Talk:Sparta/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Sparta. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I've added a references tag to this page because for such a long and significant article, there is a glaring lack of citations. As of now it contains only one note and three references. I'm also uncertain how neutral it is. Adrigon 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inserting the article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for what its worth. Someone who knows the history should review this.

For some reason, I cannot edit this article. (This seems to be the case with all very long articles. Perhaps Netscape, or at least Netscape 4.7, is incompatible with what happens to the edit window when the article exceeds a certain size.) Anyway, I wanted to insert a section at the end that several cities in the United States are named Sparta, including Sparta, Michigan, Sparta, New Jersey, Sparta, Tennessee, and Sparta, Wisconsin. If someone else can do that, please do so. -- BRG

Done. This article is long, I'll see about chopping it up later. --maveric149

History section moved to history of Sparta. --maveric149

This article features only ancient history. I wonder if modern history should go on the same page, or should the whole article be moved to a page called Ancient Sparta? Aggelophoros 02:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What? There is a current city in Greece at the same site called Sparta? If so then add info to this article about it. --mav 06:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done! Aggelophoros 08:14, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that the portions on the ancient Spartans should be moved to a page called History of Sparta. Take a look at the Athens article and see how they do it. jpbrenna

routtoves appears to be a scano of a Greek word. I suspect elattones, which means "lesser", but without a hardcopy of the 1511 I can't be sure. Can someone who has one look it up? -phma 01:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The section on "The Spartan cosmos" often switches back and forth between present and past tense. I'll change it all into past unless someone thinks there's a reason for this or it should all be in the present. Fpahl 13:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rename

I think that all the ancient history and stuff should be all be moved to its own article titled Lacedæmonia. That way things are seperate. Lacedæmonia was the ancient name and most people called it that way. How about a consensus for this? WHEELER 00:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Aggelophoros 05:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that most people actually think of Sparta as a city-state, and therefore are likely to look for that first. Obviously Lacedæmonia is more precise and might be preferred by students and academics, but I think we should bear in mind the general reader here. Also, the article makes these distinctions clear, so I don't think any confusion could result from the current arrangementLamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Athens did not rise after Sparta

I believe the article incorrectly states that Athens did not rise after Sparta. Athens was THE superpower, then Sparta's power increased. Finally the 2 powers met in the 27 year long Peloponnesian wars, of which Sparta was the victor. Following their success, Athens was subjugated by Sparta. Afew years later Athens regained their freedom, however it was mainly Thebes who ultimately brought down the Spartan leadership over Greece, under the command of Epaminondas. So I was about to correct this error, but figured I would verify with you other editors. 134.210.195.109 01:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When exactly was Athens the superpower prior to Sparta? Sparta headed the Hellenic League against the Persian because they were agreed to be the best warriors and the strongest state in Greece. They had far superior resources, ruling the fertile valleys of Laconia and Messenia, rather than the arid lands of Attica. Athens' rise, which I would place after the Persian War, was due to their naval power, which allowed them to subjugate varous islands and cities in the Delian League. Sparta's victory over Athens was largely due to the fact that they finally built a navy capable of challenging the Athenians. Rockgenie19

By any historical estimation Sparta was regarded as a dominant military power long before Athens emerged at start of the 5th century. They are regarded as militarily dominant from the 700's BC during the First Messenian War and with the subjugation of Messenia following the Second Messenian War. Additionally, as stated above, during the Greek opposition to Persia, the Spartans were the designated leaders until they were superceded by the Athenians in the 5th century. Stevenmitchell 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-Up

Most of the historical stuff in this article needs to be eliminated and instead included in History of Sparta. Sooner the better. Alexander 007 06:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sparta and nazi germany article

i created this article when i was in year 12 for an assignment, it cannot be inside the encyclopedia as it is not biased nor make no conclusions, but it is a very good look at how each seem simila

User:Whatsup_will

--Whatsup will 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Spartan Facts

First, women (or so I heard) held 40% the land, whence the greater freedom & political power. 2d, (as far as I saw) the article said nothing to the reasons for Sparta's decline. I'd answer that but, having written a university paper on it (N to brag), it might fall into original research. (Unless I missed somebody else finding it, which wouldn't surprise me.) Any theories extant? (I'll pick the one I agreed with...?) Also, I've heard a Spartan M not KIA, or F who didn't die in childbirth, didn't get a name on a tombstone... Trekphiler 05:07, 19 December 2005 & 08:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any real point to the Halo sentance? All's it does is share a name, I don't think it should be on there.

Military Life

The only information it has regarding military life is that Spartans entered military service at 20 years of age. Don't you think it merits more information considering that Sparta is one of the most well-known military states in history? Soldiers were required to be extremely proficient with weapons ranging from daggers to spears to even their own shields. Mothers reminded their sons to "come back with your shield, or on it". I'm not very knowledgeable on the details, but I believe Trekphiler or some others might be able to enlighten us a little further on the details of a Spartan soldier's life. Derryl C 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't go into that much detail on their training. I do know they were segregated from women at an early age, lived in a kind of barracks, & (@first, anyhow) had to be landowners. That changed as more & more helots were used, & given citizenship for service, which contributed to Sparta's fall... Trekphiler 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sparta's powerful army was not primarily designed to combat outside enemies. It was the enemy within -- the massive number of slaves kept in Sparta, constantly threatening to revolt -- that most concerned the Spartan military. Those slaves, ironically, made possible the Spartan culture (and that of Athens as well). Slaves worked as the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, allowing free Greeks to follow their bliss, whether that be military training, art or philosophizing." http://seattlepi.com/movies/306888_filmhistory10.html?source=rss (History professor at the University of St. Francis)

The last sentence in this section, about the battle of Thermopylae, ends with "advantages of training, strategy and bravery against extremely overwhelming odds." This should be edited to read "advantages of training, equipment, and terrain..." to better reflect the actual lessons learned by the battle of Thermopylae.

General considerations, especially Lycurgus

The author of this article seems to hold views about Spartan Historiography which are those of the 19th century, perhaps through his extensive - if not total - re-use of the Britannica entry. The prime mistake lies in his consideration - following the tradition of believing everything Plutarch and Xenophon wrote, who though are primary sources have been proven to be wrong, notably thanks to the excavation of the Arthemis Orthia site outside Sparta by the BSA c.1910 - of the Lycurgan constitution. The author seems to think that everything started there; this is wrong. As H-I Marrou (in 'Histoire de l'écucation dans l'Antiquité') points out, it is only because of the Second Messenian War that Lycurgan ideas were put into place. And secondly, before then, Cultural development in Sparta was equal - if not superior in some ways - to most other Greek cities including Athens (this is proven by the digs of the BSA: singing contests betweens choruses of young men and married men were, indeed held), also through the invention by Spartan lyric poets of the solo as a musical form. To carry on would imply re-writing the article from scratch which does not seem to be the whole point here. I do hope some good sould will help out too as it is an outrage that such an article should be massacred with lamentable scholarship. User: jmhd3, University of Cambridge

This article needs a clean-up

The article is confussing bewteen Spart and mordern sparta. I suggest we put modern sparta in it's article--Scott3 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Many factual errors in this article.

I have spotted numerous factual errors in this article. I'm not really up to re-writing some sections of this article but I can give you some various things to include in a re-write.

1.) It should be mentioned that at around the age of 18 young men would officially proclaim a male 'partner' of sorts in the army. The most obvious reason for doing this was the fact that this would increase the comradiery between soldiers, and if there are 2 soldiers fighting for eachother (for their love) on the battlefield, well thats a major morale booster..

