Talk:Sparta/Archive 5

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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."

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)


 * Sparta is considered better then athens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.108.158 (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction
I believe the sentence "There is some evidence that the exposure of unwanted children was practiced in other Greek regions, including Athens" under "Birth and Death" should read "There is some evidence that the expulsion of unwanted children was practiced in other Greek regions, including Athens" Since the article is protected and i don't have a login i can't change it myself. 38.108.107.34 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Exposure is correct, as in being exposed to the elements. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle's commentary
It says at the end of the Classical Sparta section that the alarming decline of Spartan citizens was commented on by Aristotle. A source to verify that statement needs to be added to the article. In addition, I think it would be beneficial to the article to further elaborate on what exactly said comments made on the subject by him were. Spartan198 (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead
I have removed this sentence form the lead. It seems rather out of place in the lead, and the out-of-the-blue way it is written makes the lead look like it was written by a high-schooler. The helots are discussed in their own section in the article. The lead should present a general summary on the article. Half of it shouldn't be taken up by the helots. Athenean (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I restored the bit about Sparta fighting Athens, as that was rather important and deserves a small bit in the lead. :) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message left on my talk page. Do you have sources to back up your claim that my edit is "simplistic" or is it a POV? I would argue that matters relating to 80% of the population should not be relegated to the body and denied appearance in the introduction. Cheers, LuxNevada (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a question of sourcing, it is a question of emphasis. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should present an overview of the article and a summary of its main points roughly in proportion to the space devoted to them in the article.  The sentence you have restored is clearly against the spirit of WP:LEAD.  The current lead is relatively short, only 6 sentences.  In your version, two of those sentences are devoted exclusively to the helots, or 28% of the lead.  In the actual article, however, the Helots are discussed in only one of four subsections of the "Structure of Classical Spartan Society" section, itself one of eight sections.  In other words, a very small part of the entire article.  Devoting two full length sentences on the helots is thus excessive.  Also, the sentence is simplistic and inaccurate:  Helots could only be killed once a year, during the "Crypteia", so the sentence is an oversimplification.  I also note that it is sourced to primary, not secondary sources.  Third, I don't like the short, telegraphic style.  It reads too much like a high school essay, though that is just my opinion.  I propose that the lead be restored to what it was before the intervention.  The helots are mentioned, as is the fact that they made up 80% of the population.  Stylistically, that version was also more encyclopedic.  All that would be missing would be the over-simiplification that I mentioned.  Athenean (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That helots were ritually humiliated is a well supported fact. Yet, it does not belong in the lead. I do not think that we would ever make such a comment in the lead of any ancient or contemporary nation, and Sparta is no exception. It bears no significance how many they were, they were not Spartans. Athens had a slave population of maybe 50%, the Carthaginians had a non-Punic population of maybe 90% in their Empire etc etc etc. How they treated minorities, slaves or enemies (all three are ways in which helots were perceived) is noteworthy but has no place in the lead. GK1973 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed in length before by Alistair Haines, Lexo and me. My opinion is that less than 20% of the introduction to discuss the condition of 80% of the population is not inappropriate. Some material has been removed from the lead to make take this over 20%. I have shortened the lead so that there is now only one sentence devoted to Helots, out of the 7 total. Whether the Helots were Spartan or not depends is debatable, and in any case the article is about Sparta rather than Spartans. LuxNevada (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So now you think it's more important to mention that the helots were ritually humiliated is more important than the fact that they made up more than 80% of the population? Sorry, but I cannot accept that.  The treatment of the Helots is only a small part of this article.  We cannot have such an unencylopedic sentence in the lead.  And like GK said, no other article mentions the treatment of slaves in the lead.  Furthermore, the sentence is incorrect:  Helots could only be killed without any guilt, once a year during the crypteia. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "it's more important to mention that the helots were ritually humiliated is more important than the fact that they made up more than 80% of the population" Not sure where you got that from, if you look at the version I edited, the information that they were 80% of the population is present. And two editors vs. one wanting something is not a conclusive argument. LuxNevada (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked some more people to comment, and if that gets nowhere I will ask for an RfC. Athenean (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it just seems strange to me that we should devote an entire sentence in a 6-sentence lead to the treatment of the helots. Why not mention that the Spartiates were full time soldiers, for example?  After all, that was what made Sparta unique.  Slaves and serfs have been abused in every ancient culture since the beginning of history.  Ritual abuse of the helots is not what made Sparta unique and notable.  It was their full-time citizen-soldiers and their military prowess.  The lead should show why the subject is notable, not seek to portray the subject in as bad a light as possible. Athenean (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The material presented is important and factual. If you decide whether to include material based on judgments about whether the material will portray the subject in good or bad light, then it violates NPOV. Also if you pick on particular people to comment, it probably becomes canvassing. You should ask for a general RfC. LuxNevada (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The material in question is only a small part of the entire article. It is not sufficiently notable to warrant a full sentence in a 6-sentence lead.  Perhaps if the lead is expanded (which I think it should be), we may find a place for it.  As for the people I have asked to comment, they are all perfectly neutral users, the only reason I asked them to comment is because I know they have an interest in the topic.  But you're right, and RfC is preferable, and I will ask for one. Athenean (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you say sounds reasonable, thanks. LuxNevada (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right then, I will try and expand the lead over the next few days. I think an article like this definitely deserves more than 6 sentences for a lead.  The way I see it, the first paragraph should be introductory, the second one should cover the history, the third one the social structure, and the fourth the legacy (laconophilia, etc...). Athenean (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I drafted much of this article, and I personally think that LuxNevada's insistence on foregrounding the treatment of the Helots over every other aspect of Spartan society (coupled with his/her distrust of any source that does not compare the Spartans to the Nazis) is pathological in origin and has nothing to do with good scholarship. For that very reason, I have refrained from editing this article and I do not intend to intervene in this debate, other than to explain why I'm not getting involved. I have better things to do than get involved in an edit war; I've been there already with this article, and I no longer believe that it is possible for me to make any contribution to it, given the shit-storm I had to endure last time round. Have fun. Lexo (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to insist that this info does not belong in the lead. Present it in the section about helots. This article is about Sparta, not about the Spartans nor about the way they treated anyone. The way they treated their wives, their slaves, their enemies, the guests, the foreigners etc etc etc might be worth mentioning but not in the lead, no matter how many sentences it is. Apart from that, the whole reference is wrong. Herodot 8.28 and 8.29...

