Talk:Sparta/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hitler Introduction

I'm not quite sure why the Hitler citation is made in the introductory paragraphs. This is an article about Sparta, Not Hitler's view of Sparta. In reading this article for the first time, this citation feels completely out of place, and may well be POV. I'd recommend it be moved down farther into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmathies (talk • contribs) 23:38:29, August 18, 2007 (UTC).

i agree with that , there is no relation hitler with sparta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpios92 (talk • contribs) 22:53:16, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Is it indeed necessary to include it at all; there are many individuals, amongst them some prominent political thinkers (Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rosseau to name but a few) who have expressed views on Sparta. 172.201.94.86 19:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparta still around?

at the top is says Sparta was a city but then there are many parts that talk about modern Sparta. so does it still exist?

---

YES IT DOES! Please add more info and images- read below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.99.210 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Misc

---

'I think that (about Sparta) should have more pictures and photographs. Please add more. --Mc 5 k 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You should also add in this article the 'Spartathlon' event.It is about Sparta and it is very popular around the world. --Mc 5 k 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the movie '300' you should add in the 'trivia' category of the Sparta article, that the movie did an official premiere show in the city of Sparta on 7th of March 2007 before the rest of the world at a special ceremony with guests from the movie company.

Another basic thing that is missing is the University of modern Sparta.

---

Headline text

The image of the Spartan hoplite is taken from the book Warfare in the Classical World, by John Gibson Warry. I therefore think that the Creative Commons license is invalid, and the image should be removed, since it is in fact from a copy written work. Am I correct? Chadfust 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The only case that seems to apply to this issue is The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 97 Civ. 6232 (LAK) — Ruling that photographic or digital images of public domain art works are not copyrightable. --Jon Roland 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I am starting this section as a place for outside parties to comment on RfC I am planning on filing in regards to the issues surround whether or not it is appropriate for Sparta to be addressed as a superpower in the intro. AniMate 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to my RfC. It's two sentences and I think I've gotten both sides of the argument fairly well. This is a good start to getting this resolved. Hopefully you will get some outside opinions, though you may not or they may not be satisfactory for you. While we're waiting, lets continue to follow dispute resolution and disengage. Take a break for editing this article and certainly take a break from sniping at each other. The article will still be there in 24 hours, or even 7 weeks from now. AniMate 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has already been added on RFC by Mardavich, with a ridiculously biased formulation, plus I don't think that an RFC for this debate is a good idea. I prefer mediation from a neutral third party, after NN listens to my new proposals, and after he has apologised for his fallacies against me. Miskin 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also posted something at the Classical Greek and Rome Wikiproject which you can find here. Right now, you two seem more determined to discredit each other than actually improving the article. If you have anymore accusations against each other I suggest leaving them off of this page and keeping them on your own talkpages or taking them to WP:AN/I. I think things would greatly improve here if everyone says they're sorry and from now on keeps their comments here strictly focused on improving the article. AniMate 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will participate in the RfC. Thanks for taking the effort. NN 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to go about this, my first RfC. This text is also posted to the Classical Greek and Rome Wikiproject. The version of this article prior to this dispute called and wikilined Sparta to World power [1]. I deleted this reference as the wikilink said "its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power over world diplomacy". This was then changed to superpower and references provided calling Sparta a superpower. The wikilink superpower says "ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". This again I believe is inappropriate as applied to Sparta, which certainly did not have any significant power beyond Greece.

The current article says in the introduction "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires". This is problematic for 3 reasons:

1) Classical times roughly is the period 5 BCE to 5 CE, a thousand years. Sparta's domination of Greece lasted about 30 years. [2] To the reader the introduction suggests Sparta's dominance lasted much longer than 30 years.

2) The wikilink superpower which reads "ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale" is inappropriate in describing Sparta. I understand some authors think Sparta was a superpower, but they could be ten out of ten thousand.

3) "overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" conveys a wrong impression. Sparta defeated Athens and Persia, but also lost to them. Especially overpowering Persia suggests Sparta conquered Persia (that did not happen till Alexander).

I suggest the following changes:

A) The time period should be more specific than the generic "Classical times". Specifically the period of Spartan hegemony could be used.

B) If the word superpower is to remain in the article, it should be moved down to the middle of the article where there will be more material about Sparta's victories and defeats to give the reader a more accurate context.

C) If the mention of Sparta defeating Athens and Persia is to remain in the introduction, then it should be toned down and balanced by mention of its defeats by Athens, Thebes and Persia.

Thanks for reading this,

NN 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A) the use of generic terms is useful at the beginning of the article because those people that are unfamiliar with what the term 'hedemony' means would not need to go on a reference book trip to determine what the article was about. However, a further clarification of the time period presented would be useful a little further down the page. It is considered good article writing to start an article using broad, general terms, and then using the article itself to further define them. Then someone can research as much as they desire to, rather than be required to do additional research in order to understand even the opening sentences.

B) "Superpower" is based on referenced material, but I suggest that it could be reworded as "considered to be a superpower by many" or something similar to diffuse your argument against a 20th century term. The reason it's an effective statement is because it brings the historic reality into a modern perspective. I fail to see how the definition of the term, as a nuclear worldpower or the equivalent, would confuse anyone into thinking that Sparta had nuclear arms or something.

C) This is an introductory statement that appears to be designed to draw the reader in. I think a clearer phrasing might be that Sparta "held it's own" against Athens and Persia in battle. That seems to more clearly define the relationship, and "tone it down" a bit.

The introduction is intended to be a summary of Sparta throughout it's time span. It's a highlighting of "what's important to know about Sparta" with further breakdown afterwards. Perhaps a stronger leaning towards a timeframe in the rest of the article would be more useful. That way there'd be indication that Sparta wasn't this huge superpower where Athens and Persia stood trembling in it's shadow.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Right, I'm here following the RFC. This talk page is startling even for me, and I've seen some talkpages. I'm here because I know a good amount about the theory of international relations, and have a decent working knowledge of the classical world, though my expertise is with the Roman rather than any of the Greek empires.

The first point is a simple one. A cursory glance at the mess above - which is all anyone is going to give it, really - indicates that a crucial point is that references have been found which use the word superpower in the context of Sparta (All I've looked for is the specific information on references. I have not considered the specific arguments deployed any further than I must). Checking the article in its current state, two references have been provided. One is from the American Journal of Arch., and is written in 1936; is a survey article on Lysander, and uses the term 'world-power'. This is obviously unsatisfactory.

