Talk:Sparta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Greece / Athens  (Rated C-Class, Top-importance)
Akropolis-detail.jpg
Greece portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Acropolis from south-west.jpg
 This article is supported by the Athens task force.
Nuvola apps kedit.png
 This article is currently undergoing a peer review.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
1868 Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Phidias Showing the Frieze of the Parthenon to his Friends.jpg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Former Countries (Rated C-Class)
OrteliusWorldMap.jpeg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
WikiProject Timeline Tracer
WPTracer1.jpg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Timeline Tracer, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's articles in:
  • Accuracy of the Chronology of references
  • Accuracy of historical or cultural heritage and lineage claims of modern religions, movements, organizations, groups and societies
  • Accurate and sufficient sources for chronology/history verification.
Please read why this is important and what you can do to help.		 WPtimetracer.png
WikiProject Echo      (French)
Other languages square icon.svg Sparta is a featured article on the French Wikipedia. You may be able to improve the article on this project by drawing content, media or references from that article. To get involved with featured articles in other languages, visit WikiProject Echo or its discussion page.

Contents

[edit] Major edit

I have been carrying out my much-promised major edit. The article has been reorganised into what I hope is a more logical shape; much excessive detail has been cut, much repetition has been trimmed, and references have been included to as many and as up-to-date sources as I could manage. There is still a long way to go in terms of style. Much of what I have added was written on the fly and I'm sure my English can be improved greatly. Many sections are largely unreferenced, although I don't suppose it would be very difficult to provide references. The monster section on the Spartan Constitution, along with its diagram, has been hived off into an article of its own (many thanks to Publius97 for giving me permission to do this) and I have condensed it down to as laconic a version as I can manage. There is precious little material on Medieval or Modern Sparta, because I don't have much on the subject. I hope LuxNevada will be happy with my treatment of the theme of Helots; I did after all manage to find a modern author who described the Apothetae as a form of eugenics, and I'm sure he will be surprised to learn that it was Paul Cartledge. I have left the Eugenics section because I promised I wouldn't cut it if, in the next 24 hours, I could be given a good reason why it should stay, redundant as it now is.

Hopefully this article will now be more susceptible to sensible, piecemeal editing, at least for a while. My congratulations to all the people who provided such a mass of good material; what would be great, now, would be if you could provide references for it...

My apologies for leaving this task for so long and I hope some of you are pleased with the result. Needless to say, if you have improvements to make, make them. We will never be finished editing this article but at least it's better organised than it was. Lexo (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just realised that I have forgotten to do one important section: something on the "Spartan Mirage", with reference to Laconophilia. That's more of a job for someone who takes an interest in such things. I am happier reading history books than I am at assessing things like "cultural significance". Lexo (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
More issues: the historical section is not very clear, particularly on the causes of the Peloponnesian War, which just seems to have happened according to this article. There were multiple historical sections in the original article and I just chose the best one, but it still could be clearer. The History of Sparta article has what I consider the serious blemish of being mostly cribbed from the 1911 Britannica. Lexo (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Helot dispute

LuxNevada, I am bringing this dispute onto the talk page because I am now convinced that you want an edit war. You have persistently restored a section which repeats material that's already in the article, and your "without fear of blood or guilt" sentences keep showing up in the introduction where I am convinced they do not belong. At the very least, please stop restoring material to the article that is already in the article. Lexo (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I include this to show that I do take issue with your points. The closest you have come to a substantial criticism of my main source, Paul Cartledge, is this, and it's not IMO very close: "I really think Cartledge is sometimes beyond stupid, like his comparison of Leonidas with the 9/11 hijackers. He writes pop history to create juvenile fantasies, as stupid as the movie 300 he was a consultant for." I assume you are referring to the passages from his book Thermopylae, where on p. 129 he discusses "suicide/homicide in the name of a higher cause" and p.202 where he says that "...the Spartans' behaviour s Thermopylae in 480 raises sharply the contested issue of ideologically motivated suicide". Please explain to me how this is "beyond stupid". Do you dispute that the 9/11 hijackers committed ideologically motivated suicide? Do you dispute that the Spartans did so too, at Thermopylae? If so, how can you defend your charge? Your grammar is extremely sloppy, as in "He writes pop history to create juvenile fantasies [...]"; are you saying that Cartledge creates juvenile fantasies, or is this a reference to 300? Cartledge didn't write that movie, and the one time that the makers actually asked him a question (about the pronounciation of Greek names) they didn't use his advice, as he observed in a newspaper article which you yourself pointed out to me. You also have a remarkable capacity for ignoring information that doesn't fit your picture of reality, such as Cartledge's final remark in that same interview:

"Nothing to add — except a caveat about black and white, 'West' (goodies) vs 'East' (baddies) polarization (taken directly from Miller's original cartoon series — he was the movie's principal consultant). It's never a good thing to do that, I think, and least of all now!"