"Thus had the Phokians done to the Thessalian footmen, when they were besieged by them; and they had done irreparable hurt to their cavalry also, when this had invaded their land: for in the pass which is by Hyampolis they had dug a great trench and laid down in it empty wine-jars; and then having carried earth and laid it on the top and made it like the rest of the ground, they waited for the Thessalians to invade their land. These supposing that they would make short work with the Phokians, riding in full course fell upon the wine-jars; and there the legs of their horses were utterly crippled." Herodot, 8.28

"Bearing then a grudge for both of these things, the Thessalians sent a herald and addressed them thus: "Phokians, we advise you to be more disposed now to change your minds and to admit that ye are not on a level with us: for in former times among the Hellenes, so long as it pleased us to be on that side, we always had the preference over you, and now we have such great power with the Barbarian that it rests with us to cause you to be deprived of your land and to be sold into slavery also. We however, though we have all the power in our hands, do not bear malice, but let there be paid to us fifty talents of silver in return for this, and we will engage to avert the dangers which threaten to come upon your land.".", Herodot 8.29

The helots are mentioned in 8.25

"When the herald had proclaimed this, then boats were of all things most in request, so many were they who desired to see this sight; and when they had passed over they went through the dead bodies and looked at them: and every one supposed that those who were lying there were all Lacedemonians or Thespians, though the Helots also were among those that they saw: however, they who had passed over did not fail to perceive that Xerxes had done that which I mentioned about the bodies of his own dead; for in truth it was a thing to cause laughter even: on the one side there were seen a thousand dead bodies lying, while the others lay all gathered together in the same place, four thousand of them. During this day then they busied themselves with looking, and on the day after this they sailed back to the ships at Histaia, while Xerxes and his army set forth upon their march."

This extract has of course nothing to do with the percentage of helots in the Spartan Peloponnesian dominions. Now, without trying to suggest that the helots were not a very sizable body of people, the reference used is wrong.

And there is no other mention of helots in Herodot's entire 8th book.

Herodot writes in his 9th book:

"After this the Hellenes were ranged as follows, both those of them who came in continually afterwards and those who had come at the first. The right wing was held by ten thousand Lacedemonians; and of these the five thousand who were Spartans were attended by thirty-five thousand Helots serving as light-armed troops, seven of them appointed for each man. To stand next to themselves the Spartans chose the Tegeans, both to do them honour and also because of their valour; and of these there were one thousand five hundred hoplites. After these were stationed five thousand Corinthians, and they had obtained permission from Pausanias that the three hundred who were present of the men of Potidaia in Pallene should stand by their side. Next to these were stationed six hundred Arcadians of Orchomenos; and to these three thousand Sikyonians. Next after these were eight hundred Epidaurians: by the side of these were ranged a thousand Troizenians: next to the Troizenians two hundred Lepreates: next to these four hundred of the men of Mikene and Tiryns; and then a thousand Phliasians. By the side of these stood three hundred Hermionians; and next to the Hermionians were stationed six hundred Eretrians and Styrians; next to these four hundred Chalkidians; and to these five hundred men of Amprakia. After these stood eight hundred Leucadians and Anactorians; and next to them two hundred from Pale in Kephallenia. After these were ranged five hundred Eginetans; by their side three thousand Megarians; and next to these six hundred Plataians. Last, or if you will first, were ranged the Athenians, occupying the left wing, eight thousand in number, and the commander of them was Aristeides the son of Lysimachos.", 9.28.

Maybe this is the reference meant, but even this only gives information as to the helots accompanying Spartan hoplites and has nothing to do with population (it has to do with how many light troops they chose to send), although it is a hint that the helot population was sizeable, of course Sparta had more men and many more Lacedaemonians who also dwelt in Spartan dominions without being helots. And of course, this 80% number is also very bold to state, since Sparta had a very long history and helots did of course not have the same percentage of the total population of Sparta in the 8th century BC and in the 2nd century BC (as the lead now suggests). Again, I strongly agree that they probably did comprise a larger population than the omoioi at all times, but the Lacedaemonians were not only the omoioi, so it is rather impossible to know their population with such a precision at all times of Spartan history.

Anyways, a problematic reference is the least of the problems I find with this issue. Even if some proper reference was found, I would still find such a text unbecoming. Else, we should write in all Islamic country articles about the way they are treating women or criminals, in the article about Athens about the way they treated slaves (maybe 50% of the population) etc etc etc. The helots are discussed in the article, they have an article of their own, they have no place in the lead of this article.

In conclusion, I would not add the way the Spartans treated the helots in the lead and I would change this bold "80%" with something more vague like "state owned serfs, probably the majority of the population" GK1973 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tyrants
Main Idea:A tyrant is someone who takes power by demand.Tyrants were able to seize power fromthe nobles with the support of Greek farmers,merchants,and artisans.In 650 B.C small farmers began to demand changes in the power structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.188.130 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Spartan's role is overstated
"Sparta was recognized as the overall leader of the combined Greek forces during the Greco-Persian Wars.[2]" This and the Classic period section both ignore that Athens and Athenian generals were in charge of the navies and armies during several pivotal battles: Battle of Marathon, Battle of Salamis, and Battle of Mycale. Nitpyck (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Sparta was seen at the time (with considerable justification) as the premier military power in Greece. When the Ionians came to seek help in their revolt, they came to Sparta first. At Marathon, a Spartan contingent was en route, but arrived only shortly after the battle was fought. Even in the naval battles of Artemisium and Salamis, command was given to Eurybiades, a Spartan, even though the Athenians fielded half the fleet's strength (of course, de facto the Athenians, or better Themistocles, did provide the strategy for Salamis). Only after Plataea did Sparta withdraw from pursuing the Persian war, leaving Athens to play the sole leading role... Constantine  ✍  12:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any changes, but the second paragraph talking about women's roles in sparta has little to no citations. It seems to be based primarily off the movie, which is inacurate. Please provide citations to make this a more solid argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert j lager (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

THE SPARTANS WERE MENTIONED IN THE BOOK 1MACCABEES
It would be awesome if the article mentioned the fact that the Spartans were written of in the Book of Maccabees. There are many people out here who suffer from Laconophilia and NEED every bit of information they can get on the Spartans.

