Teaching the Classics: What Americans Can Learn from Herodotus

**Shek** · 04-14-2007, 20:55 PM

I am honored that two of our members, Herodotus and Xerxes, are both mentioned in this essay

.

Quote:

Teaching the Classics: What Americans Can Learn from Herodotus

There is one obvious reason why Americans ought to find it useful to read and study Herodotus. He described a world that is in certain crucial regards like our own. Athens and Sparta were, of course, tiny communities. Herodotus tells us that at the time of the Persian Wars there were 30,000 adult, male Athenian citizens and 8,000 adult, male Spartan citizens. The difference in scale between these polities and our own is obvious and significant. But there is this that is similar. Athens and Sparta were republics. Matters of state were open to public debate; most major decisions were reached by voting; the citizens of both polities enjoyed the rule of law—and theirs were citizen armies.

These similarities are by no means accidental. The modern nation-state owes a great deal to the ancient example. In the medieval period, antiquity never entirely lost its purchase. Cicero’s De officiis survived through the Dark Ages within the Christian West and was at all times widely read. In some measure, Roman law survived as well, and certain of its elements were imported into canon law, the only universal law in the Christian West. From canon law these made their way into the various common law systems regnant locally within that otherwise exceedingly diverse world. One principle, derived from Roman law, deserves special attention.

Roman liberty was arguably derivative from ancient Greek liberty: the republicanism that emerged in Rome ca. 509 BCE, the species of self-government that was instituted there, was an Etruscan variation on practices developed earlier in Crete, at Sparta, and elsewhere in the Hellenic world. Naturally enough, the Romans carried over into private life the practices of public life, and, in keeping with this trend, Roman corporate law, as applied to the management of waterways, was built on the following principle: Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debeat—“that which touches all should be dealt with by all.” This principle, borrowed by the Roman Catholic Church to make sense of the practice of electing abbots, bishops, and popes, provided an underpinning for the practice of self-government within guilds and cities and inspired the establishment of representative institutions within kingdoms. In part as a consequence of its propagation by the church, political liberty was no stranger in late medieval Europe, and this distinguished the Christian West from the Christian East and from the Muslim world as well.

***

Herodotus’ questions are still worth asking. They are, in particular, questions that Americans must pose to themselves. Is our heritage of political liberty and the rule of law a treasure worth fighting for? Does this heritage produce today, as Herodotus claims it arguably did in antiquity, a people brave and resolute in their defense? Do the words that Demaratus used in describing the ancient Spartans describe modern Americans as well? When Francis Scott Keyes, in The Star-Spangled Banner, spoke of America as “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” he was borrowing language that had been used to describe classical Sparta. If the comparison is no longer apt, Herodotus would tell us that it is unlikely we will remain for long a people free.

Read it in its entirety here, Teaching the Classics: What Americans Can Learn from Herodotus - FPRI.

Bulgaroctonus · 04-15-2007, 01:03 AM

Sir,

A worthy post. I finished the Histories about two weeks ago. Indeed, Herodotus' work is still important. However, I do take issue with a few of Mr. Rahe's assertions. I only wish that you had posted this while my copy of the Histories was still in my college room so I could reference it.

Quote:

There is one obvious reason why Americans ought to find it useful to read and study Herodotus. He described a world that is in certain crucial regards like our own. Athens and Sparta were, of course, tiny communities. Herodotus tells us that at the time of the Persian Wars there were 30,000 adult, male Athenian citizens and 8,000 adult, male Spartan citizens. The difference in scale between these polities and our own is obvious and significant. But there is this that is similar. Athens and Sparta were republics. Matters of state were open to public debate; most major decisions were reached by voting; the citizens of both polities enjoyed the rule of law—and theirs were citizen armies.

Athens was a democracy (not a republic), since voting on issues was done directly, if I recall correctly. Moreover, the city-state lacked the advanced bicameral structure or division of power that is characteristic of many modern governments. Athens deserves credit as a forerunner of democracy and republicanism, not to mention Western culture, but we should also realize that the Athenian democracy was rudimentary. Furthermore, voting rights were restrictive.