I await your reply with interest. Lexo (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


LuxNevada, I offer you an extract from Cartledge's supposedly "juvenile" "pop history", The Spartans:

"On taking office in the autumn each new annual board of Ephors issued a proclamation to all the Spartans to 'shave their moustaches and obey the laws'. Their very next public proclamation was a declaration of war on the Helots. This was designed to place the latter under martial law and to absolve any Spartans in advance from the taint of blood-guilt should they find it necessary or desirable to kill a Helot (as the members of the Crypteia regularly and of set purpose did)." (pp.66-67)

Very juvenile indeed - I can't believe how obvious his bias is! Seriously, I find in this passage hints of the origin of your garbled account of the Crypteia: that it was something that took place in the autumn (it was in fact the Ephors who took office every autumn; we don't know when the Crypteia went on killing sprees, Plutarch just says "from time to time" (Lyk., 28.3-5)) and it also contains the phrase "blood-guilt", which I take to be the origin of your peculiar phrase "without fear of blood or guilt". Incidentally, you criticised the phrase "ritual pollution", which I used to replace your "fear of blood or guilt", as weasel wording. It may come as a surprise that it is in Plutarch, quoting Aristotle: "And Aristole also says specifically that the ephors, when first they took up office, would declare war on the helots, so that killing them would not involve ritual pollution." (Lykourgos 28.7). It should be clear, by now, that whatever the Spartan punishment was for killing a Helot outside the artificial martial-law situation described here, it was something called "ritual pollution" and not, say, death by execution. If you have the Greek text of Plutarch, perhaps you can look it up and tell us what the original phrase is. I'd do it myself but I don't have Plutarch in Greek - not the Lykourgos, anyway. Lexo (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it you have seen these translations?
"... in order that there might be no impiety in slaying them."
"... that they might be massacred without a breach of religion."
"... that they might be massacred under pretence of law."
  • Op. cit., translated by John and William Langhorne, 1834.
I'm looking for the Greek online. Slim chance I expect, please consider helping WikiSource with original language texts if ever you find the inclination.
The first translation looks like "formal equivalence" to me, and the others paraphrases. But what a ridiculous thing for me to say without seeing the original! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
PS I've given up on finding the Greek. Perseus has Greek for several other lives, but not Lykourgos.
ORIGINAL TEXT. First edition, Florence, August, 1517; later editions, Schaefer. 1812-18, 1820-21, 1825-30; Sintenis, 1839-46, 1884-88; Doehner, 1846-55; Bekker, 1855-57.
Alastair Haines (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
PPS I think I've found something: Lycurgus.zip.
Eureka! ... ὅπως εὐαγὲς ᾖ τὸ ἀνελεῖν. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Lexo, you are welcome to continue with your fascination for Cartledge as a serious historian, however don't expect me to be converted. As I have mentioned before, someone like Cartledge who believes Thermopylae "changed the world" is a "fan", not a serious unbiased historian. However you argue the matter, an objective analysis will show that removing the information about the treatment of Helots in the introduction is an attempt to whitewash the nature of the Spartan state. The information about Helots indeed belongs to the introduction, no matter how many times you say it is "misplaced". As for Hitler's admiration from Sparta, that of course is important. It is ironic that you find it okay to have the bit about Sparta continuing to fascinate the West in the introduction, but keep insisting on the removal of a very prominent admirer of Sparta. As for the section on Eugenics, if another editor (who apparently hasn't heard the word eugenics before) thinks it should be renamed "child selection", so be it. LuxNevada (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello friends, how are you going? Is it just the two of you or is there room for another ancient history fan to join in? I don't know all that much, but I do know some ancient Greek. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Alistair, welcome! Feel free to join in. I think a new opinion will do this article good. LuxNevada (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little worried that I will have nothing to offer unless I borrow a copy of Cartledge!
Don't answer that comment! ;)
I'll start by reading and learning, praising the good work that's been done, then I'll expose my ignorance by asking some questions, if that's OK.
<enters time machine and is transported to ancient Greece by the work of wiki editors> Alastair Haines (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Cartledge??!! *gags*
I guess gagging isn't a comment, hah hah... enjoy your trip. You will probably find many related articles in Wiki itself with references for your adventure LuxNevada (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
LoL, you know Faulty Towers? "I mentioned the war, but I think I got away with it."
But back to my promise.
Preliminary report: the prose up to and including all the History section reads like a dream! So smooth and clear, full of info and interest, logical flow, with lots of footnotes making me feel very safe. I've got to dash right now, but I'll be back. Looking forward to the next episode! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've read the Society section now. I'm learning a lot, finding the text of a uniformly excellent standard, though I'm noting very minor repetition of material. I briefly contemplated what it might have been like to be a helot, got too scared and read on. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you can empathize with the Helots. That is kind of the point I am making. The lot of the Helots doesn't get much mention when people talk of Sparta, and that is not the way it should be. Thanks, LuxNevada (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant! I not only sympathise with such editorial discretion, I think we could defend it as more balanced historical treatment. I'm mainly here as a cheer squad, I'm afraid. Writing is such hard work, and so needs support, that I put my own on hold often to enjoy benefitting from others'. I owe you more feedback. Sorry for my tardiness. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize for any tardiness, I am worse! Also the benefit of a "cheer squad" is immense, gives me the encouragement to keep go.LuxNevada (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
LuxNevada, I see that in spite of the above material, you restored that bit about "without fear of blood or guilt" to the intro. I am, by now, extremely tired of your prejudice about Cartledge, which so far as I can see is based on nothing but ignorance of his work. You do not want to discuss this matter, you just want to see your sentences in the intro. Lexo (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, you seem to object, above, to the assertion that Sparta continues to fascinate the West. It fascinates you, me, the people who made "300", the people who made "Meet the Spartans", and it fascinates the nutcases who regularly replace bits of this article with "THIS IS SPARTA!" To be fascinated by something doesn't mean that you endorse it. I am fascinated by Nazi Germany but I hate how it behaved.
The reason I have not posted anything here lately, in case you were wondering, is that I find it inexpressibly depressing to go on having the same argument with someone who only ever makes the same reply over and over and over and over and over again: "this sentence belongs in the intro". Lexo (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Lexo! :) We haven't met yet, how do you do? I seem to have stepped in between the Persian and Greek battle-lines here. Is it a private matter? Should I choose a side? Or might there be some assistance I could offer to bring you two scholars to peace? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Alastair, nice to meet you. I think it would be better for everyone concerned if you didn't take sides in the dispute between myself and LuxNevada; perhaps the most helpful thing you could do would be to determine from an outside perspective what it's about, because I suspect that he and I would give very different accounts of it. In my view, LuxNevada keeps importing the same two sentences with the same wording into the intro of the article. The sentences are these:

Helots were the majority inhabitants of Sparta (over 80% of the population according to Herodotus). They were ritually humiliated and every autumn during the Crypteia could be killed by a Spartan citizen without fear of blood or guilt.

I question the inclusion of these sentences on several grounds: 1. They are inaccurate. The Helots, who were mostly from Messenia, did not live in Sparta itself. Sparta was the capital town of Lakonia, the greater territory under Spartan control. The Helots lived and worked in Messenia and Lakonia, under Spartan rule. Another inaccuracy is the use of the phrase "during the Crypteia", which implies that the Crypteia was some time period or festival. The exact nature of the Crypteia is murky but it was not a period of time, it was a body of Spartan youths, essentially a death squad. I do not dispute that the Crypteia (and other Spartans) killed individual Helots as a means of intimidating the rest of them, nor do I dispute that the Spartans on at least one occasion murdered two thousand Helots pour décourager les autres. 2. The last phrase, "without fear of blood or guilt", is meaningless. I don't know what "fear of blood" is supposed to be, and as I understand the Spartan legal code, the worst thing that the Spartans had to fear in terms of punishment for killing a Helot was "ritual pollution", or "breach of religion" as you state above. LuxNevada regards this as unacceptably euphemistic, no matter how accurate it is as a translation. 3. I don't think that these sentences belong in the intro to an article which is supposed to be an overview of the whole subject. The article needs much work, particularly in the area of Sparta's history since 370 BC. It is already far too much about Classical Sparta, and I am tired of being distracted from the difficult job of adding material about later periods by what I regard as a side-issue.
LuxNevada also questions the sources I have used, which have been almost entirely contemporary academic historians of ancient Greece, all of them with impeccable credentials: Paul Cartledge, Anton Powell, Simon Hopkinson, Victor Ehrenberg, etc. LuxNevada considers them and especially Cartledge as unacceptably pro-Spartan in bias, although I have never seen any evidence that s/he has actually read Cartledge's work, because s/he has only ever quoted Cartledge from two places: an interview in "USA Today" and the title of a book (which, again, s/he appears not to have read). LuxNevada also keeps saying things along the lines of "There must be less biased historians out there" but has never come up with the name of a single one, presumably because s/he doesn't know how unbiased the historians I have mentioned actually are.
LuxNevada's perspective is, I think, that I want to conceal the shocking and nasty truth about Sparta which at long last ought to be told, as if it hasn't been in the public domain for a couple of thousand years already.
What I think has happened is that LuxNevada is now in a position where I have repeatedly shown that the sentences s/he wants to insert are arguably inappropriate and certainly inaccurate, but pride forbids him/her from backing down. The strange thing is that both LuxNevada and I agree that the Spartans treated the Helots with extreme brutality and cynicism. The difference as I see it is that LuxNevada doesn't know anything else about the Spartans, and his/her dislike of the Spartans is colouring his/her judgment. But that's a subjective point of view.
Oh yeah, one last thing: I write really long replies. Sorry. Cheers - Lexo (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of freedom of speech is freedom to take as long as you need to say what you have to say, and that's what talk pages are for. Thank you for a full and frank explanation of your perspective on a challenge I'm confident you and LuxNevada will successfully negotiate.
Perhaps you could confirm I've understood you correctly, and Lux could also let me know if I'm missing the point.
I think I'm hearing a major issue (1) a minor issue (2) and two very particular points (3) and (4).
  1. What prominence should the Helots have in an encyclopedia article on Sparta?
  2. Are Cartledge et al. reliable, but only so far as a particular POV (especially on the above) allows them to go?
  3. Is the particular phrase "fear of blood or guilt" more a neat paraphrase, or more an unclear and free rendering?
  4. Was the Krypteia a (not-so) "secret society" (cf KKK) of elitist bloodthirsty Spartan youths (per Plutarch), or (by synechdoche) a name for the season of their "sport", or both?
I've listed these in decreasing order of "openness". The first has considerable room for editorial discretion (if only editors can agree); but the last should be able to be decided by sources, I would hope.
Back to you two. I suspect each of you has slightly different things to contribute at the article, which should leave space for co-operation, drawing on one another's differing strengths, if only we can turn the current hurdle into an opportunity for mutual respect rather than conflict.
Man, I hope I don't get shot at by both sides now. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) Hello again Alistair, thanks for your input. I find the points you list well considered.

