south of Sparta. Pausanias thus states, "Its inhabitants became the first slaves of the Lacedaemonian state, and were the first to be called helots". This explanation is however not very plausible in etymological terms.
Linguists have associated the word with the root ϝελ-, wel-, as in ἁλίσκομαι, halískomai, "to be captured, to be made prisoner." In fact, some ancient authors did not consider the term ethnic, but rather an indication of servitude: Antiochus of Syracuse writes: "those of the Lacedaemonians who did not take part in the expedition were adjudged slaves and were named helots", while Theopompus (fragment 122), cited by Athenaeus (VI, 416c), states, "...and the one nation called their slaves helots and the others called them penestae..." 
"In all of these texts, the christening of the group as helots is the central and symbolic moment of their reduction to serfhood. By this name they are thus institutionally distinguished from the anonymous douloi (slaves)."
The situation is less clear in the case of the earliest helots, who, according to Theopompus, were descended from the initial Achaeans, who had been conquered by the Dorians. But then not all Achaeans were reduced to helotism: the village of Amykles, home of the Hyacinthia festival, enjoyed special status, as did others.
Contemporary authors propose alternative theories: according to Antiochus of Syracuse, helots were the Lacedaemonians who did not participate in the Messenian Wars; for Ephorus of Cyme, they were the perioeci ("dwellers in surrounding communities") from Helos, reduced to slavery after a failed revolt.
Helots and klēroi
Helots were assigned to citizens to carry out domestic work or to work on their klēroi, or portions. The klēroi, were the original divisions of Messenia after its conquest by Sparta. Various sources mention such servants accompanying this or that Spartan. Plutarch has Timaia, the wife of King Agis II, "being herself forward enough to whisper among her helot maid-servants" that the child she was expecting had been fathered by Alcibiades, and not her husband, indicating a certain level of trust. According to some authors, in the 4th century BC, citizens also used chattel-slaves for domestic purposes. However, this is disputed by others. Some helots were also servants to young Spartans during their agoge, the Spartan education; these were the μόθωνες / móthōnes (see below). Finally, helots, like slaves, could be artisans or tradesmen.
They were required to hand over a predetermined portion of their harvest (ἀποφορά / apophorá), with the helots keeping the surplus. According to Plutarch, this portion was 70 medimnoi of barley for a man, 12 for a woman, as well as a quantity of oil and wine corresponding to an amount reasonable for the needs of a warrior and his family, or a widow, respectively. The existence of the apophorá is contested by Tyrtaeus: "Secondly, though no fixed tribute was imposed on them, they used to bring the half of all the produce of their fields to Sparta.... Like asses worn by their great burdens, bringing of dire necessity to their masters the half of all the fruits the corn-land bears." Pausanias is describing the period immediately after the first Messenian War, when conditions were probably more severe.
Having paid their tribute, the helots could often live rather well; the lands of Laconia and Messenia were very fertile, and often permitted two crops per year. It seems they could enjoy some private property: in 425 BC, some helots had their own boats. A certain amount of wealth was achievable: in 223 BC, 6,000 helots purchased their freedom for 500 drachmas each, a considerable sum at the time.
Helots lived in family units and could, at least de facto, contract unions among themselves. Since helots were much less susceptible than other slaves in Greek antiquity to having their family units dispersed, they could reproduce themselves, or at least maintain their number. Probably not insignificant to begin with, their population increased in spite of the crypteia, other massacres of helots (see below), and losses in war. Simultaneously, the population of Spartiate citizens declined.
The absence of a formal census prevents an accurate assessment of the helot population, but estimates are possible. According to Herodotus, helots were seven times as numerous as Spartans during the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC. The long Peloponnesian War drained Sparta of so many of its citizens that by the time of the conspiracy of Cinadon, the beginning of the 4th century BC, only forty Peers, or citizens, could be counted in a crowd of 4000 at the agora (Xenophon, Hellenica, III, 3, 5). The total population of helots at that time, including women, is estimated as 170,000 – 224,000.