Sparta did have a council presided over by two kings, one Agiad and one Eurypontid. From what I have read, Sparta was a not a model of representative government. Citizenship was reserved for Spartans only past 30 years of age, if I recall correctly. There were non-citizen free Lacedaemonians, but the majority of the Spartan labor force were slaves or helots. In most respects, Sparta was an oligarchy, and had been a supporter of the Athenian dictatorship of Peisistratos and his sons, although Cleomenes of Sparta eventually overthrew them.

I believe Rahe has idealized Athens and Sparta, the latter of which was a slave state. Also recall that Athen's period of greatness and democracy was also a time of serious political instability.

As to Rahe's population figures, I honestly can't remember that information. I'll have to check up on that.

Quote:

Roman liberty was arguably derivative from ancient Greek liberty: the republicanism that emerged in Rome ca. 509 BCE, the species of self-government that was instituted there, was an Etruscan variation on practices developed earlier in Crete, at Sparta, and elsewhere in the Hellenic world. Naturally enough, the Romans carried over into private life the practices of public life, and, in keeping with this trend, Roman corporate law, as applied to the management of waterways, was built on the following principle: Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debeat—“that which touches all should be dealt with by all.” This principle, borrowed by the Roman Catholic Church to make sense of the practice of electing abbots, bishops, and popes, provided an underpinning for the practice of self-government within guilds and cities and inspired the establishment of representative institutions within kingdoms. In part as a consequence of its propagation by the church, political liberty was no stranger in late medieval Europe, and this distinguished the Christian West from the Christian East and from the Muslim world as well.

Rahe imputes some kind of socialist dogma to ancient Rome. From my readings, it appears that Rome was characterized by a lack of general economic policy or fiscal administration. For all its advances, Rome was a pre-modern empire that did not firmly grasp ideas like loans, currency value, balance of trade, or agricultural policy. So, that is my first objection to "that which touches all should be dealt with by all." I'll have to do more research on the subject, but I haven't seen evidence of this wonderful attitude.

Rahe also makes the fairly ridiculous claim that the Catholic church was a democratic organization. The election of bishops, when not downright dynastic (as the family history of Gregory of Tours attests), was usually open to bribery or warfare. Even after the Investiture Controversy, when the Holy Roman Emperors could not longer invest bishops with the ring and staff, they still presided over every episcopal election and had rights of homage from the new bishops. As the middle ages wore on, the laity were effectively excluded by the papacy. In fact, in 1059, the Papal Election Decree ruled that the election of the pope was reserved for the cardinals. Rahe's claims about the Catholic church throw his credentials into some question.

He noted that Western Christendom became 'democratic' while Eastern Christendom and the land of Islam did not. If he understood Byzantine history, which is the history of a state perpetually at war and besieged, he could see why absolute imperial control was necessary. As to the lack of democracy in Muslim countries, it is the sad truth.

Quote:

The republicanism that first emerged in ancient Greece and spread to Etruria and Rome was built on certain military practices. Liberty was coeval with the preeminence of massed infantry. At some point between 700 and 650 BCE, someone in Greece invented a new kind of shield, which was commonly called a hoplon. This shield was designed to yoke together a line of men, and those who bore it were sometimes called zeugitai, “men yoked like oxen.” It provided limited protection to the bearer, but contributed greatly to the protection of the man to his right; and, because horses will not plunge into a wall of shields, a phalanx of hoplon-bearers could face down cavalry. In effect, this military revolution meant that a sizable army of smallholders, wealthy enough to provide themselves with a spear, a sword, and the hoplon, could easily defeat an aristocratic force on horseback. This revolution, which rendered the old military aristocracy redundant, eventuated in its overthrow and the establishment of populist tyrannies in many Greek cities. In time, as tyrants or their offspring abused the power that they had seized, it gave rise to government by the army assembly.

I do not comment on the history of the hoplon or evolution of the common-man infantry since I have limited knowledge of the subject.