2.) At the age of 7 the young men were sent to a barracks of sorts. It should also be understood that they will spend their ENTIRE time here up to the age of 30.

3.) At the age of 12 they were NOT just simply set out into the wilderness. They still remained in the barracks, but a few things were changed -

Harsher treatment, less food
They went to a 'graduation' ceremony of sorts to prove their ability to take large amounts of pain. This test was primarily a heavy amount of whipping. If they cried, they would fail the test, if not, they would procede.
The 'older male lovers' would officially pair up with the boys.

4.) I really can't emphasize the fact enough that the Spartan society was in, for lack of a better word, /very/ gay oriented. For most men, they will spend their first 30 years of life in some sort of homosexual relationship. And men that did not do this, were viewed as outcasts. Homosexuality was not the 'thing' most monotheistic religions have made it today... But regardless of that, it should be known that the Spartan's society and daily life was centered around homosexuality. (I gave one brief explanation as to why this was a benefit in my first point.)

Note, I am by no means a primary source on this topic, but I can pull out numerous text books of mine, and cite many primary sources for this information. I just hope that someone will take this information into account and re-write a few sections. Many of the current information in this article is taken from sources that have been 'cleaned' up, if you know what I mean. (A common flaw in many history textbooks)Mchart 03:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why parts of it say that homosexuality was everywhere, and then later on it says that that is a common mistake, that homo/bisexuality was only common among women. Should it not be changed to be consistent with itself?

Quick notes.

Sparta owend slaves
Begining of millitery training at age 7
Scornful of wealth
Citizens for native borns

How come someone deleted most of the modern culture stuff?Centurion Ry 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. Video games and teenage computer sub-culture is out of the scope of this article. Miskin 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spartan Shield

Is it just me, or is the spartan shield both irrelevant and corny as the picture where the seal of the city would be, anything would be better than that corny shield that has nothing to do with the city of sparta. I know Sparta is a small insignificant city nowadays but it deserves better than that!

I agree 194.80.178.1 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spartan emblem was either a lion or the club of Hercules. If you can find any decent picture of either, then by all means do replace it. The lambda shield ('L' for Laconia) is a Spartan warrior's shield, so I don't understand what you mean when you say "it has nothing to do with Sparta". Miskin 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That V shape on the hopelites shield was the Greek letter "Lamda" for Lacedaemon the Spartan homeland.

Wording

"Supposedly, following the disaster that befell the Roman Imperial Army..." it was a defeat, not a disaster. call it a "disastrous defeat," if you will. the Visigoths stomping your army isn't in the same league as a hurricane or car accident, it is a conscious action. it is just bugging me.

shouldent some of us put halo as a pop culture reference

Foreign Policy

This section is overly short. Surely the writer should have mentioned the fact that Sparta fought a long war against Athens to maintain their position as prime power in Greece? And what about the fact that Sparta was probably the most introverted state ever? There was no trade with other cities, Spartans were not encouraged to travel, no foreigner could become a citizen. A major part of the Lycurgan reforms was that Sparta tried to protect itself from destabilising influences from the outside world in the most extreme way: no trade, and a society geared to producing the best army in Greece. Rockgenie19

Spartans / Spartiates

The political and military structure of classical Sparta was more complex than is reflected here. No where, for instance, is it mentioned that it was a military aristocracy with a quite small corps of Spartiates at its core, and it is actually only to these that the article as written applies. Any discussion of the ultimate downfall of Sparta needs to include the issue of the final disappearance of the Spartiate class, particularly subsequent to the disasters at Sphakteria and Leukra. 195.145.211.193 13:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

crap writing

Despite modern conceptions, homosexuality in Greece was only contained to a few select city-states. Unless you have read any work by Plato, who discribes the proper customs in seducing young boys. Yet one cannot deny that the 'moral lines' of sexuality were less defined in ancient times as they are now.

This is wiki filth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.168.167 (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Crap, shit, and fart filth.

"Spartans made these dumb laws because they were stupid. Sparta beat Athens because Sparta was more better." Ummm... could someone fix this? I'm at school, so I can't but just reading it is irritating. Why do people waste their time ruining things?--64.8.152.220 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article -STILL- in need of major revision

See my older, previous post about this issue. While it is nice to see a section on spartan sexuality finally in here. It curiously is missing the major points I pointed out in my older post. If someone has the time, please make such revisions. You can e-mail me / PM if you would like sources to cite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mchart (talk • contribs) 05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Deletions of material about wife sharing and pedagogic pederasty

It is not clear why this material, which is brief, historical and properly cited was removed. It is common practice in Wikipedia to briefly touch upon a relevant topic which is treated in depth elsewhere. I refer you to United States#Sports for an example. To talk about Sparta without mentioning in passing the customs for which they were famous (and which the remaining text salaciously hints at) is like discussing the US without mentioning football. Incomplete. Haiduc 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Adrigon 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this stuff needs to be mentioned in every article about ancient Greece? Most of what I removed was reworded from Spartan Pederasty except that it included some ridiculously POV remarks such as "Spartans thought that this would make them tougher" etc. I mean this is already treated in at least 5 articles already, but it appears that Haiduc wants to see it _everywhere_. Some days ago he even pasted a paragraph in the olive oil article, about how Spartans used it to "eroticize the body". The way I see it, the respective articles are linked at the bottom, therefore there's no need be so repetive about information which doesn't even fit into context most of the time. Miskin 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin's argument is tantamount to asking why so many articles on US states mention the civil war. Why not, one can envision Miskin arguing, can't it be restricted to its own article? Pederasty was a central and essential cultural feature of Greece that colored many of its customs and institutions, education, erotics, sports, warfare, philosophy, carousing, religion, friendship, masculinity, drama, poetry, sculpture, and literature, just to name the more obvious. It also manifested differently in different poleis, of which Sparta and Crete were paramount examples, followed closely by Athens and Thebes. If one was going to expunge discussion of pederasty from articles on Greek topics, one can hardly think of a worse place to begin than the article on Sparta. On closer examination I see that many of the articles on ancient Greece discuss the topic of war. Should we also attempt to restrict discussion of that topic, since it too appears to be "mentioned in every article about ancient Greece"? Haiduc 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not naive enough to tell you that your claims are false, however I can't help but noticing that undue weight is constantly given. I can't accept for example that the civil war and the military of ancient Greece have the same utility value as do pederasty and homosexuality. Furthermore your sources are hand-picked and reflect only one side of this controversial topic. On top of this I couldn't help but noticing that a significant amount of POV is included in occasion, such as for instance the answer to "why did Spartans chose to be like this?" (allegedly because it would make them tougher). Such edits only try to present an editor's personal interpretation as something factual, which is altogether against the NPOV policy. For example it is nowhere mentioned that authors like Aristophanes (including others) would constantly make a mockery of such issues, or Alexander the Great's disgust in being offered young boys as sexual slaves, or even Plato's general criticism on homoxuality in his later works. Miskin 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You raise some good points but the solution is not to go around eliminating mentions of Greek pederasty from articles bearing on the culture. Nor is the coverage of Greek pederasty as one-sided as you seem to believe. I just did a quick check, and I see that Plato's views in his Laws are mentioned in the general Pederasty article, again mentioned in the Pederasty in ancient Greece and of course mentioned in the Philosophy of Greek pederasty (though now I notice that in this last a fuller discussion is warranted). Aristophanes is mentioned, in Pederasty in ancient Greece. Alexander the Great's ethical stance has been extensively discussed in Alexander the Great's personal relationships. And yes, nonsense does tend to filter in (as in the "made them tougher" example) but that's what we are here for. Haiduc 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true, I see that those points are mentioned, though in most cases they're being rationalised by the articles' general one-sided tones. Regarding Sparta, I think the subject becomes even more controversial. There are many controversial views coming by both secondary and primary sources, an example would be Xenophon's judgement on Lycurgus, who in his opinion, managed to successfully condemn the desire of a boys body within Spartan society. Similarly Aristotle does affirm that militarist and warlike societies are inspired by either heterosexual or homosexual relationships, but supports that Sparta belongs to the first category. I also think that Aristotle judges pederasty as a mental disease. In that respect I'm not sure whether the theory of mandatory Spartan pederasty meets a consensus. The arguments brought forth in the articles are that Sparta adopted its customs from Crete, which in turn had preserved the ancient Doric tradition. Also it is claimed in many articles that Spartans were the first to use olive oil on their bodies, but I'm aware sources which credit this practice to the Cretans. Also most modern sources admit that we know very little on this topic because the Spartans were being secretive about their traditions, which implies that all conclusions are tentative. Miskin 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good arguments all, though in the case of Sparta the preponderance of the sources (Plato, Plutarch, Aelian) seems to be on the side of universal pederasty, more or less chaste. I am sorry that you have not seen fit to apply these correctives to the articles in question, your input would have been welcomed even if at times critiqued. But if you would rather not touch this material I would be happy to integrate your ideas if you would be so kind as to provide me with references and citations. In the mean time, how do you want to handle the deletions that have prompted this exchange? Haiduc 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The views of Xenophon and Aristotle are attested in "Athens and Sparta" by Anton Powell (p. 228), who by the way supports your side, though he admits that it's all an assumption due to our lack of knowledge (when it comes to Sparta). About the Cretan origin of the olive oil use, I don't remember where I read it, but I'll get back to you. It's not that I have a taboo about editing the homosexuality-related articles or anything, it's just a topic that doesn't interest me all that much. I've occasionally expressed my opinions when I thought that undue weight was given towards one side (such as in the matter of Patroclus and Achilles), but I've never thought of making long edits. If you judge that the section I removed is relevant and not repetitive, then you should go ahead and restore it. I do believe however that it needs to be reworded. Miskin 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I look forward to your other references. As for the article, I will replace the text, making corrections as necessary. I really do appreciate your input into all this, I would not be at all surprised if at times I do pull too far in the opposite direction when correcting for modern anti-pederastic bias. As we both know, it is impossible for a writer to be completely objective about his own work - that's why authors have editors. Haiduc 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of "Sparta"