The second reference is from Donnelly's textbook. The precise wording is, as quoted above: "And Thucydides' account of Athens provides a striking historical illustration of the imperial aspirations of a bipolar superpower." I disregard for now the possible objection that this is something of a passing use of the word. It is certainly true that Athens' behavior is considered 'illustrative'. In that sentence, it seems clear, the word 'illustrative' can be replaced with 'representative' much more readily than 'example'.

A similar point can be made about another reference quoted above, the Hobsen-Hobden book. The sentence reads: "The 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR". Note that the original places superpower in quotes; in addition, the reference does not compare the power of Sparta and that of the US, but says something about the nature of the contest.

One other reference, from OUP, is mentioned; the book in question is a published D.Phil thesis by a classicist.

These are plainly insufficient references with which to redraw the definition of a word with a rich intellectual history within the theory of international relations.

Even more plainly, Athens and Sparta may have behaved like superpowers, may have thought like superpowers, but they do not satisfy the definition, which is considerably better referenced than anything presented here.

Above all, if a word is so controversial, replace it with a more accurate phrase.

Hornplease 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I provided two suggestions, either refer to Sparta as enjoying a period of hegemony over Ancient Greece, or use a more general term such as its pre-eminent position following the defeat of Athens. I really see nothing wrong with these suggestions, I too found the whole discussion ridicolous after a while and regret ever taking part. --A.Garnet 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease welcome and thanks for your input. At this point I need to emphasise that the sources mentioned in the article are not the only sources at hand, they were picked at random. It has been proven that the term 'does' meet mainstream use for ancient states such as Rome, Persia, Macedon including city-states like Sparta, Athens and the Roman Republic. In regards to Sparta it was proven here [3]. A. Garnet see my comments on 'hegemony' below and please try to focus on the points I brought up. My argumentation is that in the absence of a counter-reference, Sparta was as much as a superpower as Persia (albeit not superstate). In fact she had unarguably more powerful land forces than Persia and most of the states in her "known world", prior to the reforms of Epaminondas. In that respect, if we were to argue the use of 'superpower' in ancient times in general, we'd be going against the huge amount of references which make a frequent use of the term in such a context. If we were to question its use on Sparta in specific, then please see here [4] and read my edit below. Miskin 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I've been rejecting NN's persistent effort to change the head is very simple: All arguments he've brought forward so far are based on an errounous POV and imperfect understanding of the historical period at hand, as well as on imperfect understanding of WP:ATT. In accordance to NPOV, I've repeatedly asked from NN to provide us with a credible reference that would give some credit to his argumentation but he has yet failed to do so. I will now analyse how NN's last argumentation (because his argumentation varies from day to day) is flawed and falls under original research:

• Claim:"Classical times roughly is the period 5 BCE to 5 CE, a thousand years. Sparta's domination of Greece lasted about 30 years. [5] To the reader the introduction suggests Sparta's dominance lasted much longer than 30 years."
  • Answer:Very Wrong. The Classical period of Greek history spans over the 5th and 4th centuries BC. In more specific context, it begins with the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC and ends with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC.
  • ConclusionImperfect knowledge of the subject.
• Claim:"The wikilink superpower which reads "ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale" is inappropriate in describing Sparta. I understand some authors think Sparta was a superpower, but they could be ten out of ten thousand."
  • Answer:WP:CITE et al explicitely mentions that a wikipedia article may never be used a source for edits. This is a very fundamental rule and we can easily figure out why. Secondly, concerning the "10 out of 10K" comment, I cannot count how many times I have invited you to cite a counter-opinion. You didn't even have to come up with a 10-10K ratio, all I have asked from you in order to accept your accept your POV was a one lousy credible source. I feel that I have been very clear and flexible on this, yet you never managed to fulfil it. Instead you chose to try and discredit my initial sources, ignoring the magnitude of their credibility.
  • Conclusion:Disruptive editing via Imperfect understanding of WP:ATT.
• Claim:"overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" conveys a wrong impression. Sparta defeated Athens and Persia, but also lost to them. Especially overpowering Persia suggests Sparta conquered Persia (that did not happen till Alexander).
  • Answer:This I have been willing to modify and I did in fact change it to "match the Athenian and Persian Empires", but it did not make you content either so I changed it back to the original formulation (if you deny this I'll get you the diff). During the discussion with Yannismarou (which evolved around this wording) you claimed that you cared about the 'superpower' wording, thus how this matter was interrupted.
  • Conclusion:Disruptive editing via unwillingless to compromise and unstable argumentation regarding the dispute at hand.

Regarding NN's suggestions: (A)Refuted above - the Classical period of Greek history is by unarguably not generic. Also the hegemony is independent to 'superpower status'. Regarding the specific period, a Hegemon is a superpower, but a superpower is not necessarily a Hegemon. Two superpowers can exist without having one assuming Hegemony over the other - e.g. see the sourced parallel between Athens vs Sparta and USA vs USSR in the Peloponnesian and Cold wars respectively. Hegemony was assumed after the war was over. Furthermore, the proposal to insert Spartan hegemony in the lead (rather than the "Rise and Decline" section where it is currently found), will make the formulation even less precise. As you may have read in the homonym article, Spartan hegemony lasted for 30 years, but its superpower status lasted from 490 to 371 BC (Battle of Marathon to the Battle of Leuctra) - and that is only in the Classical period. Sparta had underwent various ressurections during the Hellenistic period as well, though this is not yet mentioned in the article. (B) See my proposals below (C) Refuting: As the referenced in the article state, Sparta was founded in the 11th century and remained undefeated at land until the Battle of Leuctra to Epaminondas of Thebes. Sparta is credited as the leader of pan-Greek alliance to have defeated the Persian Empire in the Second Greco-Persian War (see Battle of Mycale and Battle of Plataea). As the leader of a Peloponnesian alliance she defeated and submitted Athens and Thebes after the Peloponnesian war. That's where her Hegemony begins, albeit not her superpower status. This is when she also invades the Persian Empire, and Persia was obliged to ally itself to Sparta's enemies (Athens, Thebes and Corinth) in order to deal with the threat. The Battle of Leuctra and the related naval defeats of Sparta against Athens, Persia and Thebes, are already mentioned in the "Rise and Decline" section, and I see no rational and NPOV reason to bring them on the head. After all the head never states that Sparta dominated the planet, it only emphasises its military and geopolitical power during the Classical period. There's no room for abundancies such as Sparta's undefeated record and/or military losses, which are already detailed within context in the Rise and Decline section, few lines below. I reject this proposal for the same reason that I'd reject the proposal of adding the Vietnam War in the lead of the United States article, right next to the superpower mention. It simply adds undue weight and implies a biased POV.