Quote:

Infantry’s Renaissance

The great revival of classical learning in the West that followed the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 coincided with a rediscovery within western Christendom of the capacity of disciplined infantry to defeat cavalry. In the second half of the fifteenth century, on two different occasions, the impoverished pikemen of the Swiss cantons defeated the mounted knights fielded by Charles the Bold of Burgundy, and from this time onward Swiss mercenaries were much in demand. The French hired them; so did the Spaniards; they were employed by the various cities and principalities of Italy; and to this day they guard the Vatican. Where they were not hired, their formations were imitated, and war underwent the revolution detailed in Machiavelli’s Art of War. In the aftermath, Roman military tactics were studied all over Europe in detail, Roman drill was adopted, and Europe was set on the path that led to the French Revolution and to national armies drawn from among peasants not unlike the farmers who had served as soldiers in ancient Greece and Rome. The feudal levy declined in significance; dynastic loyalties slowly withered away; and national loyalties grew. The logic of developments pointed towards populism and ultimately towards self-government; the old institutions originally inspired by the Roman principle “that which touches all should be dealt with by all” came to enjoy a new life; and works such as The Histories of Herodotus became astonishingly popular. To understand the world then emergent, educated men and women turned back to classical antiquity.

It is true that the final decline and fall of the Byzantine state and the exile of Greeks such as Manuel Chrysoloras (d. 1415 in Constance) and John Argyropoulos (d. Rome 1487) revitalized Italy and Western Europe.

However, I think connecting this revival, which was cultural and scientific, to military practices is tenuous. The rise of infantry predates the fall of Constantinople. English infantry were already defeating French knights at Crecy in 1346 and Poitiers in 1356. Moreover, Scottish pikemen routed the English at Bannockburn in 1314 (remember the very end of Braveheart?) The Turks themselves used their elite Janissary infantry to take Constantinople on the early morning of May 29th, 1453.

But that aside, even if there was an infantry revival no earlier than 1450, I require more proof that it was due to concerted reading of Herodotus. The Historiae are not military texts, and the battles play second fiddle to Herodotus' geography, anthropology, and ethnography.

The rise of infantry was probably due more to better standards of living in Europe that seem to have accompanied the Renaissance. This allowed the middle class to arm themselves. In addition, European rulers realized the benefit of a disciplined infantry mass.

Finally, Rahe talks about movements towards populism and self-government. Where did this happen during the Renaissance? Medieval revolts like those of Cola di Rienzi in Rome or the Jacquerie in France were brutally put down. The 16th century saw a tremendous centralization of royal control. The 'new monarchs' like Suleyman the Magnificent, Charles V, Francis I, and Henry VIII all attest to this fact. Populism was simmering, but did not really come to the forefront until the English Civil war and the later Glorious Revolution. Even then, British history was not indicative of the rest of Europe.

Quote:

What happened in the span stretching from 1469 to 1789 and beyond was obviously a lot messier than can be indicated here. There were tyrants along the way: Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler are as important to this story as were Pheidon of Argos, Cypselus of Corinth, Thrasybulus of Miletus, and Peisistratus of Athens to developments in the Greece described by Herodotus. But the unfolding logic pointed beyond populist tyrannies, and by the 17th and 18th centuries, many in Europe, as well as in the English colonies in North America, found that in reading Herodotus they were reading about men rather like themselves.

In 18th and 19th-century Britain and in 20th-century America, this seemed especially true. When the British fought Louis XIV in the War of the Peace of Augsburg and in the War of the Spanish Succession, when they battled Napoleon in the later years of the French Revolution, when the Americans took on Kaiser Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler in World War I and World War II, and when they squared off against Joseph Stalin and his successors in the Cold War, they tended to find Herodotus’ epic tale of the struggle of the Hellenes against Xerxes, the Great King of Persia, inspiring and instructive. When they read Herodotus, they were struck by his representation of the Greek resistance against the Persians as a struggle of liberty against despotism. It was easy for scholars and journalists to reclothe the Persians, the Athenians, and the Spartans in modern garb, and much of the secondary literature in the field reflects a certain propensity for distortion.

Some of history's struggles do bear a genuine resemblance to the Greco-Persian wars. Certainly World War II, since the world came close to Axis dominion and there was the classic story of a 'God-king' figure succumbing to hubris. However, most of Rahe's examples are not pertinent.

The United States did not 'square off' against Stalin. Eastern Europe was sacrificed to the reality that Russia could not be confronted after World War II.