1 Maccabees 12:5 And this is the copy of the letters which Jonathan wrote to the Lacedemonians: 6 Jonathan the high priest, and the elders of the nation, and the priests, and the other of the Jews, unto the Lacedemonians their brethren send greeting: 7 There were letters sent in times past unto Onias the high priest from Darius, who reigned then among you, to signify that ye are our brethren, as the copy here underwritten doth specify. 8 At which time Onias entreated the ambassador that was sent honourably, and received the letters, wherein declaration was made of the league and friendship. 9 Therefore we also, albeit we need none of these things, that we have the holy books of scripture in our hands to comfort us, 10 Have nevertheless attempted to send unto you for the renewing of brotherhood and friendship, lest we should become strangers unto you altogether: for there is a long time passed since ye sent unto us. 11 We therefore at all times without ceasing, both in our feasts, and other convenient days, do remember you in the sacrifices which we offer, and in our prayers, as reason is, and as it becometh us to think upon our brethren: 12 And we are right glad of your honour. 13 As for ourselves, we have had great troubles and wars on every side, forsomuch as the kings 0that are round about us have fought against us. 14 Howbeit we would not be troublesome unto you, nor to others of our confederates and friends, in these wars: 15 For we have help from heaven that succoureth us, so as we are delivered from our enemies, and our enemies are brought under foot. 16 For this cause we chose Numenius the son of Antiochus, and Antipater he son of Jason, and sent them unto the Romans, to renew the amity that we had with them, and the former league. 17 We commanded them also to go unto you, and to salute and to deliver you our letters concerning the renewing of our brotherhood. 18 Wherefore now ye shall do well to give us an answer thereto. 19 And this is the copy of the letters which Oniares sent. 20 Areus king of the Lacedemonians to Onias the high priest, greeting: 21 It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham HELLO I COME FROM OUTER SPACE 22 Now therefore, since this is come to our knowledge, ye shall do well to write unto us of your prosperity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleAAmazin (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion or non-discussion on Talk:republic
There is new information on the Talk:republic page that challenges the accuracy and efficacy and truth of the Wikipedia entry. Need to stir interest and more comment on the page. Sparta is a Republic because she has mixed government. It would be of use to take advantage of the info on the page to see how the definition was changed and why Sparta is denied the title of "republic".WHEELER (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

best troops in the world thats funny
how they be considered the best soldiers ever if they only fought other greeks and fought persia like 4 times in their history but got their ass kicked by Rome? If you ask me Legions as well as even the Immortals deserve that title more than them--76.94.173.73 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one asked you. But the article notes Sparta was in decline after that point in its history, so who are you even arguing against? 74.192.163.136 (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * However unobjectively expressed, he does have a point. The Spartans had a legendary military prowess much imitated by later states in their hundreds. Legendary, I said. Because Sparta was a military state everyone expected it to be good at strategy and tactics. Bottom line: no better than the other big states, such as Athens and Boeotia. I think we should be careful to distinguish what the writers thought and think from the way it really is. We can make these things into reported matters rather than matters. Every military tries to build a reputation for being fearful, like wrestlers growling and threatening each other in the ring. That applies to a good many paramilitary and quasimilitary organizations as well. This is an attempt to rule by terror. Sometimes they are terrible, but not always. The student of history gets pretty tired of seeing terrible leaders strutting around in full braggadocio saluting with their little daggers or clomping through the streets with jackboots all in time marking a measured tread or firing off their guns into the air even as they speak. One fellow beat the podium with his shoe. I won't say who, as that might be a military secret in certain circles. After a while you tend to have the above unsophisticated reaction.Dave (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguous section
The whole section on other places called Sparta is really disambiguous and belongs on a disambig page. It appears that the whole disambig topic with regard to sparta and the spartans need to be gone over.Dave (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved it already. I took the populations off. Here is my reasoning: in this article we are not interested in the populations of communities in the US or anywhere else outside of ancient Sparta. On the disambig page, the demographic information belongs in the articles. Besides, populations change on a yearly basis. Why would you want to compare the populations of places named Sparta? How about places that received 2 inches of rainfall in July, or places that sold exactly 50 cans of dogfood? Non-encyclopedic, not of note, no bearing on anything, of value to no one.Dave (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Spartans and pederasty ?
I agree with the great author Stephen Pressfield, pederasty is a myth. Not only was the mentor relationship reasonable, the spartans even had laws against improper relationships. Their stance is clear, it was not permitted and certainly not fostered.

And "Gates of Fire" is the best book about war ever written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.229.78 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