  1. What prominence should the Helots have in an encyclopedia article on Sparta? This indeed is the heart of the matter. I believe that the condition of 80%+ of the population needs prominence. At the very least equal time compared to all the other information about how Sparta won this war, or that battle.
  1. Are Cartledge et al. reliable, but only so far as a particular POV (especially on the above) allows them to go? My point is Cartledge is only one of hundreds, or thousands of historians who have researched Sparta. The article simply gives him too much time. If you look at the text of the article (the version that shows up when editing), the word Cartledge occurs 29 times, far more than any other historian. Even more than an original source like Plutarch (13 times). Personally I think Cartledge is a teenage boy's fantasy creator with his "consulting" for 300, and hype about Thermopylae ("changed the world").
  1. Is the particular phrase "fear of blood or guilt" more a neat paraphrase, or more an unclear and free rendering? I am quite open to different wording. I think something like "without any legal consequences" or "without prosecution or any other legal repercussions" may be more suitable.
  1. Was the Krypteia a (not-so) "secret society" (cf KKK) of elitist bloodthirsty Spartan youths (per Plutarch), or (by synechdoche) a name for the season of their "sport", or both? I am open to different answers to this one.

And Lexo, claiming that information about Helots should not be present because they did not live in the city Sparta is a cop-out. If you want it can easily be changed to "area ruled by Sparta" or whatever. Obviously the article is about the Sparta the state, not a geographical description confined to the city.

Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, both of you are making sense to me. I think I'm hearing willingness from both parties to settle things, and openness from Lux on a couple of specific issues, while holding gound on an important one. I guess it's Lexo's turn to move us further forwards. I can easily like each of you and respect your opinions. I do hope you get a touch of that for one another. You'll be needing it if you stay "trapped" in the same namespace together for a while. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alasdair, thanks for being a moderator and thanks also to LuxNevada for agreeing to discuss this, instead of just headbutt each other.
Point 1: I really feel like I have to point out that this is not an article on Classical Sparta. This is essentially the introduction and hub of a whole bunch of articles, some of which have not yet been written, about Prehistoric Sparta, Classical Sparta, Hellenistic Sparta, Roman Sparta, the (Classical) Spartan Army, the Spartan constitution, Women in Classical Sparta, Medieval Sparta, Modern Sparte, etc. The Helots deserve a large amount of space in any article on Classical Sparta. But this isn't that article. This is the general overview article. The Helots already have a lot of space in this article. I do not think that the proposed sentences improve the introduction: I think they make it unacceptably non-NPOV. The treatment of the Helots is already alluded to in the intro - anything more, and the intro will start to look, in my view, pro-Helot and anti-Spartan. I do not admire the way the Spartans treated the Helots, but there is a point to WP:NPOV and it is a point about the effort to be objective.
Point 2: The statement that Cartledge is "only one of hundreds, or thousands of historians who have researched Sparta" is very much like saying that Ian Kershaw is only one of many thousands of historians researching the Third Reich. I cannot help the all-too-obvious fact that LuxNevada is utterly ignorant of Cartledge's status in the world of classical studies, and that of the many serious works of scholarship that Cartledge has produced, LuxNevada's acquaintance with his work is confined to a newspaper interview which LuxNevada thought silly and a book title that LuxNevada objects to. Based on the LuxNevada's apparent total ignorance of Cartledge's work, I don't personally believe that LuxNevada is entitled to an opinion about Cartledge as a historian. Classical studies are a far more complex and difficult subject than LuxNevada appears to think; it is very risky indeed to simply quote ancient sources as if they were the plain and simple truth, because many of them demonstrably aren't. I have repeatedly invited LuxNevada to cite the supposed flock of historians who have a radically different take on Sparta than Cartledge's: s/he has never done so. Why?
Point 3: My point about "ritual pollution" as against "legal consequences" is a somewhat complex one. LuxNevada wants to make the point that the institution of the Crypteia, along with other things (such as the Ephors waging war on the Helots every year) enabled the Spartans to kill Helots without the risk of legal consequences. But my point is that, if the Ephors had not waged war on the Helots every year, any Spartan who killed a Helot would not have had to face any "legal consequences" in any modern sense of the phrase. The Spartans were very pious and did not like to do anything that they thought would offend their gods; "ritual pollution" was a more scary prospect for a Spartan than LuxNevada appears to believe. It should be noted that the Spartans' evident piety is in no way consistent with their cynical exploitation of said piety in declaring war on the Helots every year so that they could subjugate and exploit them with a clear conscience.
Point 4: Re the Crypteia: could LuxNevada please look up a history book and find out something about what we currently think the Crpyteia was? Do I have to do all the research myself? Or is the problem that the standard history books on Sparta are nearly all written by Paul Cartledge? As long as LuxNevada is unwilling to actually read a modern history book about ancient Sparta, we will have to deal with LuxNevada's irrational and baseless prejudice against the standard modern authority on the subject. LuxNevada's comparison of the Crpyteia with the KKK is, to me, yet more evidence of LuxNevada's ignorance of the subject. The Crypteia was nothing like the KKK - it would be more appropriate, but still wrong, to compare it to the SD.
To sum up: I would very much prefer not to include the sentences in the intro with slightly altered wording. I will still feel that the intro is the worse off for including them. I have tried to rephrase them and have experimented with including altered versions of them, but I do not think that they improve the article. Lexo (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It was stupid me not Lux that made the clumsy KKK analogy, and I only made it for the silly reason it alliterates with Krypteia. Woopsy! ;)
But seriously, it is time for me to jump in here and get "in between" like a mediator should. My rational mind hears lots of credible, well argued points from Lexo. BUT, and it's a big but, my heart flinches if I imagine myself in Lux' shoes.
To spare Lux from self-defence and to be more kindly towards Lexo than Lux might want to be, can I ask Lexo to admit the emotion of frustration and plead guilty (without punishment) for slipping in some unnecessary jabs at another editor.
Perhaps Lexo could consider striking the following as a demonstration of willingness to drop past frustration.
"LuxNevada is utterly ignorant"
"LuxNevada's apparent total ignorance" — better than above but not much ;)
"Classical studies are a far more complex and difficult subject than LuxNevada appears to think"
"could LuxNevada please look up a history book"
"Do I have to do all the research myself?"
"As long as LuxNevada is unwilling to actually read a modern history book about ancient Sparta"
"LuxNevada's irrational and baseless prejudice"
But to conclude more positively, thanks Lexo for being very clear on specific content issues, and for making a proposal.
I do have some views of my own developing, but I will hold my peace for the time being. You two are far more committed to this article than I, and have all the expertise between you to work out what is best without me. I am just crossing my fingers that Lux doesn't hit back with scorching flames as I would be dearly tempted to do in this situation. Some moderation of your own post might help a lot here Lexo. I hear and understand your frustration, and will admire you for swallowing it for the sake of building a viable working relationship into the future.
For the article to end up stable, future editors will need to line up behind what ever decisions have been taken in the past. Part of our discussion here does need to think about what will be the state of things in 10 years time, when all of us have moved on. Subpages sounds cool, workable and likely and may help us think "outside the box".