America did not 'take on' Kaiser Wilhelm II. We joined extremely late in the war, when our entry only hastened the defeat of the Central Powers, but did not decide the conflict. Much more useful, and you'll find this in any British history textbook, would have been early American intervention or show of force to dissuade the Kaiser in the first place and avoid years of trench warfare. In addition, imperial Germany was hardly a tyrannical government and was not looking for occupation of France or any other part of Europe. The Schlieffen plan was to bypass Paris and force the surrender of the French army. France probably would have given some territorial concessions and that would have been it.

The War of Spanish Succession was a war about which monarch to put on the throne of Spain, a Habsburg or a Bourbon. It had little to do with stopping tyranny or promoting democracy, Spanish peasants were still shitkickers no matter what.

Rahe has drawn flawed conclusions from Herodotus and from history because he has dangerously simplified conflicts, institutions, and social movements. He has applied a modern mindset and a historical consciousness that probably was not present. Although stirring, his ideas about Herodotus have some serious problems.

Regards,

Bulgaroctonus

**Shek** · 04-15-2007, 08:04 AM

Bulgar,

Thanks for the lengthy response. I have yet to read Herodotus and many other classics, having only Thucydides and some Livy under my belt as of now. So, I can't provide any illumination to the extent that Dr. Rahe oversimplifies Herodotus to the point of being inaccurate. However, this is a common occurence, and I'm sure that I've been just as guilty before in making inaccurate historical analogies - nonetheless, it is fun sport to try and make them anyways.

Bigfella · 04-15-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shek

Bulgar,

Thanks for the lengthy response. I have yet to read Herodotus and many other classics, having only Thucydides and some Livy under my belt as of now. So, I can't provide any illumination to the extent that Dr. Rahe oversimplifies Herodotus to the point of being inaccurate. However, this is a common occurence, and I'm sure that I've been just as guilty before in making inaccurate historical analogies - nonetheless, it is fun sport to try and make them anyways.

The whole point of studying history is so that you can make innacurate analogies and complain that everyone else's are more innacurate than yours. Otherwise its just a bunch of dead guys & some lines on a map.

Low-tech · 04-15-2007, 11:15 AM

sparta was NOT a democracy, never was, never intended to be. it actually was........a giant labor camp, much like the USSR and china essentially were<and is for china in some respects> for most of the population.

wealth was forbidden, seriously. the currency they had was large iron coins that when cast are too brittle to be recycled into anything else. people couldnt own materials of value, period. there wasnt much sense of private property.

brutal slavery. the big irony about sparta is that they owned so many slaves that the military couldnt really project force for extended periods of time due to the very real possibility of a slave revolt.

children were raised by institutions rather than families, they were doing what nazis wanted to do for germans, create supermen. total militarization of the populous, even females. eugenics was also practiced.

little to no trade. since wealth was forbidden,, since military training took most a persons life, since most of the population lived in communes or barracks, since slaves did most of the work, sparta lacked skilled tradesmen. there was no incentive anyway......they didnt make real money and there was nowhere to actually enjoy a disposible income.

they did have excellent woodworkers and carpenters tho......since they couldnt really work with anything else beyond stone/masonry and bronze casting/forging.

as far as im concerned, sparta was the first totaltarian state...........and the most continious and successful one at that.

Bulgaroctonus · 04-15-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigfella

The whole point of studying history is so that you can make innacurate analogies and complain that everyone else's are more innacurate than yours. Otherwise its just a bunch of dead guys & some lines on a map.

Bigfella,

I know what you mean. I have made bad analogies many times. I have grown more circumspect, however.

Regards,

Bulgaroctonus

deadkenny · 04-15-2007, 13:14 PM

Low-tech, I believe your characterization of Sparta is unjustifiably harsh. Of course I appreciate that it is based on 'modern sensibilities'. However, all of the Greek city states engaged in slavery. I don't see Athens' 'empire' being any more 'virtuous' than Sparta's 'exploitation' of their immediate neighbours. If anything, at least Sparta required their 'ruling class' to 'walk the talk', in so far as it was they who were obligated to fight in the 'army', and they were also expected to lead a 'simple' life, and not simply enjoy an 'easy life' based on the labours of others (as was the case in Athens for example). It is interesting that Plato ranked Sparta as closest to the 'ideal' form of government whereas Athenian 'democracy' was ranked the lowest.