I just reverted an edit giving the meaning of "Sparta" as "a courageous warrior". I can't find a source; feel free to add it back if you can. Tadpole9^{(talk•contribs)} 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The "upsetting" stuff.

In the UK, in 2003, a 3-part documentary was broadcast which talked about, amongst other things, the sexual politics of Sparta. The Wiki article just happens to have been written by me. There's a Channel 4 webpage, containing transcripts of the documentary here.

The section entitled The battle for supremacy here contains information on the sexual subjects so many Wiki editors find distasteful and/or frightening. Look in particular at the sections headed The land of beautiful women, Spartan 'thigh-flashers', and Marriage by capture.

Well, Bettany Hughes is a source, isn't she? Yes. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Powerful army"

I've changed "Sparta had the most powerful army" to "Sparta had one of the most powerful armies", since it is a matter of opinion. DurotarLord 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Peloponnesian War is in its last stages. A Spartan army, with unfriendly looks on their faces, are about to storm into Athens. Two old Athenians are talking. "Don't be concerned", says one. "They're only one of the most powerful armies in Greece - NOT the most powerful. It is a matter of opinion.". "Oh, great", his companion says. "For a moment I was worried". Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 23:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The following:

Spartan women were respected and played an important role in society, a rare case for the standards of antiquity. Bisexual relations were commonplace among Spartan women, and it was considered acceptable for married women to have affairs with unmarried girls in their prime. Some scholars assume that this custom paralleled the mentoring relations between Spartan males and adolescent boys, common in Dorian societies.

conflicts with:

Xenophon affirms that Lycurgus efficiently managed to keep pederasty out of the Spartan society^[1]. Aristotle was of the opinion that Sparta belonged to the type of military society that was based on heterosexual relationship, unlike some other Greek states of antiquity^[1].

It also conflicts with the article Spartan pederasty. FilipeS 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on how the ancient sources - and we - define the term "pederasty". There was argument then, as there obviously is now, as to whether or not the Spartan's practiced "outrage", ie anal sex, or indulged in a more "chaste" relationship. There is a lot of confusion and hangups based on this, perhaps for reasons Freud would have understood. It won't end anytime soon. In the meantime, I'm going to remove the latter quote, above, from the article, thus alleviating the contradiction - for now. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually, I think a simple rewrite of the paragraph might clear the confusion. I don't think you need to remove the material. FilipeS 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

? ..... Rewrite it how?! It contradicted the paragraph next to it. It contradicted it so blatantly that you felt the need to comment on the talkpage about it! Don't worry about it, though. It'll be back soon, or something very closely resembling it will. So many people get so upset at the thought of "the ultimate warriors" being bi or homo-sexual. Unbelievable. I'm hetero myself, and I have no problems with the thought. Oh well. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hybris and pederasty are two different things - the Spartans could have been, and were by most accounts, pederasts without turning the boys into europroktoi. Haiduc 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, as they say. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparta as a "World Power"

The introduction of Sparta as a "World Power" is patently ridiculous. Besides the Greeks the world consisted of Spaniards, the Celts, the Chinese, the Goths, the Aztecs, the Indians, the Egyptians, the Japanese, the Vikings etc., none of whom the Spartans had any power over, and were probably unaware of its very existence. Just because some author gets this silly notion that defeating the Persians in a battle (note that the Spartans did not actually conquer Persia) qualifies as becoming a “World Power” does not mean it is true or it belongs to the introduction of a Wikipedia article. NN 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was about to thank you for starting a discussion until I noticed that you reverted before doing so. It's not very wise to remove something which comes with a reference, start a rv-war, and then come up with an argumentation which is based on your personal opinion. It's not how wikipedia works. According to your opinion Romans weren't a world power either. They didn't defeat not conquer every single people on the planet, nor were they aware of the existence of Aztecs, Japanese, Vikings (the term "Spaniards" didn't even exist at the time). Furthermore your personal views are based on an anachronistic perception of the ancient world, not to mention a misinterpretation of "world power". According to your arguments USA has never been a world power either. It never defeated nor Conquered Britain, Russia, China and France. So do I even need to ask for sources on your claims? Miskin 21:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Romans empire stretched from Britain to Ukraine. The Spartans were confined to Greece. You may believe that Rome and Sparta are comparable, but I doubt many would agree with you. As for the US, the term "World Power" is far more applicable to it. Note that I used the phrase "had any power over" which you twisted to "never defeated nor conquered". The US indeed has power over the policies of Britain, Russia, China, France, more than any other country. I simply don't understand your insistence in calling a nation whose influence was confined to Greece a "World Power". Also you repeatedly accuse me of being "anachronistic", however your use of the phrase "known world" is quite revealing. It appears that your argument is that Greece is known and the rest unknown. It is a very Eurocentric view. The Mayans could similarly claim to be a "World Power" because to them they are known, whereas the Greeks "unknown". So could the Chinese etc. etc. If anything in terms of land area and populations, Sparta never came close to even the near contemporary Chinese, Persian, Egyptian, Magadha, Mayan empire. Also you say Sparta acquired hegemony over Persia, which again is a inaccurate. Beating the invading Persians in a couple of battles is not acquiring hegemony. At best it is successful resistance. NN 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Today the world's most influential civilisation, whether you like it or not, is the one called Western Civilisation, and it happens to claim heritage from ancient Greece and Rome. Hence "known world" in such a historical context refers to the world that was known to the cultures of Western Civilisation, Spartans and Greeks included. This is not something I made up, it's a standard term used by scholars worldwide. Plus this is not really a eurocentric view since prior to Rome's expansion most of today's Occident was admittedly barbaric. The fact that you oppose the use of "known world" in that context doesn't mean that Sparta can't be regarded as a world power, which is defined by the New Oxford American dictionary as "a country that has significant influence in international affair", and it has nothing to do with your criteria of "size" and "population". "China" and "India" were not unified political entities like in modern times (another anachronism?), and therefore incomparable to Sparta. In that respect, all the cultures you mentioned outside the Western's notion of "known world", could equally be identified as world powers in their respective "worlds". All you need is at least one neutral source. The Roman Republic was very much comparable to Sparta and was a world power long before it expanded outside of Italy. Following the Peloponnesian war, Sparta had assumed hegemony over both Greece and Persia (directly or indirectly), being dominant on both land and sea. This has lead modern scholars to assume that had a strong ruler "modernised" the Spartan insitutions, we'd be talking about a Spartan Empire today. Contrary to Rome, Persia and modern states such as USA, UK etc, Spartans weren't interested in assimilating the peoples they overpowered. So in an ancient military society where citizenship is inherited by blood, it is only natural to observe a population reduction. If you think that Spartans influence was confined to Greece then I would advise you to read some more on the topic. If you don't come up with a source which puts my source into question, I'll restore the original edit by WP:POV. Miskin 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Today the world's most influential civilisation" this is unrelated to what we are discussing. We are not discussing influences on today's civilizations. We are discussing whether 2500 years ago Sparta was a "World Power". It would make the discussion easier if you stayed on the subject.