Hmmm, what do you want to say Lux, or maybe it's better you don't say that. ;) I really liked your last post, targeted right at content rather than personalities, perhaps it's only fair you express some disappointment regarding personal comments. You're more iron-skinned than I if they simply pass you by. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Alistair, thanks for your posts. Yes, Lexo does resort to a lot of personal attacks that I have consistently ignored. He has apologized earlier [[1]]. I can find no substantive reason for comments he makes alleging my ignorance ("Classical studies are a far more complex and difficult subject than LuxNevada appears to think", "As long as LuxNevada is unwilling to actually read a modern history book about ancient Sparta" etc.) other than the fact that I don't agree with him. If he was to refute my arguments with facts and cites I would be quite willing to acknowledge his superiority in this matter, but that is not how he proceeds. My points remains the same, that the lot of the Helots should not be hidden from anyone seeking information about Sparta. As the major inhabitants of the area ruled by Sparta, their condition is indeed important information, and an important aspect of the nature of the Spartan state. If Lexo believes that this position reveals my ignorance about Sparta, he will have to provide better arguments than he has done till now. Also Lexo believes that his visit to Auschwitz, the ethnicity of names he saw on suitcases, and the ethnicity of his wife are somehow relevant to this discussion [[2]], not something I can agree with. I think the way to have the best Wiki article is to stick to the facts rather than letting in personal issues. Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You are an excellent example to me personally Lux. Sometimes I respond too quickly to people's expressions of frustration with me. Letting things pass is a very helpful thing. With your permission, I'll ignore that side of things now. It also allows me to conceed your hyperbole regarding Carthage? ;)
Friends, I think the way forward needs Lux to be open on the poetic, but questionable "blood or guilt" thing, and regarding the Crypteia. But I've heard that openness already! Yay! There's a case to be made for those views, but Lexo seems to have a stronger case.
I think both parties need to be more open regarding Cartledge. From your average reader's perspective, and from Wiki's he is a reliable source, but only one reliable source. Lexo is wise to cite additional sources where POV is raised as an issue, but Lux needs to accept that every POV, including Cartledge and Co. has a place at Wiki. It is the nature of the NPOV that we will always include POVs that are deficient or even wrong, but because a sufficiently large body of reasonable people have proposed them.
What would also really help is a source that does integrate the Helots into historical discussion. In fact, I suspect even Cartledge does this. A history of Sparta mainly means the political entity, and naturally "favours" those eligable, as citizens, to be part of the political process, but this cannot be divorced from the society that is governed, including its slaves and migrant populations—the polis served by the politicians. Additionally, a geographical sense of Sparta is somewhat relevant—the jurisdiction of the politicians, its natural resources, changing boundaries, defensive fortifications, neighbouring villages, ports and so on.
The first and conventionally most important definition above does exclude the Helots to a large extent, but the latter two unquestionably include them. It is not our place at Wiki to bring a radical new "Marxist" reading of Spartan history, but nor is it our place to be stuffy, precise and narrow in a political definition of what constitutes the history of Sparta.
I read Lexo as being honourable, wise, and careful in protecting the conventional approach to the history of Sparta, and that is to be commended. But I also read Lux as being honourable, realistic, and responsible in defending a "common sense" inclusion of a significant social issue regarding Sparta. The Spartan fear of Helot rebellion was very real and long lasting.
Do the Helots have a place in this article? Surely the answer is yes. How big? Well, give them a section of their own, once that is bigger than the rest of the article, start a new article on The Helots in Spartan society or Sparta: the issue of the Helots. Some diologue needs to happen with the Helot article too. Certainly, this article is about Sparta, the Helots have their own article, where the "political elite" have no special article but this one.
The discussion between Lexo and Lux on this topic is an important one. It doesn't have a fixed and permanent right or wrong answer, but it does have broad guidelines. It will be served best if both parties realised that their difference of opinion reflects a difference the broader community would share—both views are reasonable, both should be heard, and in this case it is a matter of balance—how far along the line of "no reference to Helots" through to "Helots refered to at every point" should this article lie? Well, it probably depends on each section, and exclusion of the Helots from the lead altogether would seem somewhat extreme.
OK, shoot me down guys. You are both more expert than me on this topic. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I accept that I can be short-tempered and that I sometimes resort to making stupid and ill-judged personal comments that do not help the article. I apologise to LuxNevada for any offence that any of my comments have caused, and I acknowledge that I probably intended the offence at the time (because I can be a very petty human being), and that such comments of mine were non-productive and unhelpful, and unlikely to resolve the issues that are still ongoing between Lux and me. I would not like to be told that I am ignorant of the subject of an article that I presumed to edit. Lexo (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, I object most strongly to this statement by Lux: "Also Lexo believes that his visit to Auschwitz, the ethnicity of names he saw on suitcases, and the ethnicity of his wife are somehow relevant to this discussion, not something I can agree with. I think the way to have the best Wiki article is to stick to the facts rather than letting in personal issues." I made my comments on these issues on Lux's talk page, as a response to Lux's continuing insistence that I am somehow trying to "whitewash" this article's coverage of Sparta. I was trying to make the point that I am not personally sympathetic to the kind of government that Classical Sparta represented. Lux appears to be unwilling to believe this. Lexo (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally: Lux, can you quote me a single paragraph from any of Paul Cartledge's books, just by way of demonstrating that you have actually read them? Lexo (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Woops. Three posts from Lexo. #1 Brilliant self-flogging, very helpful. ;) #2 Fair comment about a Lux slipping in a blow that should remain off this talk page. I might have misread Lux, but I think Lux would provide a reciprocal self-flogging on that point. #3 Yikes! It almost undoes the brilliant work of the first post.
Friends, we don't have to prove our social morality to one another, nor our intellectual credentials. Even if Lux has read no more than the title of a Cartledge book and a news report, it doesn't alter the fact that Lux' request for a bit of serious treatment regarding the Helots is just a common-sense observation. Perhaps Lux wants more than the average person would, perhaps Lexo wants less than the average person might. We don't need three doctorates in Classical Sparta to settle that issue. Does that make sense? Some things are matters of historical debate, others are genuinely matters of editorial discretion, and that discretion can often benefit even from amateurs like most of us here at Wiki are.
Enough from me, you two are doing well, and will see it more clearly if I get out of your way for a bit. ... but I will be watching. muah ha ha ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) Lexo, the problem for me is that you make this too personal. Besides repeatedly alleging that I am ignorant about Sparta, you accuse me of the same behavior, you write "I would not like to be told that I am ignorant of the subject of an article that I presumed to edit." Show me just one sentence from me, just one in the thousands of words I have written, where I have said you are ignorant about the subject. You are obviously literate and have spent time studying this matter, however that does not mean that those who disagree with you are ignorant. My quibble with you is I regard the information about Helots important and the placement of that information, not our relative knowledge of the subject.