LongshotSNN · 04-15-2007, 14:30 PM

That's because Plato believed that a "democracy" as it was understood then would lead to political stasis, sooner or later would turn into tyranny. Plato argues for a rule by a "wise" elite, who had to be *made* to rule. At least that's how I understood his "Republic" back in my early undergrad days.

cape_royds · 04-15-2007, 21:28 PM

First of all, the theme of freedom in the English-speaking world simply does not come from the states of Classical antiquity. It has a separate derivation altogether. Freedom in the English-speaking world draws from Anglo-Saxon and Franco-Norman traditions of self-government, most famously embodied in the Magna Carta but by no means limited to that rebellion and the document that resulted.

The Barons who dragged King John to Runnymede had never heard of Cicero and knew nothing of Cleisthenes. The thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment were a long time from being born!

What happened is that the European intelligentsia, rediscovering and reinterpreting works of Graeco-Roman literature, used what they found to bolster their arguments in favour of liberty and Reason.

But the institutions of Parliament and the common law, the rights of habeas corpus and of trial by jury, and the principle that revenue can only be raised by consent of public representatives, had already arisen through a completely separate line of descent.

Our democracies don't come from the ancient Mediterranean, although in modern times, after the origin of free institutions, Graeco-Roman thinking has been influential upon our way of thinking about our institutions.

Because the real origins of our institutions of political freedom are poorly documented, European thinkers from the Medieval Scholastics to the Renaissance Humanists to the philosophes of the Enlightenment attribute more to the Ancients than was their due.

About the ancient Greek states themselves:

Sparta was not a "forced labour camp," or at least no more so than most other ancient communities.

Much gets made of the differences between Athens and Sparta. The ancients themselves energetically discussed the differences.

But when we study those ancient states, we are under no obligation to adopt their frame of reference.

From a modern point of view, the social structures of Athens and Sparta had much in common:

1. Slaves in Attica (Athens), Helots in Laconia (Sparta)--classes in the respective society who performed the majority of unskilled labour, and comprised about half of the population in each state.

2. Metics in Attica, Periokoi in Laconia. "Outsider" classes who performed a great deal of the skilled manual labour and some of the mercantile and financial functions. These people were free, but did not enjoy any political rights.

3. Citizens in Attica, Peers in Sparta. The classes who owned or controlled landed property, participated in the armed forces, and took part in political decision-making.

In Attica, roughly half the population were chattel slaves with no civic rights whatsoever. Some urban slaves with specialized education or skills enjoyed a reasonable living standard and personal safety, but the majority of slaves performed manual labour under hard conditions, with heavy mortality. Particularly notorious was the fate of the publicly-owned slaves or slaves owned by public contractors. Such slaves were usually worked to death in the mines of Laurion (source of the abundant silver for Attica's "Owl" coins).

Helots were the analogous class in Sparta, both in function and in relative numbers. However, while the treatment of Helots was as arbitrary and harsh as that endured by slaves in Attica, Helots were not property and could not be sold. Also, Helots did accompany the Spartan armies, mostly as porters, but a small number are known to have borne arms for Sparta.

One could say that the best-off Athenian slaves were better-off than most Helots, but that the worst-off Helots were better-off than worst-off Attic slaves.

The perioikoi (literally, "dwellers around") of Laconia and the metics of Attica were classes in those states that freely lived in the community, could own property, make contracts, enjoyed some legal protection, and filled important roles in the economy, but who did not have any political rights.

Athenian power and wealth drew artisans and merchants from around the Aegean. These people made up most of the "metics." They were welcome in Athens, and protected under law, but they were not citizens, nor could easily become such. Athens was not Rome, and citizenship was seldom bestowed upon those from outside Attica.

The perioikoi were from non-Spartan communities in Laconia and from other parts of the Peloponnese. While Sparta was not much of a mercantile community, and while the citizens of Sparta eschewed commerce, nevertheless Sparta did have considerable commercial activity taking place, in the hands of the perioikoi. Like Metics, perioikoi enjoyed some legal protection but were not members of the body politic. Unlike Metics, the perioikoi did furnish contingents for the Spartan armies.

The Helots and Perioikoi, the Slaves and Metics, composed the majority of the population of the ancient Spartan and Athenian states. These classes are fully analogous to one another, in their economic roles and in their legal rights.