"standard term used by scholars worldwide" is a weasel phrase.

"a country that has significant influence in international affair" So how exactly did Sparta have a "significant influence in international affairs" of the Gauls, Celts, Maurya, Chinese, etc. etc.?

""China" and "India" were not unified political entities like in modern times." I fail to see your point. There were large empires (much larger than Sparta) present in both India and China. What do you mean by "unified political entity"? Maurya may not have occupied all of modern India, however its population was possibly a hundred times larger than Sparta's.

"The Roman Republic was very much comparable to Sparta and was a world power long before it expanded outside of Italy." Only if one goes by your definition of a "World Power" having its influence confined mostly within one country.

Again you claim "Sparta had assumed hegemony over both Greece and Persia (directly or indirectly)" without answering how it had hegemony over Persia without having conquered it, or having actually sent an army to Persia?

"lead modern scholars to assume that had a strong ruler "modernised" the Spartan insitutions, we'd be talking about a Spartan Empire today" Speculation that is not relevant to the issue being discussed, to wit whether Sparta was a "World Power".

"Spartans weren't interested in assimilating the peoples they overpowered. So in an ancient military society where citizenship is inherited by blood, it is only natural to observe a population reduction." And how does this support Sparta being a "World Power"?

You linked to the Wiki article on "Great Power" which reads "A Great power is a nation or state that, through its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power over world diplomacy. Its opinions are strongly taken into account by other nations before taking diplomatic or military action. Characteristically, they have the ability to intervene militarily almost anywhere, and they also have soft cultural power." None of this applies to Sparta. Nowhere do I see any evidence that Sparta exerted "power over world diplomacy". Did the Gauls, Celts, Mayans, Chinese, Slavs, Mauryans take Sparta's "opinions ... strongly ... into account ... before taking diplomatic or military action" No.

Your arguments are unconvincing and the source you cite James R. isn't certainly the last word. What kind of a source is this anyway, you don't even have the last name or the year of publication? What exactly does the source say? Does it make the same arguments you make or does it have something more to say? If you restore the edits I will either have to 1) revert or 2) clarify the absurdities of calling Sparta a "World Power" or 3) bring others into the discussion. NN 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You can bring as many people as you want, maybe it will save me some time from repeating myself. Your first argument against Aztecs and Chinese is clearly irrelevant for reasons already mentioned. Your second argument is based on erroneous hypotheses, e.g. that Sparta's influence was restricted over Greece, or that Greece and Italy were "countries", or that Greek states such as Athens were insignificant (ignoring the fact that Athens was also a world power at the time). I would remind you that the last little state which assumed hegemony over Greece conquered its way all the way to India (read up on Macedon). This proves that hegemony over ancient Greece did imply world power status. I mentioned Sparta's traditionalist institutions in order to point out how a world power can exist efficiently without having to influence foreign nations by military submission. Don't ask me to explain any further how Sparta influenced the Persian Empire and "known world" politics. One thing I'm not going to do is give out lectures every time an editor debates on something as factual as the Dorian mythological descent from Heracles. You should have done your homework before questioning the edits. If you think that this one source is not credible then make a google search. Let me help, have a look at a purely scholarly source:

"Now, when the Athenian Empire was suddenly added to that of Sparta, and Sparta had become in reality a world power, the Spartan government was unable to devise any other policy" ['The Character of Lysander' - William K. Prentice, American Journal of Archaeology][The Character of Lysander William K. Prentice
American Journal of Archaeology,]

Even more popular is the term "superpower", which according to my dictionary definition it is a stronger term than "world power" (in the sense that a superpower is one of the most powerful world powers). This is a more common term in general, and you can easily see how its use with Persia, Sparta and Athens meets consensus, e.g:

Thucydides tracks how a new strain of war virus, Athenian imperial aggression, develops and spreads in a "long war" between superpower-dominated city-state coalitions that, like Bobbitt's 20th-century war, lasts nearly 80 years (479-404BC). Thucydides' "long war" begins with a 50-year cold war between an established superpower necessarily conservative in foreign policy (Sparta) and an emerging superpower addicted to its own superabundant interventionist energies (Athens).[1]

In brief, unless you are aware of a source which presents an alternative view, then I see no reason to continue this discussion. Miskin 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also linking superpower in order to make a point. Using "world power" was moderate from my part, since the clearly more popular term which describes Sparta and Athens in literature is 'superpower'. Miskin 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Your first argument against Aztecs and Chinese is clearly irrelevant for reasons already mentioned." Don't see any reasons not already refuted.

"You should have done your homework before questioning the edits." You are questioning the way I operate, it is best to stick to the topic and not get into personal attacks.

"Don't ask me to explain any further how Sparta influenced the Persian Empire" You cannot "further" explain something you haven't begun explaining. Yes, the Spartans defeated the invading Persian armies in a couple of battles, it does not follow that they acquired "hegemony" (your words) over Persia.

"I would remind you that the last little state which assumed hegemony over Greece conquered its way all the way to India (read up on Macedon)." Alexander by virtue of conquering Egypt and Persia can lay claim to have created a "World Power". It does not follow that every Greek state that dominated Greece before him was also a "World Power". It is like saying the Mohawks were a World Power because the US is one now.

You ignore the points I make for example I find no answer to my earlier point ""a country that has significant influence in international affair" So how exactly did Sparta have a "significant influence in international affairs" of the Gauls, Celts, Maurya, Chinese, etc. etc.?"

As this topic is contentious it should be moved to a section titled for example "Sparta as a World Power", and mentioned that which authors believe so, and also what facts support and oppose such a designation.