the pederasty needs to be addressed not ignored if it is a myth than write and cite. War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning is the best book about war. --Paul the less (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These short articles only have time for the basics. If you start with the pederasty the topic will soon take over the article, giving the wrong impression. The books I have seen on here are mainly special topics written by homosexual professors coming out of the closet. There are quite a few of those. I suppose it is pleasurable to shock our puritan sensibilites. First you play the concealement game. Then you let it all out in a big rush of joy. I don't see any difference between Greek states in the treatment of the subject and no difference in the actual behavior of societies ancient and modern. I intend to get us off this topic whenever I see it unless that is the specified subject. It isn't worth taking up space for. It isn't that we wouldn't discuss it if it was worth discussing. We're interested in knowledge not in titillation (or should be). There's plenty of porn on the Internet. Let's do something different.Dave (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Spartan pederasty isn't a myth, but it is a controversial topic. The brief mention on this page is appropriate (and appropriately links to Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece) and I think that Dave is certainly right to say that it shouldn't occupy undue space and attention here. This "professors coming out of the closet" statement is simply ridiculous, and I honestly find it offensive and acritical. Yes, many gay classicists write on topics that relate to sexuality in the ancient world, but their sexual orientation has nothing to do with our evaluating their scholarship, and the topic of pederasty in antiquity is neither a modern gay conspiracy nor an attempt to "shock our puritan sensibilities". See the scholarship cited for the page on the topic, where these apparently suspect gay classicists mix with reassuringly straight scholars like Erich Bethe and Kenneth Dover. &mdash;The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is why I was very careful with the reference. I think leaving it out would be revisionist. So the brief mention with a link to a broader article I think works well without putting undue weight on the topic. --Paul the less (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I can't say that I agree with your opinions, but we started with that presumption. As to whether I agree with what the article says, I defer on that until I get to it. I can't do everything at once. Naturally pederasty in classics had two meanings and naturally there was some bad pederasty in classical populations as there is in all populations. I remind you that it happens to be against the law and that has been true all the way back. I don't know if you read the same books as I do but the few I have looked at do in fact exaggerate beyond what was likely (way beyond). As for the classics professors, well, you have your experiences, I have mine. We aren't going to agree. But I suppose there is no greater ratio of sexual deviants among the classics professors than there is in the population in general. I'm not taking on this large and mainly unresolved social topic. It is certain that molestation of children never has been legal in any society and never will be. Let's not slander the Dorians. That having been said I am getting off this over-exaggerated topic until such time as I encounter anything that leads us in the wrong direction. If I do then you will hear a lot more from me. But I invoke the presumption of good faith for now: I doubt I will find anything. Let's get back to the article.Dave (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Xenophon (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians), Plutarch (Moralia, Customs of the Spartans) and Claudius Aelianus (Varia Historia) all emphatically state that sexual pederasty was a crime in Sparta, and if a mentor had sexual relations with a student he could be punished with denial of civic rights (demotion to hypomeiones) or possibly death. Also, according to Helena Schrader, webmaster of the Sparta Reconsidered site, there have been no depictions of homosexuality found in Spartan artwork. In fact, the closest I've seen to anything related to "sexuality" in Sparta's archaeology are statuettes of girls exercising in skimpy clothing and engravings of husbands and wives sitting side by side at dinner tables. I find it stunningly confusing as to why so many ignore this obvious evidence against the existence of pederasty in Sparta. Instead of relying on the biased opinions of modern historians, I suggest that conclusions should be derived from the ancients who had a much clearer picture of the ancient world than we moderns. Plutarch and Xenophon were no idiots. But I guess their knowledge does not count to modern people, because according to the modern conventional wisdom "of course all those ancient Greeks must have been gay!" I'm not saying that pederasty didn't exist. I have not read the comments of Steven Pressfield, but if he is suggesting that pederasty was non-existent throughout Greece then he is as naive as Cartledge. Pederasty varied among different social classes, different cities, and different time periods in ancient Greece. Pederasty was common in Athens. But Xenophon is a good example of how pederasty was not universally respected as a "great instution" among Athenians, otherwise why would he have been so eager to send his own sons to train in the Spartan agoge which he himself describes as being chaste and non-sexual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.143.64 (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

both views are represented in the text with a stronger argument for yours. until I get the tardis fixed we will just have to line up and weigh what the sources say. --Paul the less (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ehrenberg 2004
There is no Ehrenberg 2004. The isbn references Ehrenberg 1973, the 2nd edition. I'm fixing that but there is another problem. References to pages in at least 2 of these refs have nothing to do with the cited material in any way explicit or implicit. I'm afraid this destroys my assumption of good faith. That is only an initial assumption. There is a demonstrated problem here. I will gradually go thru these refs.Dave (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked a few more and they seem OK. The ones that were no good were tacked on the end of the introductory section where they did not seem to be needed; in fact, it was a chain of two. It appears the laconophobia may have been added. Well, I'll check a few more and if it seems OK will only check the suspicious-looking material. I suppose this event only confirms the need to lock this article.Dave (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Plataea ended the Persian Wars?
There isn't a statement in this saying that Plataea ended the Persian Wars, I believe the wars actually went on for another 30 years, the Greeks didn't even liberate Byzantium until a year after Plataea. There's no doubt Plataea was an important victory, not as important as Salamis of course, but it certainly didnt end the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.92 (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lacedaemonia
There's no Lacedaemonia in ancient Greek. There's none in Latin either, but the Latins used an adjective, Lacedaemonius, with "country": Lacedaemonia tellus which apparently in Late Latin got used alone. English has a Lacedaemonia.Dave (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know where Lacedaemonia = Sparta came from, but Lacedaemonia does occur in Greek as an equivalent of Laconia + Messenia during the Roman and early Byzantine periods (mostly in ethnographers and lexica glossing place names; e.g. Hesychius s.v. Ἁγιάδαι· τόπος ἐν Λακεδαιμονίᾳ). The earliest use of Lacedaemonia = Laconia appears to be Diodorus Siculus 19.70.2 (but probably with χώρα suppressed), though in the reconstructed Historia animalium attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium the usage does occur (but probably belongs to the language of the later author from whose work our text is derived). The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cardiff - how's everything there in Wales? Perhaps we should say a few words about this late name. I hesitate to do that because by the time it was in use Sparta was pretty much gone. This is not about English or Roman imperial usage but about Sparta. But the adectival use is earlier so maybe that should be brought in. What do you think?Dave (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wales is good, but looks a lot like Connecticut today. I don't know that it needs to be mentioned, save for the fact that it's presence as a synonym of Laconia at that page might lead to it's being reintroduced here by someone else. (And then it might be attributed to Homer, Hdt. and Thuc. again.) Maybe a footnote off one of the sentences concerning Laconia here? The only problem is that, since LSJ doesn't mention anything that I noted above, would it constitute original research to cite Diod. Sic. or Hesychius? Hazlitt's Gazetteer does have a rather spare lemma on this. Your call since you're the one cleaning things up. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears as though we should mention it as a late name. I don't see it as original research. The original researchers were Diod. Sic. et al. We're only reporting what they said. It's not my opinion or yours but rather is a geographical name in use under certain constraints of time and space. If Strabo calls something by a name we don't need a modern classicist to tell us Strabo called it by that name. On the other hand if we present an original interpretation using the ancient sources it is original research. No clear border. I think a geographical name is all right. I'll do it when I get to it. I'm trying to do three or 4 related ones together. Salve my conscience for leaving them unfinished. Unfinished articles fall apart fast around here.Dave (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Imaginary paragraph
"The prehistory of Sparta is difficult to reconstruct, because the literary evidence is far removed in time from the events it describes and is also distorted by oral tradition.  However, the earliest certain evidence of human settlement in the region of Sparta consists of pottery dating from the Middle Neolithic period, found in the vicinity of Kouphovouno some two kilometres south-southwest of Sparta.  These are the earliest traces of the original Mycenaean Spartan civilisation, as represented in Homer's Iliad."