Now NN if you need a source for any of my above claims don't hesitate to ask me. Most I've already analysed and sourced in the past but as they're lost in the talk page, I'm willing to do it again. In order to make a constructive discussion, please reply on the comments I just made, and stick with the point. I'm not answering to the anon's points because the edit is already getting huge. If you want me to comment on his proposals then let me know. In the meantime I'll make some proposals of my own, which on the complete absence of counter sources, are frankly the only rational compromises I can think of:

Proposals: Despite my strong fidelity to WP:ATT, I'm willing to make a compromise and consider the definition given in the article superpower. In order to add precision I'm suggesting the following changes:

• (and) unlink superpower to plain 'superpower'
• (or) disambiguate with the word 'ancient' to 'ancient superpower'
• (or) disambiguate with the word 'military' to 'military superpower'

Miskin 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're fighting the last war. The suggestions you make do not address my lengthy discussion above. Please note that I think that Garnet is heading in the right direction and would concur with any outcome based on his suggestions. Hornplease 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied above by citing the rest of the sources whose use of the term is much clearer than the ones you treated. However, I do have a question: Do you think that the term superpower can be applied to the Achaemenid Empire? Miskin 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin says I was wrong in saying "Classical times" lasted from 5 BCE to 5 AD when it actually lasted only over 4th and 5th century BC. I would like to say the current introduction says "Classical times" rather than "Greek Classical times" and that is what my statement was based on. If you do a Google search for "classical times" you get different results, none of the top results is as short a period as 4th and 5th century BC. The fourth result is Wiki's Classical antiquity which reads "Classical antiquity, era, or period is a broad term for a long period of cultural history centered on the Mediterranean Sea, which begins roughly with the earliest-recorded Greek poetry of Homer (8th–7th century BC), and continues through the rise of Christianity and the fall of the Western Roman Empire (5th century AD)". I think "classical times" is ill-defined enough (what exactly is it anyway?) without making it worse by saying "Greek Classical times".

Unlinking to plain superpower rather than superpower is not helpful as the commonly understood meaning of the word superpower is correctly expressed by superpower. It would be equivalent to saying "Oooppsss, the link caught using something that does not apply, so let us unlink and pretend it does not exist".

Disambiguation using more adjectives actually makes the meaning worse. There seems to have been difficulty enough defining superpower, with getting into "ancient superpower", "military superpower" etc. What is a regional superpower anyway? Reminds me of Mel Brooks "World famous in Poland".

NN 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeating question to all: Do you think that superpower is appropriate to be used for the Achaemenid Empire? Miskin 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

About the sources you have linked to, I must ask you to apply the analysis I provided above to each. Does the reference state that Athenian or Spartan power satisfies the requirements for being a superpower? Does the fact that every single quotation that you have listed modifies the application word superpower - either applying it as a descriptor of the conflict, or analogising it, or saying 'relative superpower' or 'superpower in her world' or simply putting it within quotes - not suggest that using the term for Sparta and Athens was considered a stretch even by the classicists that by and large compose the corpus you quote?

About the Achaeminids; I don't know. I havent thought about it; certainly they come closer than the Greek states, given that Fox's definition requires worldwide force projection, and the A.E. was. probably much more capable of that within the Known World than either city-state. I would nevertheless avoid the term for that empire as well. Hornplease 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the AE question is a digression, and we have had quite a few of those here already. Unless the questioner explains why this question is important in determining whether Sparta was a superpower I am not willing to answer it. NN 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Moving this to the bottom) I agree with Hornplease, I too believe Garnet is heading in the right direction and would concur with his suggestions. NN 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just choose two for now. An Oxford University Press gbook mentions: "They developed and persisted as the propagandists' authorization for the hegemony of a current superpower, or of Athens and Sparta"[A Commentary on Plutarch's Life of Agesilaos] and:
Sparta and Lakonia - Page 223 by Paul Cartledge "...Both Persians had reason to support Sparta against Athens, ... a defeated Athens should simply be replaced by another Greek superpower with imperial and 'Panhellenic' ambitions" - "Sparta and Lakonia", provided above by Nikosilver. As with the majority of the sources in [6], the term is used literally, therefore I can't that your personal judgement on two out many as a sufficient argument. I see your point however and I'm willing to to follow a different approach, by comparing Sparta to the undisputed superpower of its known world: The Achaeminid Empire. First we need to draw the line between superpower and superstate. Secondly I would like to hear an ellaboration on what makes the Achaemenids more of a superpower than Sparta. The article in the Achaemenid Empire mentions "political superpower" in the very lead. The article on Sparta makes use of "military superpower", and I find the equivalence just. If you don't, then we can rephrase both. If you want to remove the term solely from Sparta then you need to explain why. Miskin 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I found this discussion per the Rfc process, I have not been previously involved with the discourse. Couching Sparta, or any other ancient power as a superpower per Fox criteria is problematic as it hedges towards anarchronism. Fox couched his criteria in very modern terms, of which military projection was only one criterion. Furthermore, the phrase is not popularly used for any reference before 1943. We may try to hypothesize whether a modern Spartan equivalent would have qualified, but such a discussion is needlessly academic, and definitely original research. Just my thoughts. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As I said, the OUP book is a published DPhil thesis by a classicist discussing one of Plutarch's lives. The other reference is open to similar problems. I have established that the other references all share the same diffidence towards the term, suggesting it is deeply inappropriate for the lead of an encyclopaedia article.

On comparing it to the A.E.: first of all, any comparison in the lead should be a bare statement of facts: Sparta won a defensive action against the overwhelmingly more powerful A.E., causing it to for several decades to view itself as the repository of Panhellenic ambition and the Aegean's natural protector.