Basically, Sparta and Athens are much more similar to one another than one would first suppose, if one only considered the debates as carried on by ancient commentators.

Unfortunately, too many modern commentators adopt those points of view as the sum of the matter, rather than stepping back a bit and examining the two societies as wholes.

For the differences between the two states only become clear when one looks at the citizen classes. Here are big differences, especially in the mode of education. The Spartan education system and their common dining halls are famous. The Athenians, while also pursuing a fairly austere regimen for their youth, and also tending to dine in public, did not have an overarching social legislation like that of Lycurgus.

These differences were of the utmost importance to citizens, naturally. And since writers were drawn from that class, discussion of the two states focuses entirely on those differences. Chattel slaves and foreign craftsmen were seldom of any interest to ancient historians or philosophers (read the first book Aristotle's Politics to see how slaves are considered--the question is raised and then dismissed in a few paragraphs). One has to read ancient comedy (e.g. Menander) to get some insight into the everyday social milieux.

There are two more similarities between the two societies: women had few rights. And youth (under 30) did not enjoy political rights, either. In both Athens and Sparta, citizens comprised a minority of the population in the first place, and in both societies, only a minority of that minority actually had real political rights.

The Athenians usually sequestered their women, especially their marriageable girls. Spartan women were not sequestered. It is interesting that more Spartan women are known to history than Athenian women--read Plutarch's "Sayings of the Spartans."

Moreover, in Attica, most citizens were unable to attend the Assemblies most of the time, so decisions in effect came down to a minority of a minority of a minority. That's before one considers the allocation of speaking time, the role of key figures and their noisy entourages, etc. Put it this way--it was no accident that the same people were elected strategoi time after time.

Finally, while the Spartans boasted of their Peers being equals, in actual fact there was a sub-class known as the "Inferiors" (hypomeiones). These were men in danger of losing their citizen status due to loss of landed property. This resulted in the whole dimension of Spartan politics concerning reform and restoration of the Peerage, i.e. land redistribution. This was why Plutarch regarded Agis and Cleomenes as a parallel to the Gracchi of Rome.

Low-tech · 04-16-2007, 12:26 PM

ok, maybe im a bit harsh here........most of what i posted came from plutarch's essays.

and that account has to be wieghed against other sources to get at an accurate picture of sparta, im by no means an expert here.

its just, to me, reading between the lines when reading plutarch<about the spartans in general and sources on the pellopenesian<man, i tried to spell this...i really tried>war......sparta<especially during that period> just seemed really brutal,tyrannical and oppressive not only to thier own populous but over the other greek city-states during the war.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
History and War: An Interview With Eliot Cohen	Shek	The Field Mess	0	03-27-2007 17:50 PM
POLL: 46% of Americans dont trust muslims	Anon	Political Discussions	38	03-19-2006 01:14 AM
If you could change the battle plan in Iraq, what would you do?	Jedi_Iatros	The War in Iraq	15	02-27-2006 12:21 PM
Americans Say World War III Likely	Associate	Current Affairs	27	09-17-2005 00:06 AM

04-15-2007, 08:04 AM	#3 (permalink)
Shek *Military Professional* Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,629 Country:	Bulgar, Thanks for the lengthy response. I have yet to read Herodotus and many other classics, having only Thucydides and some Livy under my belt as of now. So, I can't provide any illumination to the extent that Dr. Rahe oversimplifies Herodotus to the point of being inaccurate. However, this is a common occurence, and I'm sure that I've been just as guilty before in making inaccurate historical analogies - nonetheless, it is fun sport to try and make them anyways.

04-15-2007, 11:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
Low-tech Patron Join Date: 08-04-06 Location: providence, RI Posts: 259	sparta was NOT a democracy, never was, never intended to be. it actually was........a giant labor camp, much like the USSR and china essentially were<and is for china in some respects> for most of the population. wealth was forbidden, seriously. the currency they had was large iron coins that when cast are too brittle to be recycled into anything else. people couldnt own materials of value, period. there wasnt much sense of private property. brutal slavery. the big irony about sparta is that they owned so many slaves that the military couldnt really project force for extended periods of time due to the very real possibility of a slave revolt. children were raised by institutions rather than families, they were doing what nazis wanted to do for germans, create supermen. total militarization of the populous, even females. eugenics was also practiced. little to no trade. since wealth was forbidden,, since military training took most a persons life, since most of the population lived in communes or barracks, since slaves did most of the work, sparta lacked skilled tradesmen. there was no incentive anyway......they didnt make real money and there was nowhere to actually enjoy a disposible income. they did have excellent woodworkers and carpenters tho......since they couldnt really work with anything else beyond stone/masonry and bronze casting/forging. as far as im concerned, sparta was the first totaltarian state...........and the most continious and successful one at that.