Prehistory has no oral tradition or literary evidence. The pottery should go in the History of Sparta article. The Neolithic has nothing to do with the Mycenaean. Homer is not the same as Mycenaean. Since we are covering all this is a distinct article out best bet is to move most of this stuff to there. We need the space here.Dave (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Transliterate and equivalent
Hi there! I think your understanding needs to be sharpened on the sentence:

"written in Linear B syllabic script and equivalent to the Ancient Greek Lakedaimonios (Λακεδαιμόνιος): "Lacedaemonian""

If I am not too offensive I hope I may correct you on this as I have had quite a bit of Linear B. No one can know everything. The Linear B is not equivalent to ancient Greek, it IS ancient Greek written in a different script. viz, ra-ke-da-mi-ni-jo is pronounced Lakedaimonios. It is not a different language in any way, it is the one and only ancient Greek. No one ever said rakedaminijo or any of the other spellings in Linear B. Linear B is not phonetic. The Greek alphabet is. So certainly, we can say the writing, ra-ke-da-mi-ni-jo, is equivalent to the writing Lakedaimonios but we cannot say the Linear B word is equivalent to ancient Greek Lakedaimonios. It IS the ancient Greek word Lakedaimonios, there is no other. The distinction is one of writing system only. American Heritage Dictionary defines transliterate as "To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of another alphabet" and that is exactly what is going on. We are representing ra-ke-da-mi-ni-jo in the corresponding characters of the Greek alphabet. Now, the problem is, what you have is wrong, for it implies that the Mycenaean word is "equivalent" to the ancient Greek word when in fact it IS the ancient Greek word. Equivalent imples "worth the same" in some way, but they are identical and not equivelent. Equivalent is between different things that are worth the same in some way. Since we are at the word level, and are interested in the word, it is not equivalence of different writing systems we are concerned with. So, this must go back to transliterate. I am givng you advance notice so you will not get all upset. I'm not going to do it myself right at the moment because I plan to do more rewriting on that section and whatever it says then might not be what it says now. So, you can either change it back, rewrite it yourself, or wait until I rewrite it. It might take a few days as it did for me to respond to the Lakedaimonia issue. Ciao. I have to water the plants now. Do they have plants in Wales?Dave (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So as not to seem a boob, let me point out that the sentence was previously:


 * "The earliest attested term referring to Lacedaemon is the Mycenaean Greek ra-ke-da-mi-ni-jo, transliterated as "Lacedaemonian", written in Linear B syllabic script."


 * That's the use of transliterate that my edit summary refers to: ra-ke-da-mi-ni-jo > "Lacedaemonian". But you're right that the implied difference of language between Mycenaean Greek and Ancient Greek is an infelicity in my wording that would mislead many. I'll work on rephrasing right now. Good catch. No plants here in Cardiff-on-Quinnipiac: my cats would eat them. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

New paper
If you want to understand the Spartans, one needs to understand their thinking. Here is a paper that might help in understanding their form of government. Macrocosm/Microcosm in Doric Thought. WHEELER (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.48.6.201, 19 August 2011


 128.48.6.201 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please be more specific about what needs to be changed and provide a reliable source for the information. Topher385 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions
1. The third name of Sparta is not listed or it's not clear what it is.

2. "This civilization seems to have fallen into decline by the late Bronze Age, when, according to Herodotus, Macedonian tribes from the north marched into Peloponnese, where they were called Dorians and subjugating the local tribes, settled there."

This sentence is ugly and needs to be reworked.

3. The spelling for helots and ephors is not consistent. Lower and upper cases are alternately used.

ICE77 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Girls as well as boys exercised nude, and young women as well as young men may have participated in the Gymnopaedia ("Festival of Nude Youths").[82][83]" This is, of course, relevant and belongs in the article, but it is entirely POV to place it in a section titled Political, social, and economic equality, given the possible politics of naked female youths being paraded before men. An encyclopedia is not the place for people to assert their personal perspective on gender, but neither is it the place for people to reduce a debate about nakedness to immature dichotomies of "puritanism" versus "equality" in abstract terms. Unless primary sources tell us otherwise, we cannot know if the Festival of Nude Youths was sexualising and abusing children, but pretending these events were some kind of ground-breaking moments in gender-equity is far from thoughtful. Afterall, youths were frequently sexualised and abused in ancient Greece. Pandering to the sentiments of paedophiles who look to the past to attemot to rationalise their behaviour is aborent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.145.125.74 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

4. "Life in Classical Sparta: Military life" - there is an unnecessary comma after the word "Sparta" in the second paragraph. -- "Sparta, is thought to be the first city to practice athletic nudity, and one of the first to formalize pederasty." Should be "Sparta is thought to be the first city to practice athletic nudity, and one of the first to formalize pederasty." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profaneprimate (talk • contribs) 04:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

5. Laconophilia: Can someone please make citations for the various admirers of Sparta?--Machinegunetiq (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sparta is the most biggest city in the land of Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.64.57 (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Aristotle, having been born in Stageira, Chalkidike, was, of course a Macedonian, not an Athenian.Stiivwn (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This page lacks a section on the spartian government structure, despite it being one of the most unique and interesting government structures in ancient history.Thetntm (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

role of women needs an edit
the section on the role of women contains several contextual and gramatical errors in the first paragraph and seems to claim that life in sparta for women was worse than and better than life in athens. it seems that the paragraph was originally written like a persuasive essay, but then edited poorly. i request a rewrite of this first paragraph of this section.Thetntm (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

edit: here is a part of the section with grammatical errors in bold: "Spartan girls were fed the same food as their brothers.[92] Nor were they confined to their father's house and prevented from exercising or getting fresh air as in Athens, but exercised and even competed in sports"

Thetntm (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Government Type
It says that the government type was an oligarchy in the right hand box. Sparta actually had a mixed government system. A more accurate title would be a democratic constitutional Dyarchy. That's right Sparta was a democracy, and before Athens too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.248.139 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Spartan men were required to marry at age 30" - Incorrect and Unsupported
Hello, I'm new to this and don't know how to edit the article myself. In the section of the article dealing with marriage there is a sentence that states "Spartan men were required to marry at age 30" and includes a citation. The statement is incorrect and the citation only points to a book title but not the page number. I have that book and can point to page 111 where it clearly discusses married Spartan men under the age of 30.

I have several other citations I can provide from other works which indicate that Spartan men could marry by the age of 20, usually married by around 25, and were allowed out of the common barracks to go live with their wife at age 30. Hopefully the incorrect sentence can be fixed.