NN 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Spartans under Agesilaus II invaded Persian ground and Persia couldn't do anything about it. It was only due to conflicts between other Greek states that Persia wasn't ultimately conquered. Maybe that gives you a better idea about Sparta's power and influence at the time. Look, this is getting childish, I'm not going to continue a debate based on original research. I provided you with some sources which demostrate that both Sparta and Athens are considered "world powers" and even "superpowers" in western literature. If you have any objections then publish your own work about it and we'll include it as an alternative view. For the time being I'm not planning to waste more time with such blatant POV. Miskin 12:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are a series of "ifs and buts". Sparta could be a "World Power" if its population did not decline, but it did. Agesilaus could have conquered Persia if the Greeks had not fought amongst themselves, but they did... and so on. Well, we have to deal with what really happened rather than potential. I am not going to get into speculation about Sparta's potential. If out of a thousand authors only two regard Sparta as a "World Power" then it should be noted.

You refuse consistently to answer the points. You yourself linked to the Wiki article on "World Power" which says ""a country that has significant influence in international affair" So how exactly did Sparta have a "significant influence in international affairs" of the Gauls, Celts, Maurya, Chinese, etc. etc.? I have made this point twice before but no answer, just digressions.

You may arbitrarily divide the world into the "known" and "unknown" but that is "anachronistic" in the 21st century. Essentially you are saying that "World" does not need to include Celts, Gauls, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Egyptians, etc. etc. and only Greeks and Persians matter. Such a view would have been acceptatble in the 19th Century but now is anachronistic.

Speaking of Agesilaus, take a closer look at the actual history. Read the article Corinthian War. It says "the Spartan fleet was decisively defeated by a Persian fleet early in the war, an event that effectively ended Sparta's attempts to become a naval power." The picture certainly is not of Spartan "hegemony" over Persia. If anything it appears Persia effectively got the Greeks to fight amongst each other and switched sides to prevent any from getting too strong.

Also Agesilaus invaded the satarpies of Persia, not the core of Persia. The Persians never had to fight him, they simply got the other Greeks to fight Sparta. Hardly a "World Power" when it is not even dominant in possibly the 5% of the World that consists of Greece and Persia. NN 15:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A state doesn't need to conquer the entire world in order to be regarded as a world power, this is only your personal interpretation of the term. In fact it doesn't even have to be capable of doing so. The fact alone that Sparta was capable of conquering Athens and invading Persia makes it a world power, not to mention a superpower. Those "ifs" aim to give you an idea of Sparta's geopolitical power, they're not any criteria to be met. The United states of America do need to conquer another nation in order to prove their geopolitical superiority and world power status, the other nation is already aware of the "ifs" involved. Therefore "ifs" are important, since they exert influence. Sparta already _was_ a world power, its population decline and traditionalist institutes are the reason it didn't become a super-state or a huge Empire like Rome and Persia, which doesn't necessarily imply "world power" (unless of course you believe that Algeria is geopolitically more powerful than France or even Israel). You asked me how Sparta influenced Persia and I replied, now you're coming up with a new argument that "it didn't conquer Persia". The article on world power speaks about the term in modern times, I thought that was evident enough. Plus WP:CITE clearly states that you can't use a wikipedia article as a source for editing another article. If we were to ignore the notion of "known world" or even "world known to the Greeks" as you suggest, then we should not be allowed to use "world power" for ancient states at all, which is a different POV altogether. If you look at serious sources on the web you'll find out that a great number of them refer to Athens and Sparta as superpowers. This is not just something worth being mentioned, it is a consensus. I can quote many more sources if you like. If you can cite a source which supports the opposite, then it can be presented as an alternative view. I hope I have answered your points. Miskin 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't answer the points I make and twist what I say. You write "A state doesn't need to conquer the entire world in order to be regarded as a world power, this is only your personal interpretation of the term" Show me one place where I said that!

"The article on world power speaks about the term in modern times" Though the article is about Sparta, the Wiki article is from the 21st Century as are its readers. Too late for you to say that the article does not apply after you yourself linked to it!

Also read the article King's Peace. It says "The single greatest effect of the Peace of Antalcidas was the return of firm Persian control to Ionia and parts of the Aegean." Essentially when Sparta was troubling it, Persia got Athens to fight it. When Athens became too strong Persia switched sides and supported Sparta, and received "Ionia and parts of the Aegean". The picture is of Persia determining the outcomes of Greece by playing one against the other, rather than Sparta having "hegemony" over Persia. I understand that a couple of authors hyped up Sparta's influence, but it doesn't seem dominant in Greece/Persia let alone the "World". NN 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to twist what you say but this is the sense I make from your arguments, and I think this is the sense anyone would make. Well this is precisely why wp policy doesn't permit using wp articles as sources. POV-pushing frequently passes unnoticed and this is why most Persian wars-related articles are at a miserable condition. According to Britannica (2006 edition, article 'Sparta'), during the Corinthian War Sparta came against Athens, Corinth, Argos, Thebes and Persia at once. To quote directly: "In the Corinthian War (395–387) Sparta had two land victories over Athenian allied states and a severe naval defeat at Cnidus by a combined Athenian and Persian fleet." This was no Persian victory as the wp article claims, according to other sources it was primarily a battle fought by the Athenians with part of their fleet borrowed from Persia, while the Athenian Conon was in charge. The article needs to be corrected. And yet the fact that Persia cannot even face Sparta on land and prefers to ally itself with Sparta's enemies makes my point even clearer. In that respect the Peace of Antalcidas was the result of the war between Sparta and the Greek states who seeked Persia's help, not a war between Sparta and Persia. This is not about Sparta being in average more powerful than Athens or Persia, after all Persia had been a superpower for much longer. It only comes down to the fact that Greek states like Athens, Sparta and Thebes were in fact world powers that period, and superpowers during their hegemonies. If you don't understand the limitations of the term "world power" applied to antiquity, then what about using superpower? It doesn't imply a geographic extent. Miskin 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The picture is of Persia determining the outcomes of Greece by playing one against the other, rather than Sparta having "hegemony" over Persia." It means two things: a) that Persia was well aware that she could not subdue the Greeks by force and therefore preferred to use diplomacy to keep them at war with each other b) that the leading Greek states were in fact world powers, or superpowers if you prefer, fighting for supremacy against each other. The first point actually reveals a strong point in Persian diplomacy, as well as a limited potential of the Persian war machine. Miskin 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To make the long story short, your initial argument was "Beating the invading Persians in a couple of battles is not acquiring hegemony. At best it is successful resistance", then when you learned about Sparta's real geopolitical influence it changed to "Also Agesilaus invaded the satarpies of Persia, not the core of Persia." You have a personal agenda and no matter what happens you'll keep coming up with new unsupported arguments to keep me busy. So let's settle this, I'm suggesting to change world power to superpower in order to satisfy your denial of Western historiography's perception of "known world". What do you say? Miskin 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Countries prefer to let others do the fighting, even if they are militarily strong. In WWII they said "the Americans will fight the war to the last Russian". The US did that not because it was militarily weak, but because it is smarter to let the others do the fighting rather than suffering casualties. This is pretty standard behavior through history, your inference of Persian weakness is wrong.