That the A.E. article uses the word as well: as I said, it is more accurate there, but as I also said, I wouldnt use it. Remove it by all means, replacing it with a phrase that can summarise the A.E.'s political size and military strength. Hornplease 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't accept this argumentation as long as it remains unreferenced. Your logic can be easily refuted by many historical examples where the defender overpowers the attacker - see for example the Battle of Vienna and the hegemony assumed by Habsburg dynasty over the Ottoman Empire. On the question of Sparta and Persia, it wasn't by coincidence that Persia entered its long-term decline after the failure in the invasion of Europe. Besides your assumption ignores the Spartan invasin of Asia Minor and Persia's incapability to remove her by military means. Anyways, it is NN who started this whole issue, so I'll leave it up to him to decide. Miskin 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to remove political superpower from the AE article, go for it. I will not object. In fact I just did more than that, I edited the AE article to remove superpower from its introduction. NN 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Djmal2, all counter-arguments provided up to the present moment have been original research. I'd like to remind that Sparta defeated the Achaemenids at war, invaded its land, and fought them in equal terms when they were allied to the most power powerful Greek cities. Therefore it is ridiculous to consider the Achamenids a superpower while ignoring Sparta's clearly superior military exploits. NN let us make an agreement, if you manage to reword the "political superpower" from the Achaemenid Empire I agree to reword 'military superpower' from Sparta. If you fail then we'll restore it on both. And the RFC may close, what do you think? If I cannot convince the masses of the importance of sources over POV (including POV criticism on the sources) then I can at least propose to avoid double standards. Miskin 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept it would be a double standard to say Sparta did not have worldwide influence, but AE did. Though AE was a huge empire, still worldwide influence is not correct. I accept your compromise of rewording both (in fact I have already reworded AE even before you offered it as a compromise) provided you also in the introduction either 1) remove the mention of Athenian and Persian defeats, OR 2) specify precisely (for example 404 BC to 371 AD) when Sparta dominated the Greeks OR 3) balance the mention of Spartan victories with Spartan defeats (for example by Thebes). You can choose which one of the 3 suits you, I am fine with all. NN 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More POV. If you had already reworded then it means you were aware of it. It seems to me as if you've had a personal agenda since the beginning. I'll put AE on watch to make sure that the articles are not treated with double standards. Miskin 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict Adding 4th option: Garnet's wording is my preferred solution along with removal of superpower from both Sparta and AE. NN 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I only agree to reword superpower and change 'overpowered' to 'defeated' or anything equivalent which emphasises Sparta's military superiority on both other states. I don't agree with your abundant information in the head, this is POV-pushing and undue weight. Miskin 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to examine the evidence before you make these allegations. I was not aware of the AE superpower use. I became aware of it after your post at 19:28 12, March. Check the history of AE. I reworded it at 19:40 12, March. That is after becoming aware of it by your post. Really, these things are easy to verify. NN 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, Garnet's wording is preferable (also preferred by Hornplease). I will accept rewording of AE as desired by you. NN 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the RFC maybe close. The decision applies only for the wording of 'superpower' so this is the only thing that changes. Also if the term is removed from here, it should be removed from all ancient states, including Athens, the Achaemenids etc. Will you take responsibility for removing it from all similar articles (and make sure it stays removed)? Miskin 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I searched the Athens article and could not find the word superpower. I have already changed it in the AE article. As for taking responsibility for it "staying removed" I think you are well aware of Wiki policies like 3RR. No one can honestly promise anything like that. NN 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I will be traveling for the next 6-7 weeks starting tomorrow with uncertain internet access. NN 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever happens in those other articles, the wording proposed by Garnet should be applied here, imo. semper fictilis 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Semper F, the wording of Garnet is accurate. NN 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, I think you need to calm down. Accusing disinterested editors who have come to this page following a request, and have done so because of their knowledge of their subject, as 'the masses' who prefer POV to references is a sentiment which, even if you feel, it is best to leave unstated. Further, nobody is going to take any responsibility for policing all of Wikipedia, and nobody is going to let the clarity of one article be contingent on policing all the others. This is a community enterprise, and we fix things when we see them.

I am also mildly amazed at the degree to which you believe Sparta had 'military superiority'. Your Vienna example is of course useful, but may not be applicable; you need to consider the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.

Anyway, come up with a draft based on Garnet's suggestion. And calm down, this isnt a historical debate forum. Hornplease 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, the edit is unprecise and does not reflect Sparta's real geopolical power. Sparta assumed a hegemonic influence and became the mightest military state in its own world. Look, the debate was about the term 'superpower' not about the rest of the lead. Sparta is known for its military achievements and this is what the lead needs to emphasise. Anyways I can't spend my life in this place, decide a wording and I'll make my edits if I find it unsatisfactory and vice versa. NN I didn't mean preserve it by "rv-warring", I meant by starting extensive disputes as you did in here. If for some reason it is restored elsewhere, you must agree to restore it here. This is a perfectly fair solution and I'm surprised someone didn't propose it earlier. Miskin 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Hornplease but I can't help but suspecting the obvious. NN just admitted being aware about the term's presence in Achaemenids, however he chose to come here and cause all this mess, and accuse me for having a eurocentric view. I agree on a fair deal, but I can't pretend to be stupid enough not to see NN agenda on the subject. Also NN, don't forget History of Iran, I put both articles on watch. Miskin 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, stating it had "military superiority" is another bold claim which should be avoided. Certainly one can provide facts which directly contradict what you are saying, take for example the Kagan quote i provided earlier: ""For a short time [Following Athens defeat] they clung to a kind of hegemony over their fellow Greeks, but only so long as the Persian king wanted them to do so. Within three decades of their greate victoy the Spartans were defeated by the Thebans in a major land battle, and their power was destroyed forever" - Would this indicate military superiority over Persia? Or the fact that Persias aid to Sparta is often cited as the reason behind its victory over Athens? My point is such bold statements can be undermined with verified facts, if you want to discuss the extent of its military capability then perhaps you can do it within a section in the article. --A.Garnet 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the 'Rise and Decline' section of the article. Persia allied herself to Athens because she feared further Spartan expansion into Asia, and because she couldn't face Sparta at land. The King's peace was positive for both Persia and Sparta. Miskin 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, but if we have facts which say Sparta could not defeat Athens without Persian aid, is it still appropriate to say it was militarily superior over both? Better not to make a statement which can be undermined with sources and instead provide a detailed narrative in the article. --A.Garnet 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, she would have most likely not been able to defeat Athens at sea. This is due to the fact that Athens was an ancient naval power while Sparta owned only a couple of fishing boats at the time. In any case don't sweat it, I'll find a source focalising on Sparta's infantry, which was by far the most powerful of its time. This excludes tactics, it only has to do with hoplites' training and equipment compared to those of their contemporaries. The strategy factor depends on the leader. Miskin 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways she had unarguably the most powerful infantry until Epaminondas' reforms of the Theban army, and as Alexander III proved, infantry was the most important unit of ancient warfare. However, at its peak, Sparta was more powerful than its alies in both infantry and navy. Anyways, everything will be sourced Garnet so there's no point arguint about it. But now I really have to go, I'm glad this is over. So decide a wording and replace it, I'll make my edits on top. But please try not to massacre the article, keep in mind that I've only agreed on the wording 'superpower' so far. As this debate was started out of personal agendas and not real interest on the article (rather the opposite), I find that changes should be restricted to rewording of 'overpowered' and 'superpower'. Miskin 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the infantry/navy distinction between Sparta and Athens. I know part of Pericles strategy was to deliberately avoid facing Sparta on land, but the fact remains one can question it's military superiority if it was unable to launch an effective naval campaign against Athens. Please see my proposal below, i've emphasised its military prowess. --A.Garnet 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(I am commenting here in response to the request for impartial editorial input as requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography) The term superpower dates from the 30s, and in particular took form in the 40s and 50s to denote a military power (in particular USA and USSR) that could project force on a global scale. This to contrast with regional powers. In the early days of the term, it was part of the discussion around the decline of Great Britain as a superpower and the rise of USA and USSR. In a strict sense it does not apply to Sparta; contemporary to Sparta were other great military powers in Asia that the Spartans were not even aware of, let alone capable of projecting any meaningful force. The only manner to apply it is to redefine the concept of “global” to some local region, based on the subjective world-view of that region’s inhabitants. But that then begs the question of what a “regional power” in that world view is left as? In any case, the term is a modern one and should not be projected back in history in a direct manner – it can certainly be referred to as part of historical discussions to draw various analogies, but that’s another matter. I hope this helps, and since this seems to have been a sensitive topic, feel free to flame me on my talk page. I have thick skin. --Psm 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC Result

