I know this is a meme and not a history community, but there’s a very persuasive argument called the spartan myth which points out that spartans were really just absentee landlords with a lot of slaves and very good PR.
The staunch and incorruptible image they sold was belied by all the corruption and losing they did. 300 of them held thermopylae for a while - along with 7000 other greeks. They won the peloponnesian war, but only after capitulating to persia for support against athens. The brutal tyranny they set up in athens was overthrown by popular revolt. The agoge seems pretty brutal, but terrorizing defensive slaves who can’t fight back and taking their stuff isn’t actually very tough.
Understand that a lot of the negative stuff about Sparta is propaganda coming from Athens.
And equally, the somewhat golden view of Athens is also propaganda from Athens.
In reality they both yeeted babies they deemed unworthy, except that in Athens, you weren’t respected if you were old and you were marginally worse off than a (male) slave if you were a woman. And you only had voting rights if you owned land and were male.
Also Sparta won the war because they had help from I believe it was Crete, after Athens tried to take over Crete to get a military advantage on Sparta.
I was talking more about the general perception of spartan military supremacy, which has come under a lot of scrutiny lately and doesn’t hold up too well. Infanticide specifically seems like a (relatively) widespread human practice.
believe it was Crete
I think you’re referring to athens’ disastrous sicilian expedition? That certainly didn’t help but the peloponnesian war is generally counted as ending ~ a decade later. Sometimes historians count the different phases as different wars, but certainly athens’ ‘defeat’ by sparta wouldn’t come till much later, after sparta allied with persia who were uncomfortable with athens’ resurgent power.
because they had help from
I’ve not heard anyone say that post-expedition sicilian support was crucial for sparta, but athens’ mistakes and losses in sicily were a factor. Again though - not spartan military strength or culture.
Was there any upward mobility? Like could you manage to become a landowner if you weren’t born one? Could you either through trade or conquest become rich enough to buy land if born poor?
I know this is a meme and not a history community, but there’s a very persuasive argument called the spartan myth which points out that spartans were really just absentee landlords with a lot of slaves and very good PR.
The staunch and incorruptible image they sold was belied by all the corruption and losing they did. 300 of them held thermopylae for a while - along with 7000 other greeks. They won the peloponnesian war, but only after capitulating to persia for support against athens. The brutal tyranny they set up in athens was overthrown by popular revolt. The agoge seems pretty brutal, but terrorizing defensive slaves who can’t fight back and taking their stuff isn’t actually very tough.
Understand that a lot of the negative stuff about Sparta is propaganda coming from Athens.
And equally, the somewhat golden view of Athens is also propaganda from Athens.
In reality they both yeeted babies they deemed unworthy, except that in Athens, you weren’t respected if you were old and you were marginally worse off than a (male) slave if you were a woman. And you only had voting rights if you owned land and were male.
Also Sparta won the war because they had help from I believe it was Crete, after Athens tried to take over Crete to get a military advantage on Sparta.
I was talking more about the general perception of spartan military supremacy, which has come under a lot of scrutiny lately and doesn’t hold up too well. Infanticide specifically seems like a (relatively) widespread human practice.
I think you’re referring to athens’ disastrous sicilian expedition? That certainly didn’t help but the peloponnesian war is generally counted as ending ~ a decade later. Sometimes historians count the different phases as different wars, but certainly athens’ ‘defeat’ by sparta wouldn’t come till much later, after sparta allied with persia who were uncomfortable with athens’ resurgent power.
I’ve not heard anyone say that post-expedition sicilian support was crucial for sparta, but athens’ mistakes and losses in sicily were a factor. Again though - not spartan military strength or culture.
Was there any upward mobility? Like could you manage to become a landowner if you weren’t born one? Could you either through trade or conquest become rich enough to buy land if born poor?