We now have a growing list of "World Powers" to include Athens, Thebes, Sparta and of course Persia. So the statement could read that "Sparta, along with Athens, Thebes, and Persia was a World Power." Or "Sparta, along with Athens, Thebes, and Persia was a superpower". If that is what you believe then go ahead and make this change, if nothing else it gives a more accurate picture than just saying Sparta was a "World Power". So change the sentence to "Sparta, along with Athens, Thebes, and Persia was a superpower" if you wish. NN 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody denied the fact that Persia was a superpower, it only goes to show that the leading Greek states were too. Btw the list never grew, it's just that we're dealing with the article of Sparta in case you didn't notice. But you didn't reply my question. Miskin 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait I'm not sure I understand. Why do I have to mention Athens, Thebes and Persia in order to call Sparta 'superpower'? I never tried to imply that Sparta was the sole world/superpower above all others. It just said that Sparta 'overpowered' i.e. defeated at war both Athens and Persia. It looks as if you have had a bias against Sparta all along. Miskin 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no bias for or against Sparta, I am not even from the region. My interest is accuracy. Personally I believe that none on the list should be called a "World Power" or superpower, except maybe Persia. The reason to mention all rather than just one is that if only one is mentioned then a reader is likely to believe that Sparta was more powerful than the others, whereas history says it was at best a back and forth. Also the statement "Sparta defeated both the Athenian and Persian Empires" is inaccurate, "Sparta defeated both the Athenian and Persian Empires and was also defeated by both" is better. NN 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did answer your question, I worte: So change the sentence to "Sparta, along with Athens, Thebes, and Persia was a superpower" if you wish. NN 17:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"never won a war over Sparta"? And did Sparta ever win a "war" over Persia? You made changes to the Corinthian War article for which you were corrected. So you very well know that Persia beat Sparta in the sea battle. Also the mention of Athens and Persia is needed for context. To call Sparta a superpower without mentioning its rivals will give the readers a wrong impression. NN 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparta won the second Persian War against Persia. It was a pan-Greek alliance but the leadership was officially Spartan. After all the Persian army was hardly Persian, the vast majority comprised peoples subjected to the Great King. Miskin 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was corrected but I don't want to insist as long as the article on Corinthian War specifies that the Persian navy were was in fact Cypriot Greek and Phoenician under Athenian leadership. Mainstream sources regard it as a joint Athenian-Persian expedition. The "Persian" fleet belonged to Persian puppet states. Miskin 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way "repelling an invasion" is not as insignificant as you think. Maybe it didn't have a great significance for Persia at the Battle of Marathon, but it did at the Battle of Plataea. See the parallel between the Battle of Vienna which determined hegemony of the Habsburg dynasty over the Ottoman Empire. In both cases, the invader at the peak of his power lost a war which caused his long-term decline. Another parallel would Hannibal's invasion of Italy. In all three examples the invader was overpowered without being conquered. Miskin 13:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In that respect wouldn't you agree that both Athens and Persia were, at least individually, overpowered by Sparta? Miskin 14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that that Athens and Persia were overpowered by Sparta. Though I have no doubt that some author somewhere can be found who has written that they were overpowered. You keep making inappropriate comparisons. There is no need to bring in Austria or Hannibal into this discussion. Whether or not they were overpowered says nothing about whether Persia was overpowered. If you look at the map you can see that Sparta is towards the south of Greece. All empires reach a point beyond which they do not expand, and Persia's boundary was northern Greece. Because it did not expand further into southern Greece is not because it was "overpowered". You have to understand that while Persia was the strongest enemy for the Greeks, for the Persian empire Greece was only one of many frontiers. NN 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If Sparta is to be called a "superpower" it is important for the reader to know the strength of Sparta compared to other empires of the same time. Hence the information about Athens, Thebes, Persia, China and India are important. If we call Brazil a superpower because of its influence in South America, the reader should not make the mistake of believing that Brazil is a world superpower. Also information that Sparta was defeated by both Athens and Persia in battles is important. NN 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also as there are many issues here, so it is better to have a separate section rather than putting it all in one sentence in the introduction. NN 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop personal attacks. You have no evidence that I have any "personal agenda". You are reverting continuously without giving reasons, removing relevant information like the defeats Sparta had in battles with Athens and Persia. NN 19:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What you say about "Greece being one front" is true for the first but not the second Persian War. Mainstream western scholarship admits that Xerxes' failure to conquer Greece marked Persia's long term decline. It was the same with Hannibal and the Ottomans at Vienna. Despite what you say Cnidus was a joint Athenian-Persian naval success with a Phonician-Greek fleet over Sparta. It was a mere naval battle, not credited to Persia, and not regarde as a "war". Besides it doesn't change the result of the second Persian and Peloponnesian wars. The "The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World" states that "Cnidus was not enough to cause Sparta to renounce her Asiatic ambition", and that "the 'autonomy' provision of the King's Peace was greatly to Sparta's advantage". Please stop causing disruptive edits and edit-warring, just accept that views based on original research cannot be taken into consideration. Your latest edits clearly made the article NPOV, saying that Sparta is a superpower does not mean that Persia is weak, you are the only person who perceives it in this manners. Miskin 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you think that I've delivered a personal attack then report me under NPA, but please stop throwing accusations like that. Miskin 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparta was a major regional power but I suspect that the amount of historians that would be happy with superpower must be tiny and even the one ref you giv I suspect of intentionally exagerating to emphasize a point.Dejvid 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I have been saying all along! Historians who would call Sparta a "World Power" or "Superpower" would be tiny in number, "major regional power" is accurate. Also the article given as a reference by Tom Palaima (Why peace is a conjuror's trick) is not about whether Sparta was a world power or not, but a more general topic of war and peace. NN 19:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If the number of sources is your problem then why didn't you say so? Does modern textbook on international relationships is neutral enough for you? "And Thucydides' account of Athens provides a striking historical illustration of the imperial aspirations of a bipolar superpower" ["Realism and International Relations", Jack Donnelly]. This is a modern textbooks on politics which cites the dispute of Athens and Sparta as a typical historical example of issues between superpowers. The books happens to be a standard reference on its kind, published by the Cambridge University Press. I'm not sure if you understand how credible it is, but let's say it cannot be refuted by a wikipedian's personal opinion. Another classic from the same publisher has it that "the 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR" ["Historical Sociology of International Relations", John M. Hobson, Stephen Hobden]. Those are books on international relationships. The first textbook which you implied to be biased was a historical textbook "Sparta and Lakonia", and the author's name is "Paul Cartledge". How many more sources do you want in order to accept that this is a consensus? I'm sure I can find countless more references in university sites on the web. How many sources do you need in order to accept that those scholars who regard Athens and Sparta as superpowers were not "tiny in number"? Miskin 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No answer, as expected. The fact is that the Athens-Sparta superpower conflict is used as a typical example in political studies, this is why I find it important to mention it. Unless a source with an opposing view is cited, I will revert to the previous version. Miskin 20:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no revert, finally I chose to assume good faith and copyedit/de-POV Nayan's edits. They could be put into context if they were merged with the history section. Miskin 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was away for a while. Still too many problems with Miskin's edits. Firstly note that it is not me but user Dejvid who said "the amount of historians that would be happy with superpower must be tiny". Also it is still absurd to say "reached the status of a superpower[1], by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" without mentioning defeats in battles suffered by Sparta. You also introduced more wrong information into the article like "Sparta defeated individually at war" which WolfmanSF corrected.