Doodeyfoodle (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing attention to it. I deleted the questionable claim, and you are more than welcome to edit the article yourself and add a more correct statement. Or if not you could write a suggestion here, so it could be inserted as replacement of the deleted sentence. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request
"Aristotle, of course, was an Athenian and a harsh critic"

Aristotle was not Athenian, he was Chalcidean. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-415-92392-1

Despite spending much of his life there, he was never an Athenian citizen.

Decadoice (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013
"Aristotle, of course, was an Athenian and a harsh critic"

Aristotle was not Athenian, he was Chalcidean. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-415-92392-1

Despite spending much of his life there, he was never an Athenian citizen.

Citation should also be given on Aristotle being a particularly harsh critic of Spartan life.

Suggested change: Remove entire "Aristotle, of course, was an Athenian and a harsh critic" sentence.

Decadoice (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I found some other sources echoing what you said and made the change. Vaca  tion  9  13:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sparta is a republic
I have pointed out earlier that Paul A. Rahe, in his masterful study of republic cruses, he was a fan of starwars  Republics, Ancient and Modern calls Sparta a republic. A Roman scholar, Mike Anderson, has also called Sparta's form of government a Republic, Development of the Spartan Political System on 5 January, 2013. To wit: "So we can see a balanced Republican government of three bodies: Gerousia, Assembly, and Ephors, remarkably similar to the Roman Republic". Sparta had a republic; a true republic. WHEELER (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just read thru the comment section and an unsigned user commented on the government form of Sparta:
 * It says that the government type was an oligarchy in the right hand box. Sparta actually had a mixed government system. A more accurate title would be a democratic constitutional Dyarchy. That's right Sparta was a democracy, and before Athens too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.248.139 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am the author of this article at journal in England that is concentrated on Sparta The Spartan Republic. That article is posted on their webpage for free because that article is now the standard and defining article for Sparta's form of government. That unsigned user is correct---you can't talk of "mixed government" and then have it say "Oligarchy" on the side! This is a contradiction! This is NOT right. Sparta is a Republic! And the Roman Republic is derived from the Spartan! WHEELER (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have returned and there is no answer from the "Powers that be". Is there not a glaring inconsistency here? come on folks. Your very own article declares that Sparta has mixed government but the sidebar says "Oligarchy". How about fixing the contradiction. Either have the article say Sparta had an oligarchy and keep the sidebar or change the sidebar to match the article. Come on people!WHEELER (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling Sparta a Monarchy now!! That is great! When Plato calls it a "True Politiea". Or how about Aristotle, Aristotle who did commentaries on some 187 constitutions and yet you don't see Aristotle calling Sparta a Monarchy! What does Aristotle call Sparta? The Master and founder of the science of politics? He follows the lead of Plato. Aristotle calls Sparta a politiea! Which the Romans translated as Republic! Here is another article talking about Aristotle's view of Sparta: The Confusing State of Sparta. Are you people off your rocker? Plato and Aristotle lived right there! They spoke Greek and knew their people. Even Diachercus of Messiania calls his treastise on Sparta "The Tripoliticus", not a Monarchy! What is the difficulty calling Sparta a republic? What is with you people? Plague will break out? What? Truth not good enough for you? Read my articles? What disputes and nullifies what was posted? What academic has torn it apart? Any? What is the definition of a republic? Was not the Roman Republic mixed?

WHEELER (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We are sorry to inform you Mr. Wheeler, that by calling Sparta a "republic" would cause a rip in the space-time continuum. Hell would freeze over; revolutions would break out; day would turn into night and night into day; stars will fall from the sky; the Pope will become Protestant; bears will stop sh*tting in the woods; and besides you'd throw all those die-hard British (pseudo)"republicans" into a snit-fit causing multiple strokes and heart-attacks. We just can't allow that. So it must be for eternity. We don't care about no stinking consistency, history, or that Machiavelli called Sparta a republic. "According to Cicero, Sallust, and Livy, silence had not been the rule under Rome's early kings: as they represented it, the res publica predated the election of the first consuls in 509 B.C. by centuries, for the monarchy, seconded by a senate fromt he start, had been the crucible within which the res publica had taken shape." pg 28, Against Throne and Altar, Paul A. Rahe. Wow, all three Romans that wrote history about Rome start the Roman republic under kings. We don't care what anybody says. Sparta is not a republic Wheeler, and we don't care how many references you have and how many books you quote. We don't care what Aristotle says or anybody else. We rule! We Marxists Rule and we make our own rules up as we go along! We can't allow you or anybody else threaten our carefully constructed Lie. Sparta is a Monarchy! And that it will remain that way. If you keep on complaining---we'll just have to change it back to an oligarchy! Signed: The Ruling Powers that be. (WHEELER (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC))
 * I know there are copious amounts of references to Sparta being an "oligarchy". Can you please post here what reference book, what authority, you used to define the Spartan government as a "monarchy" or "Dual Monarchy". POST YOUR REFERENCES. WHEELER (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"

One-dimensionally? Unilaterally? There has to be a better way to say this (and without the misspelling). I would just edit it in place, but that appears disabled on this page. (I can imagine why, considering the "meme disambiguation" bit at the header.)

Zanbowser (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Aristotle in his critique of the Spartan constitution claims that the lack of homosexuality among Spartan men explained the, in his opinion deplorable, power of Spartan women.[citation needed]

That would be : ''Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves.''

Aristotle, Politics, book 2 chapter 9

Since there was no society in the ancient world in which women enjoyed higher status, greater freedom or more economic power than in Sparta,[citation needed]

The extreme status of the spartan women is mentioned in lots of primary sources, as above, Aristotle claims they ruled the men and :

And also nearly two-fifths of the whole area of the country is owned by women, because of the number of women who inherit estates and the practice of giving large dowries; yet it would have been better if dowries had been prohibited by law or limited to a small or moderate amount .

Aristotle, Politics, book 2 chapter 9

''For it is not true that, as Aristotle says,he tried to bring the women under proper restraint, but desisted, because he could not overcome the great licence and power which the women enjoyed on account of the many expeditions in which their husbands were engaged. During these the men were indeed obliged to leave their wives in sole control at home, and for this reason paid them greater deference than was their due, and gave them the title of Mistress.''