As for "proving" that I have indeed read Cartledge, oh well... the book I currently have handy is "Sparta and Lakonia 2E" which in page 119 has "It is of course hazardous to correct Herodotus from later sources, but it is reasonable to supplement him in such matter as diplomatics and constitutional history in which he displays distressingly little interest." etc. etc...

Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, thanks again for your posts. I think you get to the heart of the matter when you write "in this case it is a matter of balance—how far along the line of "no reference to Helots" through to "Helots refered to at every point" should this article lie?" Currently the introduction has about 160 words. I am willing to let Lexo have all those 160 words, to provide information about Sparta as he sees fit. In return I would like to have 40 words in the introduction. Seems to me that 20% of the introduction to talk about 80% of the population is not excessive.

Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Three cheers for both of you. In between parting shots, I'm hearing proposals and deals.
Lux, I think Lexo managed the classsic foot-shooting by "I would not like to be told that I am ignorant".
In the original context, it was part of showing empathy for what has been inflicted upon you several times.
Please have another look at the words, I think they were meant sincerely. Note also "I can be a very petty human being".
Quoting Cartledge is a great concession by Lux to Lexo. My personality would be inclined to refuse that sort of request (even if I could comply) simply on principle.
Above, you give almost everything that is asked of you, take insults graciously and only ask for 40 words in the introduction.
I believe Wikipedia should encourage the "asking nicely" for changes very strongly indeed. Sometimes the "asking nicely" is more important than an edit itself. Wikipedia is a "living" text. It is written by people locked in the same rooms with one another. We edit one another as much as the text, and should treat one another with the same respect.
I think a nice way forward might be for Lexo to assist in making 40 words (give or take) regarding Sparta in the intro be as "bullet-proof" as possible, finding ways of saying "some of these words will get shot by people in future" nice and co-operatively, rather than shooting Lux (or his own feet) in the process.
Take aim carefully here please Lexo. Please hit me rather than yourself or Lux when you shoot off your reply. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if Lexo has dropped out of this discussion. I will wait for a couple of days before adding my 2 (0 per) cents to the article. LuxNevada (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Very cleverly put, Lux. :) Please don't push the 20% too hard, though. If I were you, I'd aim at up to even 50 carefully chosen words aimed at not "upstaging" the mainstream political understanding of Spartan society. I'd also steel yourself to be willing for the lead to be extended above or around your summary of the place of the Helots, without badgering that 20% be some kind of set-in-concrete entitlement. Additionally, refinement, rather than radical censorship of the Helot portion of the lead should probably be met with equanimity (nice word). I trust you to do all these things well, and trust Lexo to "keep you honest". I think my part may be over if you two end up being able to be comfortable from here. I've got some other fish to fry, but I'll be watching the page to assist if I can at any point in the future. Feel free to hit the "talk" link next to my name if either of you'd ever care to involve me again in future. But feel free to seek someone else to help you over any future "challenges" instead. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Alistair, thanks for your posts. I wish you well with your editing, and if you feel I can contribute to any of the pages of interest to you, leave something on my talk page. LuxNevada (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
How nice of you. :) Many of my interests are arcane, and so I don't trouble people to pursue my interests (4Q108, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3035, List of New Testament papyri and so on). A few involve politics more or less directly (Popper and After and my current project Educating Eve), and I don't like dragging friends into that. However, you and I share an interest in ancient history, especially social history of classical times. Rest assured that I know you to be an insightful editor on these things, and one with sufficient passion to be diligent in documenting them. I think it quite probable that at some point I will be needing and seeking your assistance, and will (gently) hold you to your promise. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Were Helots really considered Spartan?

This sentence in the opening paragraph all free Spartan males were full-time soldiers, unskilled labour was performed by a much larger, heavily subjigated slave population known as Helots does not appear correct to me. It appears to say that Helots were considered Spartans, though not free. Spartans would never consider Helots on a par with themselves, therefore, they would not be considered Spartan. Also, weren't "free Spartans" the only ones to be Spartan citizens? Perhaps it could be rephrased as "all male citizens of Sparta were full-time soldiers"? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • It should be all hereditary male citizens that qualified for military duty were full-time soldiers, as not all male citizens were able to succeed at the initiatives of military training.Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


I suspect that Sparta had debt slavery for citizens, like many other ancient societies. It is quite possible that it did not, and quite possible that an obligation of military service would still devolve on debtors—an obligation to state overriding an obligation to creditor. In some societies, warfare would provide the possibility of escaping debt, the state might "write off" debts in a time of military crisis. In others, military service might be more or less voluntary, unless under some kind of sanction for debt or for crime. Even if any of my (educated) guesses here are true, they could still all be pretty much WP:UNDUE. It seems likely that most Spartan men were free and permanently "at call" for military service. I'm not entirely sure how different the social structure is to feudalism, where part of the concept of peasants providing the fruits of their labour to feudal lords was justified by these lords having previously served in arms to defend the lands being worked by the peasants, and being available (as a generally liesured class) to do so at any time as required.
After that long discursus, I agree, the word free seems to be one worth deleting from the text, unless it can be demonstrated that a sizable proportion of male citizens were not free at any point in Spartan history. As for Helots being Spartan, in a legal sense they were not, to be Spartan was to belong to the bloodline of the ruling class. Helot was not a name for inferior Spartans, it was a name for people who were not Spartan. However, that way of conceptualising society is not scientific or historical. In ordinary usage, English would term permanent residents (especially generational ones like the Helots) as Spartan. There are plenty of other precedents for this. There were huge numbers of slaves in Rome (and Athens, but especially Rome). Most historians do intend mainly citizens when using generic references like Roman, Athenian or Spartan; however, it seems that they do not always feel the need to make a sharp distinction. The distinction was sharper in Sparta, though, and writing about the Spartans is always vulnerable to some lack of clarity unless the situation is delineated clearly.
Sorry for such a rave, especially without sources, and even more so when I am certainly not an expert. But this matter has been a little touchy recently. I hope I'm helping keep a lid on that, rather than confusing things again. Your further thoughts would be very welcome Titch, just so there's more of us discussing things and keeping pressure off personal disagreements. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I am okay with the phrasing "all male citizens of Sparta were full-time soldiers". Generally when we say Spartans, we mean Spartan citizens, even though Helots lived for generations in the area ruled by Sparta. In a similar vein when we say Americans in early America, we generally think of European immigrants rather than slaves brought from Africa. Which is not to say of course, that the slaves should be valued any less by history. That was my reasoning in wanting to give Helots the right amount of prominence.
I also agree with Alistair that the word "free" should be deleted. I would like the phrase "heavily subjugated" deleted too, it seems to be close to WP:OR, and redundant too! Generally we don't expect slaves to be treated with kid gloves. Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing quite so good as a good analogy to make a point. Precisely! We do this in Australia all the time. The indigenous people—aborigines or Koori—are often simply not on view in statements regarding Australian history. We can't retrospectively take up a "Free Helots!" cause, but sometimes precision requires us to acknowledge them in the context of describing Sparta. I'll shut up, you said it perfectly Lux. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Helots were not Spartans. They were conquered locals against whom Sparta was in constant state of war (so that they could actually be justified to kill them at will). There were other Lacedaemonian populations too, conquered by the Spartans, which were not considered Helots. GK1973 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] First Image