Reasons for edits I am making 1) Removing the sentence from the introduction where it does not belong due to its misleading nature. 2) Removing details of history as there is indeed an article "History of Sparta" where such information rightfully belongs 3) As Miskin insists on calling Sparta a superpower, and admits that would also mean Athens, Thebes and Persia to be also called superpowers, adding that information to give the reader a more accurate picture. NN 12:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also because the struggle between the USA and USSR is compared to that between Athens and Sparta does not make the latter two superpowers. Just like the contest between McCain and Giuliani being compared to that between an owl and a fox does not make the latter two Presidential candidates. NN 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed the part where user:Dejvid (or any user) made the rules in wikipedia. I cited two credible sources to comply with WP:CITE and he didn't reply, and neither did you. The citation says that "the 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR". It is athens and Sparta that are directly called superpowers, not USA and USSR. I proved my point with sources, my edits are well referenced, and you have again not made any point _not_ based on your personal opinion. If you regret having added this section then revert to my earlier version, but stop edit-warring disruptively. I'm tired of this childish behaviour, as your compartment has shown you only care to defend your nationalist insecurities, you don't care about neither the article nor wp policy. Miskin 13:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User Dejvid does not make the rules, there is no need to be sarcastic by saying "I lost the part where...". If you look at Dejvid's list of contributions it is obvious he is a history expert. I am reverting the article because among other things: 1) To say that Sparta was a superpower that overwhelmed Athens and Persia without mentioning it lost battles to them is likely to mislead readers. 2) There is a section about the "History of Sparta" where details belong. NN 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also said "or any user" whose opinion is more important over wp:policy. Much of the things you say don't make any sense, did you even read my edits before reverting them? Both Spartan defeats at the battle of Cnidus and Leuctra were mentioned, the only one missing is the Battle of Thermopylae. I know you are a new editor and for that I tried to assume good will, yet your disruptive editing and rv-warring have consumed my patience. All the information you question and revert have been supported by credible sources, which I can put on a separate section if you like. There's nothing more I can do to somebody who doesn't respect or acknowldge basic policies such as WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. I'll stop replying to you unless you come up with a reference to support the existence of an alternative view. Miskin 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As desired by you I am providing a reference for Sparta's defeats. The problems with your version remain more or less the same. Namely:

1) You write "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a superpower,[1] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires". If you look at the link for superpower (which you yourself provide, yes you provide it, not me), it says "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale" which is obviously inapplicable to Sparta. Secondly to say "overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" is misleading to the reader as it does not indicate Spartan defeats.

2) There is a section about the "History of Sparta" where details belong.

3) You have been corrected by other editors, and there is a pattern here. The bias corrected is overstating Sparta's power and influence: WolfmanSF [2] and Dejvid [3]. NN 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already cited two credible textbooks on politics (Cambridge University Press) which refer to Sparta and Athens as superpowers of antiquity. You continue bringing up original research as argumentation against it. Please read up on WP:POLICY to understand better how edits are made. The section (which by the way you created) focuses on Sparta's geopolical course, not on its general history. Your motives for putting down Sparta and making bad, irrelevant edits are purely biased. Nobody ever implied that Persia was not a superstate or that Sparta was better, this a message only you receive. But just because you can't accept the fact that Persia was overpowered and then conquered by the Greeks, it doesn't mean that we are not allowed to talk about it. Iranian nationalist-motivated POV-pushing and vandalism have become very banal in Persian-war related articles? Some people are arguing that the Battle of Thermopylae never existed... If I were you I wouldn't want to be part of this banal, anti-western movement, which can only give a bad name to your people. Miskin 09:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The version I reverted had Sparta being claimed as a superpower. The Wiki article says "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale;". This is a link you yourself created (yes, you not me) and it is obviously untrue for Sparta. Hence the revert. Also keep your facts straight, the version of mine you reverted did not have me blanking a section. NN 11:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading this debate with interest, and while I tend to support the opinion that regarding Athens and/or Sparta as a "superpower" is rather overimaginative and naive, I can see why those who support the presumption can easily make that mistake. What you, Miskin, shouldn't do is resort to paranoia and accusations of bias. It'll only make you sound bitter. No offence. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Geda, Yes, "naive" and "overimaginative" are appropriate descriptions. Actually the accusations of bias leave me amused rather than offended. Miskin has decided I must be Turkish (which I am not). If anything I am a huge admirer of the ancient Greeks, though more of the free-thinking Athens than the militaristic Sparta. NN 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I always preferred Sparta, myself. Even with all its faults. One of those faults being the kind of insularity and entrenched conservatism which meant that they would be doomed to fail sooner rather than later. "Superpower"?! They wished. It was all so ...... temporary, and "lucky", for want of a better word. They could always just manage to hang-on by the skin of their teeth; until they couldn't, of course. One of history's greatest failures. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the fundamentalist religions of today are Sparta reinvented. An emphasis on success in aggression rather than intellectual development. Of course more successful than Sparta because of the added layer of "divine sanction". NN 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's referenced by quality sources (which it is), then it is not original research. Do you have any sources contradicting?--Domitius 13:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, So you are saying that this following is an accurate description of Sparta "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale;"? NN 13:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nayan, my opinion doesn't count. If it's referenced, it stays.--Domitius 13:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure it can stay if you insist. But I can also add enough referenced material to prevent it from misleading the reader. Specifically I can add information about how Sparta "could always just manage to hang-on by the skin of their teeth", and how it had little influence beyond Greece, let alone on a worldwide scale. As it will all be referenced it cannot be removed either. But the end result is that the article will be more accurate but also argumentative and less readable. If that is what you want that is what you will get. NN 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nayan you can add anything you want as long as it comes from a reliable source, is relevant to the article, and put into context. If I don't agree with it, then I have to find another reliable sources which presents an alternative view, and according to NPOV we'll include them both. Then it is up to you to understand what can be relevant to the article and/or misleading or implying a POV. For example the information you provided about the size of the Indian and Chinese armies was a POV-implication. Also, your reference must be also directly linked to your claim, for example if you find a source which calls Sparta a "local power", you can't derive that "therefore not a superpower because...[Original Research]". To support your current opinion, your reference must explicitely state something like "Sparta's geopolical power was in fact local", or "it's an exaggeration to think of Sparta as a superpower", or something along those lines. WP:NOR also says: "An edit counts as original research if...it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". Isn't this what you've been trying to do all along? Miskin 14:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be saying this, Garderner, if you were as involved as I am with the Persian-war related articles. The homonym article is up for a cleanup while all the articles on the invividual battles are being vandalised on a daily basis (under nationalist motives). Believe me but stating out the obvious is not paranoid. The advise I gave him is actually an approach I tend to follow myself by avoiding banal disputes. Nev may not be one of those people who go to extremes but he has the wrong approach and the wrong motives. He accused the mainstream term "known world" to be eurocentric and I changed from "world power" to "superpower", which came out indeed to be better referenced. He's been edit-warring and blanking out text under arguments that fall under original research. Also he has shown that he's not interested in improving Sparta, he's only interested in making Persia and the Asian civilisations look better - but he's been reading insulting implications between the lines. If you think I'm paranoid to notice this, then I think you're being naive. Sparta has gained much less attention than Athens in modern literature due to the latter's huge surviving literary work. In reality Sparta was no less important and influential for the course of western civilisation and thought. Putting emphasis on its geopolitical power at a crucial moment of european history is the least to do (always in a referenced context). To the point: So far I've cited five sources, two scientific articles, a specialised history text book, and two textbooks on political science published by the Cambridge University Press. I should put them in a separate section so they won't be missed by newcomers. To quote from WP:SOURCE:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

To define a reliable source:

In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication.