04-15-2007, 13:14 PM	#7 (permalink)
deadkenny Banished Join Date: 04-05-05 Posts: 428 Country:	Low-tech, I believe your characterization of Sparta is unjustifiably harsh. Of course I appreciate that it is based on 'modern sensibilities'. However, all of the Greek city states engaged in slavery. I don't see Athens' 'empire' being any more 'virtuous' than Sparta's 'exploitation' of their immediate neighbours. If anything, at least Sparta required their 'ruling class' to 'walk the talk', in so far as it was they who were obligated to fight in the 'army', and they were also expected to lead a 'simple' life, and not simply enjoy an 'easy life' based on the labours of others (as was the case in Athens for example). It is interesting that Plato ranked Sparta as closest to the 'ideal' form of government whereas Athenian 'democracy' was ranked the lowest.

04-15-2007, 14:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
LongshotSNN Regular Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 141	That's because Plato believed that a "democracy" as it was understood then would lead to political stasis, sooner or later would turn into tyranny. Plato argues for a rule by a "wise" elite, who had to be made to rule. At least that's how I understood his "Republic" back in my early undergrad days.

04-15-2007, 21:28 PM	#9 (permalink)
cape_royds Patron Join Date: 12-13-06 Location: Vancouver Posts: 167 Country:	First of all, the theme of freedom in the English-speaking world simply does not come from the states of Classical antiquity. It has a separate derivation altogether. Freedom in the English-speaking world draws from Anglo-Saxon and Franco-Norman traditions of self-government, most famously embodied in the Magna Carta but by no means limited to that rebellion and the document that resulted. The Barons who dragged King John to Runnymede had never heard of Cicero and knew nothing of Cleisthenes. The thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment were a long time from being born! What happened is that the European intelligentsia, rediscovering and reinterpreting works of Graeco-Roman literature, used what they found to bolster their arguments in favour of liberty and Reason. But the institutions of Parliament and the common law, the rights of habeas corpus and of trial by jury, and the principle that revenue can only be raised by consent of public representatives, had already arisen through a completely separate line of descent. Our democracies don't come from the ancient Mediterranean, although in modern times, after the origin of free institutions, Graeco-Roman thinking has been influential upon our way of thinking about our institutions. Because the real origins of our institutions of political freedom are poorly documented, European thinkers from the Medieval Scholastics to the Renaissance Humanists to the philosophes of the Enlightenment attribute more to the Ancients than was their due. About the ancient Greek states themselves: Sparta was not a "forced labour camp," or at least no more so than most other ancient communities. Much gets made of the differences between Athens and Sparta. The ancients themselves energetically discussed the differences. But when we study those ancient states, we are under no obligation to adopt their frame of reference. From a modern point of view, the social structures of Athens and Sparta had much in common: 1. Slaves in Attica (Athens), Helots in Laconia (Sparta)--classes in the respective society who performed the majority of unskilled labour, and comprised about half of the population in each state. 2. Metics in Attica, Periokoi in Laconia. "Outsider" classes who performed a great deal of the skilled manual labour and some of the mercantile and financial functions. These people were free, but did not enjoy any political rights. 3. Citizens in Attica, Peers in Sparta. The classes who owned or controlled landed property, participated in the armed forces, and took part in political decision-making. In Attica, roughly half the population were chattel slaves with no civic rights whatsoever. Some urban slaves with specialized education or skills enjoyed a reasonable living standard and personal safety, but the majority of slaves performed manual labour under hard conditions, with heavy mortality. Particularly notorious was the fate of the publicly-owned slaves or slaves owned by public contractors. Such slaves were usually worked to death in the mines of Laurion (source of the abundant silver for Attica's "Owl" coins). Helots were the analogous class in Sparta, both in function and in relative numbers. However, while the treatment of Helots was as arbitrary and harsh as that endured by slaves in Attica, Helots were not property and could not be sold. Also, Helots did accompany the Spartan armies, mostly as porters, but a small number are known to have borne arms for Sparta. One could say