The map which shows Sparta's territory is in French. I know some French, but it's not appropriate for an article in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 06:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)-> im cole

[edit] Spartans vs Spartiates

Under Classical Sparta, it says 'In 480 BC a small force of Spartans, Thespians, and Thebans led by King Leonidas (approximately 300 were full Spartiates, 700 were Thespians, and 400 were Thebans...' and only later does it link to the Spartiate article. I suggest an explanation in the Names section since it already exists. If not, it would be useful to link Spartiate the first time it occurs. Thanks! Wetenschap (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Persia and the Spartan Hegemony

By the end of the 5th century BC it stood out as a state which had defeated at war the Athenian Empire and had invaded Persia, a period which marks the Spartan Hegemony. This seems deceptive to me: it implies the Spartans had authority over the Persians. In 401 Sparta sent an army into Asia Minor then a part of the Persian Empire, but over a thousand miles from Persia, to aid a rebellion of several Ionian cities. The Spartan army was forced to withdraw seven years later. So instead of invaded Persia invaded the Persian province of Lydia.

After a few more years of fighting, the Peace of Antalcidas was established, according to which all Greek cities of Ionia would remain independent... This is just wrong. This treaty solidified the Persian position in Asia Minor and insured a weakened dis-unified Greece on its north western border. Essentially Sparta had what it possessed before the Persian wars and Persia had its empire extending from Thrace east to Bactria south to the Indus River and back west to Egypt and Libya. All the Greek cities in Asia Minor and the island Cyprus were ceded to the Persians the other Greek cities were to remain independent and could not band together. Unless there is objection I'll make these changes. Nitpyck (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" part

There is a mistake in this part, it says ""Serbian Sparta" is a historical popular reference to Cetinje, Montenegro's capital",

Montenegro's capital is Podgorica. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro

Joghurt (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Joghurt

Actually, Cetinje was the capital of Montenegro, up to the Second World War. Constantine ✍ 17:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hellenistic Sparta?

I believe that there should be somewhat more written on 'Hellenistic' Sparta to justify it's heading. The period between the battle of the Granicus and the Punic Wars has (quite literally) no information: nothing on the revolt of Agis III or the more truly 'Hellenistic' aspects of Sparta (Areus' kingship, it's invasion by Pyrrhus, the reforms of Agis IV and Cleomenes III or the tyrannies of late Hellenistic Sparta). No doubt there are allusions to this period throughout, but I have no doubt that a brief summary of the developments could be placed into this section to justify it's tititulare. 92.0.120.121 (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Section removal

I've removed the section "Wife sharing":

Women, being more independent than in other Greek societies, were able to negotiate with their husbands to bring their lovers into their homes. According to Plutarch in his Life of Lycurgus, men both allowed and encouraged their wives to bear the children of other men, because of the general communal ethos which made it more important to bear many progeny for the good of the city, than to be jealously concerned with one's own family unit. However, some historians argue that this "wife sharing" was only reserved for elder males who had not yet produced an heir.<ref>Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History -page 150 by Sarah B. Pomeroy—1999, "Despite these exceptions, and despite the report about wife sharing for reproductive purposes, the Spartans, like other Greeks, were monogamous.",ISBN 0195097424</ref>

Although there is a citation at the end of the paragraph, the quote in the reference seems to disprove the paragraph. Or am I just crazy? —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

write me something about sparta and athens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.74.25 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Birth and Death - Plutarch

Checking the ref to Plutarch (Life of Lycurgus 75 AD) he does not say in the original that unwanted babies were 'thrown into a chasm on Mount Taygetos' he says (at least according my translation) that they were taken to the chasm - the implication being that they were simply left exposed there. No mention of throwing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.231.235 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sparta"