In brief, I honestly have no problem of considering an alternative view, e.g. that the terms 'superpower' or 'world power' exaggerate Spartan or Athenian geopolitical influence. However, I will not do so unless there is a good reason, and by that I mean a reference which explicitely states so. What I will not do and have never done so far, is to give in to argumentation based on original research and personal opinions. It is really as simple as that. Miskin 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To call Sparta a superpower or a World Power is absurd. Of course it is hard to find a source that says it was not a superpower. People don't waste time writing books or even get published refuting absurdities that may appear in a couple of sentences in other sources. So to prevent the article from misleading the reader (which it currently does) the best we can do is to add enough other facts to make the reader realize that to call Sparta a superpower or a World Power is absurd. NN 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If that what you think then I'm sorry but you'll have to deal with the current edits. What other facts would you like to add? How big Persia and China were? Is this really relevant to the article or does it remedy the "mislead" implications that only you can read? Miskin 14:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't understand what you mean by "absurdities that may appear in a couple of sentences in other sources". Those were sources on history and political science, I really can't imagine how more specialised it can get. What would you expect? A collection of publications called "Sparta: A SUPERPOWER, theory and proof"? Miskin 14:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If there were indeed a collection of publications called "Sparta: A SUPERPOWER, theory and proof" then there indeed would be sources refuting this nonsensical claim. As for your saying "that only you can read", you just missed the part about Gardner calling the claim "naive" and "overimaginative", or Dejvid saying only a tiny number of historians believe it. NN 14:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dejvid requested for more sources, they were provided, and he hasn't participated ever since. Concerning what other editors have said, I think Domitius has covered the topic: An editor's opinion doesn't count as long as an edit comes with a credible source. There are no more specific publications on Persia being a superpower, yet to you it can't be more obvious. What should have also been obvious (but is not), is that a state or a culture that defeated Persia at war and caused its long term decline (before it conquered it), is by definition a superpower too. As I said earlier I have absolutely no problem on changing the edit, but only as long as some sort of proof is provided, and by that I don't mean original research and personal opinion. As long as your argumentation is restricted on calling material published by CUP (one of world's best publishers) "other sources with nonsensical claims", I won't be answering to you. Miskin 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Dejvid decided he had better things to do in life than get into a debate about an obvious absurdity. NN 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe you have never heard of my friend CheckUser. Miskin 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, go for it. Or was that just hype? NN 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you Nayan, why are you getting all defensive? Miskin 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I guess it was just an accident... This damned "remember password" checkbox never works properly. Miskin 01:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And now the article is being vandalised, nothing out of the ordinary [4]. Miskin 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Who or what were you talking about then? You think I would want to hide when posting a comment on a talk page? As for the page being vandalized, you don't even need CheckUser. Try this and you will get your answer most of the time: http://www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm or this: http://www.dnsstuff.com/ NN 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I was actually talking about WP:CHECK. Miskin 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you were talking about WP:CHECK. As you have both the IP addresses you can see for yourself that the posters are over 2,000 miles apart. Now if you lived in Dayton, Ohio it would be really interesting! NN 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Repositioning and providing context to minimize the damage to an unbiased and accurate understanding by the reader from the misleading absurd claim of Sparta being a superpower/world power. No referenced material has been removed, do not remove any referenced material. NN 06:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just because you disagree with the sources, you can't restructure the article moving (hiding) text you don't like. Do you have any counter sources?--Domitius 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What Wiki policy are you relying on that says I cannot reposition material within an article? Keep in mind if I can't, neither can you. NN 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents. Here it goes. Is everyone in agreement that Sparta was in fact a regional power. Also don't get why NN is talking about Sparta not dominating Indian and Chinese states as well as the Mayans and Vikings. For goodness sakes, the Spartans I am pretty sure did not ever know these people existed so how could they dominate them. You also talk about SParta's influence and power only being limited to Greece. I totaly disagree, because the Spartan's fought in and dominated Asia Minor in Turkey for a few decades. I don't know if we can compare Athens to Sparta in terms of being a super power with Athenian influence going way beyond Greece. I would think that Sparta would be a definite regional power and also a military superpower. Intrested in seeing how this debate will go. Kyriakos 06:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kyriakos, The reason I introduced China, India, Celts and Gauls into the discussion was because Miskin insisted on calling Sparta a "World Power" (his original edit) and then changed it to Superpower. Both World power and Superpower have worldwide implications, as you can see by clicking on the links. NN 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I initially added 'world power' because, at least in modern terminology, it is more modest than superpower, but you started going on about how the "known world" is a eurocentric view. Then it came out that superpower is quite mainstream in political and historical sources so I changed it (and you were fine with it in the beginning). Some people tend to erroneously think of 'superpowers' in terms of population and geographical span. History has proven many times that this is not the case, and the Greco-Persian was is only an example. Both Sparta and Athens proved it against Persia, and the use of POV criteria such as "size of an Empire" is just not enough in order to refute well referenced claims. What about the "age" of Sparta and Athens as independent states? They both go back to Mycenaean times, while the Achaemenid Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great, and lived only for two centuries. Doric Sparta existed independently for some 700 years, three times the age of the Achaemenid Empire, and Athens for much longer. This is another important criterion for example that Nev doesn't take into consideration, proving why WP:NOR exists. This is why we should not be using our personal views and let the experts do the math. Although such erroneous personal views are entirely not wikipedia's business, I don't mind adding the abundant word 'military' behind superpower in order to add some precision for people who may read between the lines and/or have an anachronistic interpretation of the term. Miskin 13:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling Sparta a superpower in any form remains absurd and nonsensical, whatever adjectives you may choose to put in front of it. However as you and Domitius insist you can have the word superpower in the article. The issue now is where the material is to be located and what other material will accompany it. NN 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The only sensible application of the word superpower to those states would be to call Athens or Greek states combined an intellectual superpower. Also note that I never advocated calling Persia a superpower. All I did was to point out given that as Athens, Thebes and Persia defeated Sparta in wars, if Sparta was to be called a superpower so should they be. NN 14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting too repetitive. As I said, I'm not going to reply to original research and POV. Please read WP:ATT on how edits are made. Miskin 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is repetitive and a waste of all of our time as you won't stick to the discussion. I repeat "The issue now is where the material is to be located and what other material will accompany it." Neither of this is OR or POV. NN 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The material is fine where it is. What would you like to add to it? Is it relevant? Does it have a reference? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself instead of making hostile implications. You're the only person who's wasting other people's time, by not knowing how wikipedia works. I've tried to explain and even quoted the policy to you, the least you could do is ditch the arrogant behaviour and respect wikipedia's rules. When you keep calling the claims of a CUP reference "absurd" and "nonsensical" you're wasting our time. Miskin 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the material is not fine where it is. Also I am not the only one calling the CUP reference "absurd" or "nonsensical". For example Gardner said it was "naive" and "overimaginative". And you pretty well know your allegation of OR is false. NN 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the main dispute here is about the words 'world power,' 'superpower,' and so on. There's not (room for) a lot of debate about the facts of how far Spartan political influence extended, or where her soldiers fought and so on. And for every meaning of each of those words, you can dredge up a shopping-list of sources that use it that way. For instance, IR books that talk about Athens and Sparta (and they virtually all do) will call them both superpowers, because the authors want to make comparisons to the US and USSR during the cold war (incidentally, I don't feel that any nation or empire BEFORE those two should be called a superpower, but that's just me). I don't know, and don't particularly care about WP protocol, but shouldn't this (strictly linguistic) dispute be solved by taking a roll, and seeing if there's a clear majority one way or the other? -irked

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

^ ^a ^b "Athens and Sparta" by Anton Powell (p. 228)

[powell-1] "Athens and Sparta" by Anton Powell (p. 228)

[1]

Categories