Removal of the term superpower from all ancient states due to incompatibility to wikipedia's definition. Miskin 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is Garnet's original proposal: Following its defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta became the hegemonic power of classical Greece. I have linked it to Spartan hegemony. I will also argue for not having superpower in the AE article. NN 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look I said I didn't agree, now you're changing the topic of the initial discussion. No matter what you choose to add, I'm make an addition which will emphasise Sparta's military prowess, which btw expanded over its known world and not just the Greeks. The current agreement concerns the word superpower alone, everything else is still disputable. Miskin 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed superpower from History of Iran too. I am not changing the topic of the discussion. Hornplease and Semper F have already expressed approval for Garnet's version. Garnet please propose a version. NN 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the commentary on this talk page and cannot find a single impartial editor (e.g. one that was not originally part of the discussion) that upon reviewing the issue concluded that "superpower" was a reasonable term to apply to Sparta. I will therefore remove the use of the term from the article. --Psm 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

As a city state devoted to military training, Sparta possesed the most formiddable army in the Greek world. It's defeat of rival power Athen's in the Peloponnesian war asserted Spartan hegemony over Ancient Greece.

Ok? --A.Garnet 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. Garnet thanks! NN 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Imprecise. I don't understand why the entire initial phrase has to be replaced with something completely different and largely more simplistic. Please stick to the changes agreed. Miskin 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the version proposed by Garnet is accurate. Let us wait for others opinions about Garnet's version. NN 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the version by Garnet. The usage of the word Superpower in this context would be very limited with respect to the overall meaning, and IMHO not proper. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Garnet's proposal. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification? Is Garnet's proposal to replace this line: During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires, she regarded herself as the natural protector of Greece.

If so, I agree. It certainly replaces some of the vagueness present in the original statement. Please hotlink the "hedegmony" though as I feel it's a term that is possibly more obscure to to High School level researchers. (this post by 68.200.47.71 at 01:20, 13 March 2007)

Yes, that is the proposal. To replace the sentence "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires, she regarded herself as the natural protector of Greece." by Garnet's proposal. I would suggest hotlinking to "Spartan hegemony". NN 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

68.200.47.71, if you register and sign in that would help your participation in this discussion. NN 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this appears to be close to resolution. I'd also like to say thanks to NN and Miskin for keeping their personal issues with each other off this page today (for the most part). It looks like we should be able to get the page protection off relatively soon, if there aren't anymore objections. AniMate 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any objections. And I will not be online for a couple of weeks at a minimum. NN 07:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Garnet's proposal, sounds good to me. --Mardavich 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I only made a single comment during the long discussion (which was to bring the word hegemony back into the discussion) I would still like to say that Garnet's proposal is great! --Hodgetts 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Epilogue

Now that the dispute is over I would like to pose a rhetorical question to NN: You admitted to have been aware of the use of superpower in the article Achaemenids (Persia/Iran) even before I mentioned it in here, yet I have not seen you making any complaints about it that article's talk page. You also never made any mentions about its use in this article's Talk page. For a "neutral" editor who's been protecting NPOV on random articles, this is just too weird. I still think you owe me an apology for having falsely accused me many times and gotten away with it. You made other people believe that prior to the AnI event, you were being bullied by a group of Greek editors who were trying to pass their POV. In an ironic series of events the Greek editors became involved for a short period of time were all violently bullied off. However, no-one ever noticed that both before and after the AnI event, NN was largely supported by a coalition of Turkish and Iranian editors. This is a comment on the motives behind NN's and his more persistent supporters, and not on the RFC result which I do find fair and satisfactory. In my opinion the result of the RFC does prove that all those disputes (that some people found hilarious) did have biased motives and a largely non neutral support. This is the only thing I wish to announce. Miskin 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you feel better for getting that off your chest. In the future, however, I don't think framing these kinds of questions in this way is helpful and in any case is not in keeping with WP:AGF. semper fictilis 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:AAGF :) --Domitius 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See [7]NN 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand if people agreed to my proposal or not since no one seems willing to implement it :) --A.Garnet 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

Despite some hard feelings, it appears the editors on this page have reached a compromise. I requested unprotection [[8]]. I hope this article can be a little less contentious, and wish you all the best in future editing. AniMate 08:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Madness

Why does this page redirect from Madness? Smiles Aloud 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That was some clever vandalism on the madness page. Apparently there's some movie out with the words Sparta and madness in the trailer. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean that movie about 300 Spartans where 300 Spartans face-off against a vast army of Persians even though there are only 300 of them? If that's not Madness, I don't know what is. ;) Boonjava 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that was not madness, That! Was! Sparta! Or so Hollywood tells me. Hornplease 07:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

mention of the movie "300"