Since the helot population was not technically chattel, their population was reliant on native birth rates, as opposed to prisoners of war or purchased slaves. Helots were encouraged by the Spartans to impose a eugenics doctrine similar to that which they, themselves, practiced. This would, according to Greek beliefs of the period, ensure not only genetic but also acquired favourable characteristics be passed along to successive generations. Tempering these selective factors was the crypteia, during which the strongest and fittest helots were the primary targets of the kryptes; to select soft targets would be interpreted as a sign of weakness. This theoretically removed the strongest and most able potential rebels while keeping the general populace fit and efficient.
What is more, the Spartans used helot women to satisfy the state's human personnel needs: the 'bastards' (nothoi) born of Spartan fathers and helot women held an intermediary rank in Lacedaemonian society (cf. mothakes and mothones below) and swelled the ranks of the citizen army. It is difficult to determine whether these births were the results of voluntary liaisons (at least on the part of the father) or part of a formal state program. Girls born of such unions, serving no military purpose, were likely abandoned at birth and left to die.
According to Myron of Priene, cited by Athenaeus, the emancipation of helots was "common" (πολλάκις / pollákis). The text suggests that this is normally associated with completion of military service. The first explicit reference to this practice in regards to the helots occurs in Thucydides (IV, 26, 5). This is on the occasion of the events at Sphacteria, when Sparta had to relieve their hoplites, who were besieged on the island by the Athenians:
"The fact was, that the Lacedaemonians had made advertisement for volunteers to carry into the island ground corn, wine, cheese, and any other food useful in a siege; high prices being offered, and freedom promised to any of the helots who should succeed in doing so".
Thucydides reports that the request met with some success, and the helots got supplies through to the besieged island. He does not mention whether or not the Spartans kept their word; it is possible that some of the helots later executed were part of the Sphacterian volunteers.
The second such call came during the Theban invasion of Laconia. Xenophon in Hellenica (VI, 5, 28) states that the authorities agreed to emancipate all the helots who volunteered. He then estimates that 6,000 heeded the call, leading to some embarrassment for the Spartans.
All the same, in 424 BC, the 700 helots who served Brasidas in Chalcidice were emancipated, and they were henceforth known as the "Brasidians". It was also possible to purchase freedom, or achieve it by undergoing the traditional Spartan education. Generally, emancipated helots were referred to as "neodamodes" (νεοδαμώδεις / neodamōdeis): those who rejoined the δῆμος / dễmos (Deme) of the Perioeci.
Moses Finley underscores that the fact helots could serve as hoplites constituted a grave flaw in the system. In effect, the hoplite system was a strict method of training to ensure that discipline was maintained in the phalanx. The Spartans gained considerable reputation as hoplites, due to tactical capabilities developed through constant training. In addition to this military aspect, to be a hoplite was a key characteristic of Greek citizenship. To introduce helots to this system thus led to inevitable social conflict.
A special case: mothakes and mothones
Phylarchus mentions a class of men that were at the same time free and non-citizens: the μόθακες / mothakes, who had undergone the 'agoge, the Spartan educational system. Classical historiography recognizes that the helots comprised a large portion of these mothakes. Nevertheless, this category poses a number of problems, firstly that of vocabulary.
The classical authors used a number of terms which appear to evoke similar concepts:
- μόθακες / mothakes: a connotation of freedom, Phylarchos affirmed that they were free (eleutheroi), Claudius Aelianus (Varia Historia, 12, 43) that they could be citizens;
- μόθωνες / mothōnes: a connotation of servility, the word designates slaves born to the home;
- τρόφιμοι / trophimoi: pupils, adopted children, whom Plutarch classified among the xenoi (strangers);
- σύντροφοι / syntrophoi: literally, "they who were raised with", that is to say, milk-siblings, given by Phylarchus as equivalent to mothakes;
- παρατρέφονοι / paratrephonoi : literally, "those who were fed near you", signification rather different from the preceding (this word also applied to domestic animals).
The situation is somewhat complicated by a gloss of Hesychios of Alexandria which attests that mothakes were slave children (δοῦλοι / doũloi) raised at the same time as the children of citizens. Philologists resolve this quandary in two ways:
- they insist on reading μoθᾶνες / mothãnes, as a hapax for μόθωνες (Arnold J. Toynbee);
- the hypothesis that douloi has been interpolated by a copyist who confounded mothakes and mothônes.