Plutarch, Lycurgus 15.6-9

''Throughout the rest of the world the young girl, who will one day become a mother (and I speak of those who may be held to be well brought up), is nurtured on the plainest food attainable, with the scantiest addition of meat or other condiments; whilst as to wine they train them either to total abstinence or to take it highly diluted with water. And in imitation, as it were, of the handicraft type, since the majority of artificers are sedentary,[5] we, the rest of the Hellenes, are content that our girls should sit quietly and work wools. That is all we demand of them. But how are we to expect that women nurtured in this fashion should produce a splendid offspring?''

Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaimonians, chapter 1

Yezdigerd (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)§§§§


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Λακεδαιμόνιος edit request
Λακεδαιμόνιος, the given translation for Sparta, is the Ancient Greek for 'from Lacedaemon, Spartan'; can we change it to Λακεδαίμων, 'Sparta, Lacedaemon'? http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=lakedaimwn&la=greek#lexicon http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9B%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B5%CE%B4%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%BC%CF%89%CE%BD http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9B%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B5%CE%B4%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BC%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.53.93 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Seconded, with an addition: this word is given as the transliteration of the Linear B word , but the site that is cited as the source doesn't transliterate the word itself, it only gives a translation, and technically the Mycenaean word, as written with this Linear B spelling, would have to be Lakedaimnios (Λακεδαιμνιος), as <-mi-ni-> can't represent -μονι- but can represent -μνι-. (I don't know where the accent would be in the Mycenaean word.) 173.77.97.57 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Another edit request
I would suggest adding Brasidas to the list of famous Spartans. "Brasidas - Officer and Orator". Brasidas was one of Sparta's most competent military leaders, and his zeal in liberating cities caused the Athenians quite some difficulty. Harmodios100 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lacedaemon pronunciation
Pronunciation of Lacedaemon should be Λακεδαίμων, lakēdaimōn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulliusCaesar0369 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

rewrite needed
"Middle Neolithic period, found in the vicinity of Kouphovouno some two kilometres (1.2 miles) south-southwest of Sparta.[24] These are the earliest traces of the original Mycenaean Spartan civilization." Mykenae was a Bronze Age culture, NOT a Neolithic one. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014
The needed pronunciation of Lacedaemon in the first words of the article is given in the Wiktionary as /ˌlæsəˈdiːmən/ (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lacedaemon)

62.152.148.16 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014
Sparta

1) By the middle of the 6th Century was Sparta the strongest military power in Greece.	2) Stealing by boys was permitted to develop stealth + surprise but being caught was severely punishable. 3) The Spartan city-state was 6,000 sq. kilometers, twice the site of the next largest city state.	4) Creates the Peloponnesian League in the 6th Century which is an alliance with Sparta + other city-states. 5) Three most important characteristics:		a. Military		b. Education		c. Religion 	6) Coin the phrase -> "with this shield or on it" come back with your shield claiming victory or  come back on it dead 1. Population: 25,000 2. Slaves: 100,000 3. Soldiers: 8,000 4. Found in: 900-800 BC	7) Two ways to get tombstone: women dies in childbirth/soldier dies in battle In fact only 298 Spartans showed up at the battle of Thermopylae not 300. This is because, one the two Spartan soldiers that did not show up to battle was Pantites. Pantites was away on a diplomatic mission to Thessaly. Pantits tried his best to come back before the battle of Thermoplylae but was unsuccessful, because he missed the battle he felt dishonored so, he hung himself. Now, he did this because the Spartans were all about war and honoring their country and being picked to fight with the king was a great honor and if they didn't show up to battle they were consider cowards, no matter what, even if they were on a mission they are supposed to get back in time for battle. Also,at the battle of Thermopylae they only sent four percent of the spartan army because, the king was fight in the war to but if the king was not they would have sent the full one-hundred percent. the other spartan solider that didn't show up was Airtodamus,he was sent away for an errand, but even today we do not know what that errand was but we do know that it was his fault, that he missed the battle of Thermopylae. He had taken his time coming back on purpose, so that he would not have to fight in the battle. After returning to camp after the battle is over he is viewed as a coward and mocked for lack of courage. In the next battle Plataea the Spartans put him in the front line and pretended to charged, leaving Airtodamus charging by himself in which the Persians killed him very quickly and easily.

98.227.218.6 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Not entirely sure what you want done here. I am further hesitant to add anything sourced to "Mr. Dirschl's Notes". Cannolis (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What happened to Sparta?
The article states that Sparta was re-founded, but it doesn't mention anything in Spartan history after its absorption by Rome, other than that Spartans kept their way of life (until when?). So what happened? Was Sparta abandoned? Did the Spartans die out? Did someone destroy the city? Did they eventually abandon their way of life? Do the modern Spartans have anything in common with the ancient Spartans?


 * There aren't really any historical documents that tell us what happened. In all likelihood Sparta just became another town in Southern Greece. The period of Classical Sparta only lasted a relatively short amount of time, by the time of the Macedonians and the Romans demographic changes in Sparta, such as high mortality amongst the elite Spartiate class, emancipation of the Helots, shifting powers between the kings and ephores etc. had largely undone the old Lycurgan system. Sparta, unlike Athens, had a very crude economy, without their elite soldiers they didn't really have any means of projecting their power beyond their border. Since they didn't have any particularly valuable resources they were probably just left to their own devices. Modern Spartans probably have no relation to the ancient Spartans as A) the city was deserted during the massive population decline in Greece that occurred in the late Roman Empire and middle ages and B)the modern town is actually in a slightly different location and was founded by Crusaders in the 13th century following the 4th Crusade.

123.243.215.92 (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Tautology
"The prehistory of Sparta is difficult to reconstruct" --91.10.26.226 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions This is just a question but many people seem to say that Sparta was captured after the battle of thermoayple — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.198.251 (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sparta wasn't captured during the Persian Wars. You're probably thinking of Athens, which was abandoned after Thermopylae, occupied by the Persians then recaptured by the Athenians after the Battle of Salamis.

123.243.215.92 (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015
Make the page Spartan redirect here as Spartan commonly refers to inhabitants of Sparta (i.e. it is the primary topic).

On that note, move the content of the Spartan page to Spartan (disambiguation) and add a hatnote on this page saying: "".