I don't think this article, or articles about Thermopylae, or any other Greek related articles should have anything more than a cursory mention of the movie "300" in popular culture. We're trying to make wikipedia at least a little bit accurate, so let's not mention a movie, adapted from a graphic novel, which in itself was a overdramatization of facts. I'll remove mention of the movie in the main body of the article. Paranoid123 05:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's just ridiculous. I created Sparta in popular culture so that people would stop adding video-game and cartoon mentions in historical articles. Although the film and the graphic novel do not fit into those categories, they certainly do not fit in historical articles either. Nor does Kavafes' poetry, though it's temporarily included in the "popular culture" article. Miskin 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted its removal, but if this is the consensus here, no problem (though I may differ a bit to the consensus!).--Yannismarou 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Something that could be useful would be the addition of a section "Sparta in popular culture" here as a resumee of the main article (in accord with WP:SS. I think that such an addition would be useful.--Yannismarou 16:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the Sparta in popular culture to Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture as all of the information came cut from the Battle of Thermopylae page and had nothing to do with Sparta in general. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was hoping it wouldn't have to come to this, but seriously, this is Madness. This is blasphemy.

This is SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah seriously we have to remove those. --Arad 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Spartan Culture

I'm surprised there is nothing about the Spartan marriage customs considering they are so unusual. I'll write something but I'm still learning how to do cites and don't want to mess it up so can someone add the cite for me? lol.

I found plenty of cites but this one is the simplest to read although it is marginally different from what I wrote as I also used a thesis paper on Dorian customs. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/aegean/culture/spartaculture.htmlWayne 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Asia Minor?

"The recorded history of Sparta began with the Dorian invasions, when the Peloponnesus was settled by Greek tribes coming from Asia Minor via the northeast" Are you sure that Dorians come from Asia Minor? What it was teached to me is that Dorians were one of the ancient tribes of Greece, as well as the Achaeans, the Ionians, the Aeolians and the Arcadians, but the the most northern tribe so the most far from Crete and the Minoan civilization (which influencad the Mycenaean civilization). Just that. Not a foreign tribe from Asia minor (then inhabitated by very different population).

Consensus holds that prior to the expansions of 1100 BC, Dorians were settled in Epirus and Macedonia. Their previous location cannot be verified and claiming that it was Asia Minor is blatantly an unsourced POV, so this recent edit should be reverted. Asia Minor might be an existing view but it certainly doesn't meet consensus. However, all Greek-speaking tribes migrated the Greek peninsula from a different location, this doesn't make them "foreign". They became "Greek" only after they settled that region, mixed with the local non-IE element, and formed a civilisation. This is valid for all IE invaders, the Greek-speakers were relatively late IE settlers in the Balkans. Miskin 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Would someone please change the sentence fragment, "it was comprised of elements of both monarchical, oligarchical, and democratic systems." to something like, "it was composed of elements from monarchical, oligarchical, and democratic systems."?

A whole (such as the Spartan government) comprises its parts and is composed of them. The word both, implies a number of two things, yet three are listed.

I can't make this change on my own because the article is locked down in the wake of the movie 300. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.158.184 (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

There's a grammar error in the 1st paragraph of History section, where the sentence concludes:

... Greek tribes coming from Epirus and Macedonia, submitting or displacing the older Achaean Greek inhabitants.

This tells us that the invaders "submitted the older inhabitants" - Erh, to whom? For what purpose? Or the invaders themselves submitted? I think the author meant "dominating the older inhabitants", or something on that order. Iohannkn 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

military

Whoever wrote this was absurd. I just finished my history assignment on spartan military and like any sane man i came to wikkipedia to get a broad overview. For example men in Sparta were expected to serve in the army till 65???, i have several reliable sources including thucydides and plutarch that claim 60. I wasnt able to edit the military section because i have to sign up? but im not a wikkipedia genius and i dont know the ins and outs.

However if you want someone to update the military section i will be more than happy to, to ensure future students like myself come upon some usefull and true information! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.185.161.206 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

What exactly is absurd? To claim an active reserve until the age of 65 instead of 60? Miskin 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this article: Spartan Army. It is totally encyclopedic. I have tagged it but I really don't know yet what we should do with it. Maybe it could be improved.--Yannismarou 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On this note, someone has changed the account to claim Spartan men 'were required to serve in the army until age thirty,' which is nonsense. The distinction is one entirely founded on the demarcation between when a Spartan possesses the right to leave a barracks or the right to be seen at the market, as Xenophon alleges. The very idea of a 'reserve' would have been alien to the Spartans, except perhaps those age classes 18-20 and 55-60. The remaining classes were not a 'reserve,' but simply an inactive army. Apologies for the absence of a user name.

Well not really an inactive army OR a reserve- more of a part of the force that never was really there, only a bit of it that could be called up and only had the role of defending the bags. But this may well have gone up to 65 in very rare cases such as the persian wars when the city was in crisisSamrsharma 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cites!!

Folks, we always need to cite our claims / facts. This article has many uncited and/or controversial claims which need cites. See WP:Attribution and WP:WEASEL. -- Writtenonsand 11:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down and specify exactly what the problem is instead. It's not the article is completely devoid of references.

I removed the statement about young Spartans sent out in the krypteia with a knife, but I also removed a fact-tag which seemed completely arbitrary. It seemed to be demanding a citation for the claim that Sparta was one of the major military players in Ancient Greece, which is clearly ridiculous.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

-"It's not the article is completely devoid of references." - Agreed. This article, as it stands, is cited much better than many.

-"specify exactly what the problem is" - I did add a couple of {{Fact}} tags when I first posted this.

-More:

• Section "Constitution": Not a cite in the section
• Section "State organization": Not a cite in the section
• "Foreign policy": Nope
• Intro to section "Society": No cites
• "Society: Military life": Many assertions without cites.
• Rest of article: Etc, etc.

Sparta is interesting to a lot of people and was in many ways very unlike modern society. There is nothing at all unreasonable in my requesting that editors cite their assertions. "Any user should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia is attributable a reliable published source." WP:Attribution#Wikipedia_articles_must_be_based_on_reliable_sources. Nothing odd or personal about it.