In any case, the conclusion needs to be treated carefully:
- the mothônes were young servants charged with domestic tasks for young Spartans during their education (Aristotle, I, 633c), they remained slaves on reaching adulthood;
- the mothakes were an independent freeborn group of helots.
Treatment by Spartans
The helots, or rural population, had a significantly worse status. Helots were tied to the land and were officially the property of the Lacedaemonian government. As a result of at least one revolt, they were regarded with increasing suspicion and subjected to ever harsher laws. In fact, the Lacedaemonian government regularly declared war on the helots to enable quick retribution against any "unruly" helot without the tedious business of a trial.
Helots were not, however, routinely murdered or raped by the Spartiates, as some modern commentators claim and many novelists depict. No economy can function for an extended period of time on the basis of brutal coercion – certainly not an economy in which the elite is tiny in comparison with the oppressed. Sparta enjoyed the prosperity it did over hundreds of years (at the least from the 7th to the 5th century BC) because a high degree of internal harmony and a system of mutual benefit for all segments of the society had been established. It was not until the second half of the 5th century, when the Spartiate population shrank to roughly one-eighth of what it had been at the time of Thermopylae, that serious incidents of brutality against helots are reliably recorded. There is only one recorded incident of an organized mass murder of helots without due cause, and this incident resulted from a crisis in Spartiate society. In fact, the deteriorating relations between the Spartiates and the helots can be seen as both a symptom and a cause of the disintegration of archaic Spartan society.
Many of the ancient commentators who remarked on the exceptional harshness of the Spartan system not only date from this later period, but are engaged in outright political propaganda. The only Spartan source for the status of helots is the 7th-century poet Tyrtaios, who describes the helots ‘like asses exhausted under great loads to bring their masters full half the fruit their plowed land produced.’ This statement tells us two significant facts often overlooked in shock at the image. Namely, that helots only surrendered 50% of the fruits of their labor – slaves all over the rest of the ancient world surrendered 100% – and that even half the harvest was a heavy burden; i.e., Lacedaemon's agricultural land was so productive that even half the yield was a burden. The latter element is further underlined by the fact that no less than 6,000 Spartan helots were able to save up so much money from the 50% of the harvest they retained that they could pay the enormous sum of 6 Attic minas to buy their freedom in 223/222 BC.
Any discussion of helots and their lot in life must be made in the context of a world in which a functioning economy without slave labor was considered inconceivable. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were no exceptions. The status of helots is thus not fairly compared to that of Spartiates, but only to that of other unfree populations.
The helots of Lacedaemon, when compared to chattel slaves in other Greek city-states, were very privileged indeed. Chattel slaves could, as the name implies, be bought and sold. They were not allowed to live in family units, often did not know who their parents were, were not allowed to engage in any sexual activity other than that sanctioned by the master, and any offspring shared their status (that is, were automatically slaves) and belonged to the master. The master decided if a child would be allowed to live, and if so, at what age and to whom the child would be sold. Chattel slaves worked entirely for their master's benefit, and all earnings derived from their activities – whether prostitution, creating works of art, or agricultural labor – benefited the master. In Athens, slaves could be tortured in any legal suit against an Athenian citizen, because it was believed that only statements obtained by torture were valid! Helots, in contrast, could not be bought or sold. They lived in family units, knew their parents, chose their wives, and raised their own children. They retained 50% of the fruits of their labor and could sell what they did not consume on the open market, while a Spartiate who tried to extract more than his fair share from the produce of his estate was subjected to public curse. Helots could also engage in cottage industries to earn extra money, and hence helots could accumulate wealth and spend it as they pleased.