that the best-off Athenian slaves were better-off than most Helots, but that the worst-off Helots were better-off than worst-off Attic slaves. The perioikoi (literally, "dwellers around") of Laconia and the metics of Attica were classes in those states that freely lived in the community, could own property, make contracts, enjoyed some legal protection, and filled important roles in the economy, but who did not have any political rights. Athenian power and wealth drew artisans and merchants from around the Aegean. These people made up most of the "metics." They were welcome in Athens, and protected under law, but they were not citizens, nor could easily become such. Athens was not Rome, and citizenship was seldom bestowed upon those from outside Attica. The perioikoi were from non-Spartan communities in Laconia and from other parts of the Peloponnese. While Sparta was not much of a mercantile community, and while the citizens of Sparta eschewed commerce, nevertheless Sparta did have considerable commercial activity taking place, in the hands of the perioikoi. Like Metics, perioikoi enjoyed some legal protection but were not members of the body politic. Unlike Metics, the perioikoi did furnish contingents for the Spartan armies. The Helots and Perioikoi, the Slaves and Metics, composed the majority of the population of the ancient Spartan and Athenian states. These classes are fully analogous to one another, in their economic roles and in their legal rights. Basically, Sparta and Athens are much more similar to one another than one would first suppose, if one only considered the debates as carried on by ancient commentators. Unfortunately, too many modern commentators adopt those points of view as the sum of the matter, rather than stepping back a bit and examining the two societies as wholes. For the differences between the two states only become clear when one looks at the citizen classes. Here are big differences, especially in the mode of education. The Spartan education system and their common dining halls are famous. The Athenians, while also pursuing a fairly austere regimen for their youth, and also tending to dine in public, did not have an overarching social legislation like that of Lycurgus. These differences were of the utmost importance to citizens, naturally. And since writers were drawn from that class, discussion of the two states focuses entirely on those differences. Chattel slaves and foreign craftsmen were seldom of any interest to ancient historians or philosophers (read the first book Aristotle's Politics to see how slaves are considered--the question is raised and then dismissed in a few paragraphs). One has to read ancient comedy (e.g. Menander) to get some insight into the everyday social milieux. There are two more similarities between the two societies: women had few rights. And youth (under 30) did not enjoy political rights, either. In both Athens and Sparta, citizens comprised a minority of the population in the first place, and in both societies, only a minority of that minority actually had real political rights. The Athenians usually sequestered their women, especially their marriageable girls. Spartan women were not sequestered. It is interesting that more Spartan women are known to history than Athenian women--read Plutarch's "Sayings of the Spartans." Moreover, in Attica, most citizens were unable to attend the Assemblies most of the time, so decisions in effect came down to a minority of a minority of a minority. That's before one considers the allocation of speaking time, the role of key figures and their noisy entourages, etc. Put it this way--it was no accident that the same people were elected strategoi time after time. Finally, while the Spartans boasted of their Peers being equals, in actual fact there was a sub-class known as the "Inferiors" (hypomeiones). These were men in danger of losing their citizen status due to loss of landed property. This resulted in the whole dimension of Spartan politics concerning reform and restoration of the Peerage, i.e. land redistribution. This was why Plutarch regarded Agis and Cleomenes as a parallel to the Gracchi of Rome.

04-16-2007, 12:26 PM	#10 (permalink)
Low-tech Patron Join Date: 08-04-06 Location: providence, RI Posts: 259	ok, maybe im a bit harsh here........most of what i posted came from plutarch's essays. and that account has to be wieghed against other sources to get at an accurate picture of sparta, im by no means an expert here. its just, to me, reading between the lines when reading plutarch<about the spartans in general and sources on the pellopenesian<man, i tried to spell this...i really tried>war......sparta<especially during that period> just seemed really brutal,tyrannical and oppressive not only to thier own populous but over the other greek city-states during the war.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)