It's much easier to include the cites when the content is originally added to the article, than to go back later and try to "prove" or "disprove" something that somebody else added a week, a month, or a year ago.

Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few minor edits but I have yet to learn how to add the cites. So far it always comes out as a meaningless jumble and peeps have been good enough to add them for me. Check "Spartan Culture" above for one I asked to be added a long time ago that hasn't been yet lol. Wayne 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This site should be deleted and created one more time...

--Azglahal 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Hi everybody I'm historian and I can only say that this site is full off ... someone should do something about it. There is so many new facts on site that I'm starting to belive that someone have discovered new manuscript about Sparta and it's Law system...

Your userpage says you study informatics and telecoms. Miskin 10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding Achaean League

I was touching up the Aratus entry and from there I tried drawing on the Achaean League entry for reference, but it is sparse, so I tried to beef it up with a list of the member cities. My question is whether Sparta ever joined the Achaean League (or perhaps merely allied with them), and if so, in what year. (I drew on a numismatics site for the list of member cities.) The Jackal God 20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

merge?

At present, this article is on the state of Sparta=Lacedaemon in general, while Lacedaemon is a stub. It should either be merged here, or this article should be only on the city itself (archaeology), and the extensive material on the state etc. should be moved to merged Lacedaemon. dab (𒁳) 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the merge because Lacedaemon was orinally a hero in Greek mythology, and not the name of a region per se. Also strictly speaking, Lacedaemon/Laconia and Sparta are not the same thing. Sparta was to Laconia what Troy was to Ilion, and what Athens was to Attica, though much of the above were often used interchangeably. I think the best thing to do would be to improve the article on Lacedaemon. In addition, I don't agree with the splitting of the "Sparti municipality", on the grounds of wikipedia's naming conventions. The city of Sparta is known in English as Sparta, both the ancient and modern town, so I don't see why we have to coin it a different name. It would have made more sense to have Sparta (ancient) and Sparta (modern) but the article on modern Sparta is small enough to fit inside a section, so there's no need to complicate things. Britannica too has always followed the practice of keeping it in the same article [9]. Athens as well has one article for the ancient and modern history of the city eventhough there's much more to say. I guess it's ok to keep them in the same article as long as history of X is linked. What were your motives for the split? Miskin 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We could make Lacedaemon on the hero on it's on Lacedaemon page and put how Lacedaemon relates to Sparta on the Sparta page. Gunnerdevil4 04:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that Sparta does have a continuous history, though under the interchangeable names of Lacedaemon and Laconia (in Byzantium it was officially called Lacedaemonia). This article has the flaw of focusing only in one century of the city's history. Maybe it would have been best to balance it out by adding information on late antiquity and medieval sparta, but I'm afraid that would make this article identical to History of Sparta. Miskin 14:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

the hero is irrelevant, and should be treated apart from the kingdom anyway. I realize "Sparta was to Laconia what Troy was to Ilion": My point is that this article is more about Lacedaemon than about Sparta proper. It seems obvious that modern Sparta should be treated separately. Whether the article on the modern town should reside at Sparta (municipality) or at Sparti (municipality) I leave to your discretion. The modern town is clearly a different entity, named after the ancient city in 1834. of course either should be mentioned in the other article, but it won't do that people trying to look up the postal code or current mayor of Sparti find themselves stranded in a giant article on ancient Lacedaemon. dab (𒁳) 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that if we are to follow this logic then we'd have to have a separate article for all Laconian cities named Sparta-Lakedaemon, which were all situated in different parts of the valley of Evrotas. Mycenaean Sparta was situated some 27km away from Dorian Sparta, yet there was never an account for two different cities, we only know this from archaeology. Dorian Sparta itself was hardly a city in the way the Greeks perceived it, it was composed by a set of villages-settlements and was organised in a tribal society (info missing from the article), and most importantly, it lacked the fortification which normally set the boundaries of a city. Its boundaries were largely the valley of Evrotas. Roman and Byzantine Sparta was called Lakedaemon and was located somewhere in the Laconian plain too, probably the centre of the Dorian settlements (needs to be verified). This medieval Sparta was the second city of Laconia after Monemvasia and Mystras. Mystras is frequently called Medieval Sparta too. The settlement of modern Sparta that was rebuilt by the Greek King was the one of Byzantine Lacedaemon. The city's name and basic location never changed. Otto I rebuilt Sparta as much as he did with Athens, he urbanised them, created roads etc, he did not refound some lost ancient cities from scratch. The city of Sparta has been always been present in history because of the constant existence of important, nearby Laconian cities such as Monemvasia, Mystras and Mani, let alone the fertility of the Evrotas valley. This is why Britannica doesn't have two articles. What makes admittendly classical Lacedaemon so different is the fact that it was an independent city-state, and for that reason it may be worthy of a separate article. This is however the case with most Greek cities, yet none of the articles follow this practice. I would suggest to keep everything in the articles Sparta and History of Sparta and consider a split when one of them becomes too long. At the moment the article is quite small an incomplete, focusing solely on classical Sparta. Alternatively we could have Sparta focusing on the classical and modern town, and add the rest of the details in History of Sparta (as it is done in Athens and most ancient cities of significant background). I understand that ancient Sparta, as a distict political and cultural entity could have its own article, yet this has not been practiced so far in similar articles. Miskin 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could do that. Note that we are conflating two unrelated issues here:

• separate treatment of the modern and the ancient city.
• separate treatment of the city as settlement and the kingdom (Lacedaemon).

most of this article (Rise and decline, Constitution, State organization, Foreign policy, Society) is actually about the state, not the city (settlement) proper. If we export all this to Lacedaemon, we might then argue about how to discuss the ancient vs. the modern settlement. dab (𒁳) 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Sparta between Sparta and History of Sparta. Ancient Rome (the city) doesn' have it's own page, neither does Ancient Athens. They both just discuss the majority of the history of the city (both ancient and modern) in "History of ______". ^{El Greco (talk • contribs)} 21:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should merge them-there's a spartan army page that has the same argument and these would make it massive They should definatley be 2 articles there is no need to merge they are fine by themselvesJwmorris92 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More Pictures

This story needs more pictures. It looks kind of blank... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.201.218 (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

State organisation typo

It calls Spartan citizens Damos first, and then Demos - so which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by It Is Me Here (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Removal of Messenian War date as 631

This figure must be removed, unless of course the person who assigned it would like to contact every historian in the world and announce that they have finally solved the great debate as to when the second Messenian war is. I believe that no original research is allowed, but even if this is not, PLEASE cite the source so as to enlighten the whole historical community. In short, this date needs to be removed and changed to one cognizant of historical opinion, which never fails to date it by decades and, always, as 'Circa.' This has perhaps been a little ranting, but was necessary to show how utterly flawed this date is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.40.26.169 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Hey, SimonP

Cicero called Sparta: respublica Lacedaemoniorum. Rep. II. 23, Cicero, as quoted in The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Müller, 2nd ed. rev. 1839. pg 190.