So why the revolts? The revolts probably resulted from the extension of Sparta's territory beyond the Eurotas valley into neighboring Messenia. Sparta invaded and tried to conquer Messenia. The Messenians either won this first war or were reduced to perioikoi status, since they were able to field a hoplite army half a century later, something peasants could not do. At the end of a the Second Messenian War, which the Spartans won, the Messenians were "helotized." This means they turned men who had previously been free, rich, even aristocratic, into peasants or serfs. It also means that they helotized not pre-Doric peoples, but Greeks. This explains why the terms "Messenian" and "helot" are often used interchangeably by the time of the Peloponnesian War. It explains why the Lacedaemonian government declared war on the helots, and it explains why the helots continued to revolt until they finally won their freedom, with foreign help, and re-established an independent, free Messenia in the 4th century BC. It also explains why other helots were loyal supporters of the Lacedaemonian government and could even be trusted to provide logistical support to the army. Presumably the Laconian helots were grateful for their relatively privileged status, whereas the Messenian helots resented the loss of their freedom and independence.
The Pausanias plot
Besides, they were informed that he was even intriguing with the helots; and such indeed was the fact, for he promised them freedom and citizenship if they would join him in insurrection, and would help him to carry out his plans to the end.
These intrigues did not however lead to a helot uprising; Thucydides indeed implies that Pausanias was turned in by the helots (I, 132, 5 - ...the evidence even of the helots themselves.) Perhaps the promises made by Pausanias were too generous to be believed by the helots; not even Brasidas, when he emancipated his helot volunteers, offered full citizenship.
Massacre at Taenarus
The Lacedaemonians had once raised up some helot suppliants from the temple of Poseidon at Taenarus, led them away and slain them; for which they believe the great earthquake at Sparta to have been a retribution.
This affair, recalled by the Athenians in responding to a Spartan request to exile Pericles—who was an Alcmaeonid on his mother's side—is not dated. We know only that it happened before the disastrous earthquake of 464 BC. Thucydides here is the only one to implicate the helots: Pausanias speaks rather about Lacedaemonians who had been condemned to death. Nor does the text allow us to conclude that this was a failed uprising of helots, only that there was an attempt at escape. Additionally, a helot revolt in Laconia is unlikely, and Messenians would not likely have taken refuge at Cape Taenarus.
The uprising coincident with the earthquake of 464 BC is soundly attested to, although Greek historians do not agree on the interpretation of this event.
According to Thucydides, the helots and perioeci of Thouria and Aithaia took advantage of the earthquake to revolt and establish a position on Ithome. He adds that most of the rebels were of Messenian ancestry—confirming the appeal of Ithome as a historical place of Messenian resistance—and focuses attention on the perioeci of Thouria, a city on the Messianian coast. Conversely, we can deduce that a minority of the helots were Laconian, thus making this the one and only revolt of their history. Commentators such as Stephanus of Byzantium suggest that this Aithaia was in Laconia, thus indicating a large-scale uprising in the region. The version of events given by Pausanias is similar.
Finally, some authors make responsibility for the uprising with the helots of Laconia. This is the case of Plutarch in his Life of Cimon: the helots of the Eurotas River valley want to use the earthquake to attack the Spartans whom they think are disarmed. The intervention of Archidamus II, who calls the Lacedaemonians to arms, simultaneously saves them from the earthquake and the helot attack. The helots fold, but revert to open warfare joined by the Messenians.
It is difficult to reconcile these versions. It is nevertheless clear that in any case the revolt of 464 BC represented a major traumatic event for the Spartans. Plutarch indicates that the Crypteia and other poor treatments of the helots were instituted after this revolt. If there is any doubt in these affirmations, they at least underscore the immediate Spartan reaction: allies are gathered and war ensues with the same Athens that would be faced later in the Peloponnesian War.
During the same war and after the capitulation of the Spartans besieged in Sphacteria, the Athenians installed a garrison in Pylos composed of Messenians from Naupactus. Thucydides underlines that they had hoped to exploit the patriotism of the latter in order to pacify the region. Though the Messenians may not have triggered full-blown guerrilla warfare, they nevertheless pillaged the area and encouraged helot desertion. Sparta was forced to dedicate a garrison to controlling this activity; this was the first of the ἔπιτειχισμόι / épiteikhismoi ("ramparts"), outposts planted by the Athenians in enemy territory.