&#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Spartan pederasty
From the article :

"Sparta is thought to be the first city to practice athletic nudity, and some scholars claim that it was also the first to formalize pederasty.[92] According to these sources, the Spartans believed that the love of an older, accomplished aristocrat for an adolescent was essential to his formation as a free citizen. The agoge, the education of the ruling class, was, they claim, founded on pederastic relationships required of each citizen,[93] with the lover responsible for the boy's training.

However, other scholars question this interpretation. Xenophon explicitly denies it,[86] but not Plutarch.[94]"

Actually Plutarch explicitly denies the sexual dimension as well :

''Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life.''

Plutarch, Moralia, The Ancient Customs of the Spartans 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.12.163 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Proper use of terms greek and Greece
You should not talk about Greece when you talk about Sparta. Sparta never knew word greek and Greece. Word greek and Greece are created 2.000 years after the spartan splendor. Please use correctly historical terms. Please show history correctly and be fair on using right historical terms and names without mixing them. Please tell a right history of ancient times and dont manipulate that history. There have never existed Greece in ancient times and please start a movement to erase and delete all words greek and Greece for the history of 2.000 years ago because those words were not created yet in that time and it is wrong to call a period of history with a name that was created later in time. Call ancient time Hellas, Hyllas, Helios, Ilion and people of that place as hellenes or illyrians but please dont call them Greece and greeks because this is a wrong term according to all authentical sources and original documents. There results nowhere in the original documents that word greeks and Greece are used before 15th century of middle ages. It is wrong to use term greeks and Greece for a period who is 1000 years older than the creation of the terms greeks and Greece. Please correct everything that have to do with Greece and greeks. Please dont let a false history to be told. This is not for the good of the world history. 185.32.20.18 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2015
PROPOSED WORDING: Between 431 and 404 BC, Sparta was the principal enemy of Athens during the Peloponnesian War,[3] from which Athens emerged victorious, though at great cost of lives lost. ORIGINAL WORDING: Between 431 and 404 BC, Sparta was the principal enemy of Athens during the Peloponnesian War,[3] from which it emerged victorious, though at great cost of lives lost. REASON: Although grammatically correct, the original wording is slightly disconcerting since the reader is thinking of "Sparta" and the sentence has the word "Sparta", but when you read "it emerged victorious" you have to backtrack to realize the author is actually talking about Athens.

Thanks for the consideration. Mark Bauer

Easyaim (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sparta won the Peloponnesian War, so the current wording makes sense. Cannolis (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015
In the sentence: The French classicist François Ollier in his 1933 look Le mirage spartiate ("The Spartan Mirage") warned that a major scholarly problem regarding Sparta

Look should be book.

Mjtski (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Dagko (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Herodotus
The "Names" section states that Herodotus was an Athenian historian, however he was actually from Halicarnassus (as stated in Histories 1.1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael7198 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for bringing this up. By the way, once you have ten edits, you should be able to edit semi-protected pages, so apologies for the hassle. Opencooper (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I make very few edits to Wikipedia and am not a source of knowledge of Sparta, however, on the mobile site version of the Sparta page, the subtitle of Sparta reads "a city state IN AMERICA" I haven't figured out where that can be edited, so I come to you to fix it. It doesn't appear in the desktop version of the article from what I can tell.

--Humicroav (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Spartas Agriculture
Sparta was self sufficient which means they farmed and got most of there food themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl1029384756 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017
The last section of "Classical Sparta" is very terse and just mentions Aristotle. An exploration of the causes and effects of the Oliganthropia in Sparta at the time could be useful. I can't edit the page currently but could contribute if requested.

--Snafu66 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Snafu66 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * no actual edit was requested. Just possible suggestions on what to add to the article.  ~ GB fan 16:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

---Would something like this work slotted in? Another significant Spartan woman was Cynisca, Sister of King Agesilaus II, and the first woman to win in the Olympic games. Her victory was in chariot racing as it was the only sport in which women were allowed to compete. The sport required significant wealth to pay for the upkeep of the horses and riders. Cynisca's victories in 396 BC and 392 BC heralded a wave of female participation and victory in the Olympic games. --Snafu66 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Marriage Continued
According to Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks Gender In History, marriage in Ancient Sparta was monogamous. It was commonly this way because Spartans put a very big emphasis on child-bearing and reproduction. So much so that women were treated very well as opposed to the cruel way most other ancient civilizations treated women. Spartans wanted women to eat very well and have a lot of exercise so they were very healthy and prepared to carry a child. Also, something not very common at this time is that men and women got married when they were around the same age, usually 18. Marriage also began with a trial marriage this was because they wanted to make sure that the man and woman could successfully conceive children. Lastly, remarriage and divorce was very much accepted especially if you could not successfully have children with your current spouse. ~rachel bergenstock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel bergenstock (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Merry E Wiesner-Hanks, Gender iGlobal Perspectives (Wiley-Blackwell 2010)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel bergenstock (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Consider... what?
"These mansions were destroyed, by an earthquake and by fire, and archaeologists consider as the possible palace of Menelaus himself"

Please fix this sentence.2001:44B8:3102:BB00:44:B51C:7976:E255 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. As it was a simple grammar error, in the future I encourage you to be bold and make the change yourself. Opencooper (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Language Codes
Are Doric Greek and Attic Greek missing their EITF Language Codes? If so, is there a way to fix that?* 13    thehappykid.   03:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2019
I want to provide more information regarding Spartan Oliganthropia given recent scholarship on the matter. Ndecety (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 21:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2020
Please add the sentence "This is Sparta." at the beginning of the article because Sparta is Sparta. 122.60.185.29 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Funny, but not going to happen I'm afraid... Jack Frost (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021
I listened

}} 2947194u92u4o3847ejhfuehfdi (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

E 2947194u92u4o3847ejhfuehfdi (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021
Fix multiple typos in the following text. Typos bolded:

Following the invasion of the USSR, Hitler viewed cittizens of the USR as like the helots under the Spartans: "They [the Spartans] came as conquerors, and they took everything", and so should the Germans. A Nazi officer specified that "the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while... the Russians were the Helots."[154]

Change to:

Following the invasion of the USSR, Hitler viewed citizens of the USSR as like the helots under the Spartans: "They [the Spartans] came as conquerors, and they took everything", and so should the Germans. A Nazi officer specified that "the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while... the Russians were the Helots."[154]

Seems likely that there are other typos on this page so perhaps a regular contributor can conduct an audit. MendaciousGizzard (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for pointing this out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)