The second such outpost was at Kythera. This time, the Athenians set their sights on the helots of Laconia. Again, pillaging and desertion did occur, but not on the scale hoped for by the Athenians or feared by the Spartans: there was no uprising like that which accompanied the earthquake.
- Dependent groups in Greece: the Penestae of Thessaly
- General article: Slavery in Ancient Greece
- Intermediate status in Sparta: Neodamodes, Trophimoi, Perioeci, Sciritae.
- Apud Libanios, Orationes 25, 63 = Frag. 37 DK; see also Plutarch, Li Lycurgus 28, 11.
- Pollux 3, 83. The expression probably originates in Aristophanes of Byzantium; Cartledge, p.139.
- Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus, 28, 3–7.
- Herakleides Lembos Fr. Hist. Gr. 2, 210.
- Athenaeus, 657 D.
- Hellanicos, Frag. 188 J.
- Trans. by W.H.S. Jones and H.A. Ormerod (1918), Accessed: 11 June 2006. Pausanias. Description of Greece, 3, 20, 6.
- P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, s.v. Εἵλωτες.
- Geography Trans. by H.L. Jones (1924), Accessed: 11 June 2006. Apud Strabo 6, 3, 2.
- Athenaeus of Naucratis. Yonge, C.D., Editor. The Deipnosophists, or Banquet of the Learned, of Athenæus. Accessed: 11 June 2006.
- Ducat (1990), p.7.
- Sarah B. Pomeroy et al. Ancient Greece. Oxford University Press, 1998: pp. 68 & 148.
- Plutarch. Life of Agesilaus, 3, 1.
- Lévy, p. 119.
- Plutarch. Life of Lycurgus, 8, 7 and 24, 2.
- Apud Pausanias 4, 14, 4–5.
- Lévy, pp. 120-121.
- Lévy, p.121.
- Cartledge, p.141.
- Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, 4, 26, 6.
- Plutarch. Life of Cleomeles, 23.
- Tyrtaeus, Frag. 7.
- Herodotus. Histories, 8, 28-29.
- Paul Cartledge, Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta. London: Johns Hopkins University, 1994, p. 174.
- (French) J. Tregaro, "Les bâtards spartiates" ("Spartan Bastards"), in Mélanges Pierre Lévêque, 1993.
- Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists, VI, 271F.
- Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. London, J. M. Dent; New York, E. P. Dutton. 1910. Online at the Perseus project. Accessed: 11 June 2006.
- Apud Athenaeus, 6, 271e.
- Thucydides, 1.132, 4.
- Ducat (1990), p.130.
- Thucydides, 1.128, 1.
- Pausanias, 4, 24, 5.
- Ducat (1990), p.131.
- Thucydides, 1.101, 2.
- Diodorus Siculus, 11.63, 4-64,1.
- Plutarch. Life of Lycurgus, 28, 12.
- Plutarch. Life of Cimon, 17, 8.
- Thucydides, 4.41, 2-3.
- Cartledge, Paul. Sparta and Lakonia. A Regional History 1300 to 362 BC. Routledge, New York, 2002 (2nd edn). ISBN 0-415-26276-3
- Ducat, Jean:
- (French) Finley, Moses. "Sparte et la société spartiate", Économie et société en Grèce ancienne, Seuil, "Points Histoire" collection, 1984. ISBN 2-02-014644-4
- Garlan, Yvon:
- (French) "Greek slaves in time of war", in Actes du Colloque d'histoire, Besançon, 1970
- (French) Slaves in Ancient Greece, La Découverte, coll. "Textes à l'appui" collection, Paris, 1995. ISBN 2-7071-2475-3
- (French) Lévy, Edmond. Sparte : histoire politique et sociale jusqu’à la conquête romaine. Seuil, "Points Histoire" collection, Paris, 2003. ISBN 2-02-032453-9
- Oliva, Pavel. Sparta and her Social Problems, Academia, Prague, 1971
- Pomeroy, Sarah B. Spartan Women, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002. ISBN 0-19-513067-7
- Talbert, R.J.A. "The Role of the Helots in the Class Struggle at Sparta", Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 38, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1989), p. 22-40.