• "At the same time, however, Lacedæmonia was a republic." Rahe, Paul A., Republics; Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1992. pg 169.
• "Sparta was neither a monarchy or democracy...The most subtle of the ancient authors described it as a mixed regime...In order to secure the consent of the governed, Sparta ensured the participation of every element of the citizen population in the administration of the city". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 152.
• "Lacedæmonia was, in fact, a mixed regime—an uneasy compromise between competing principles...". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 170.

Hey SimonP, Paul A. Rahe, who wrote a THREE VOLUME study, "Republics, Ancient and Modern". How about them pickles?

And NOW: *"The Spartan Republic", W. Lindsay Wheeler, Sparta, Journal of Ancient Spartan and Greek History, May 5, 2007.

Now De Republica Anglorum; the Manner of Government or Policie of the Realme of England, Sir Thomas Smyth, 1583. (England is described under Queen Elizabeth I as a republic, the term "mixed" does appear in it. Sir Smyth states that all commonwealths are of mixed character.)

So that is Cicero, Paul A. Rahe, and Sir Thomas Smyth who all call governments with kings republics!!!! How strange SimonP. WHEELER 02:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have composed a list of all the times Sparta was called a Republic. People have been calling Sparta a republic throughout history. The Founding Fathers of America, who entered school with stringent classical requirements, knew Latin and Greek. They read Plato, Aristotle and Polybius. Here is a partial list: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/List_of_sources_identifying_Sparta_as_a_republic. As you notice, there are four references, on the internet, from four different websites, past the year 2000 that call Sparta a Republic. Sparta is a republic. Known as such.WHEELER 12:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Adrianople?

Can anyone actually give something written about this: "Supposedly, following the disaster that befell the Roman Imperial Army at the Battle of Adrianople (AD 378), a Spartan phalanx met and defeated a force of raiding Visigoths in battle. There is, however, no genuine evidence of this occurring." It seems very unlikely that such a thing occured.

This is the Visigothic invasion of the 270's. I'll get back to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree Lacademnon and Sparta should be bounded together

Lacademnon should be redirected to Sparta and in main article it should be said that Sparta was called in ancient times Lacademnon as a state, Sparta was only capital of the state. I know that in our history everything has changed and things that once have been clear like air are not so clear anymore, but still we should remember corect version of History. Wikipedia is a place for truth not 300 movie witch is almost a total fake. Azglahal 11:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about not because...

...the two are entirely different societies. It may be the same geographical place, but the society are worlds apart. I think that all the information about ancient history Sparta be taken out and put into the Lacedaemon section, and only modern history be included. Briefly mention Lacedaemon in the history section with a link to the Lacedaemon article. Maybe even give it a short description under a ancient history section, but KEEP IT BRIEF, with the link. The article jumps around way to much, and is very confusing to a first time reader. 153.24.70.34 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite necessary...

Although they are two different societies, it is still a necessary classification because of the region. while it may not be RELEVANT, it is still needing to be mentioned, maybe even mentioned to the point where the article distinguishes the two, that way people are not confused.

Big daddy89 (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ancient and modern

Ancient Sparta and modern Sparti should be clearly separated, since there is no historical continuity between the two. Thus the opening statement that "Sparta is a city in southern Greece" is false - Sparta was a city, it is now an archeological site near the modern town of Sparti. I propose making this change, and removing the text at the end about modern Sparti. Intelligent Mr Toad 09:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is quite common across Europe for cities to have ancient ruins of previous settlements with the same name near them. The ancient and the modern settlement are usually regarded as the same. FilipeS 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well they're not. Sparti is a new town, founded in the 19th century, some distance from the ruins of Sparta. It is simply wrong to say that "Sparta is a city in southern Greece." Sparta no longer exists except as an archaeological site. The same is not true of Athens or Rome. Intelligent Mr Toad 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for claiming that they are not regarded as the same city? FilipeS 20:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment on how they are regarded. I commented on whether they are or are not the same city. Ancient Sparta was abandoned in Byzantine times and the site has been uninhabited since. I have been there and I can assure you that there are centuries-old olive trees growing where the temples of the Lacedaemonians stood. Modern Sparti was founded in the 19th century on a different site. This is incidentally a poor article overall, which should be rewritten from scratch. Intelligent Mr Toad 08:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What is a city, though? It's subjective. Many cities have been rebuilt away from where they were originally throughout history. FilipeS 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't say there is continuity between the two when the site was uninhabited for at least 500 years, probably nearer 1,000 years. The question here is: is the statement "Sparta is a city in southern Greece" true or false? If it is true, then that city is the modern city of Sparti, and this article should be about that city, and a separate article devoted to Ancient Sparta. If it is false, then it should be changed to "Sparta was a city in southern Greece," and a separate article devoted to Sparti. Intelligent Mr Toad 01:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Question!

Within this article there are two mentions of the krypteia, which give quite different accounts of the nature of this rather mysterious concept... perhaps someone can clear this up?

Sparta is a republic

Here is a good reference: "Continuous service was considered the only public pursuit, and therefore the only proper activity for a citizen of the Spartan republic; all men shared in politics in that they all were devoted to the public defense."

"Around the seventh or sixth centuries B.C.E. two Greek cities, Sparta and Athens, seem to have developed the first republican political orders. Although these two regimes differed remarkably from modern republics, such as the United States, and were strikingly different from one another,..."

From: International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998'. Page Number: 1964.

My question is 1998 "modern scholarship". Is this "encyclopaedia" "modern scholarship"? Is Sparta a republic by the standards of this "encyclopadia"? Or is it a crank case? the author is a nutjob? sparta is still NOT a republic? Does the Consensus accept "Jay M. Shafritz" or will they find some adjective in order to denigrate and then deny Sparta on the list of republics?WHEELER 03:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the word "republic" to describe Sparta is an anachronism. It's a Latin word that didn't come into existence until the time of the Roman republic. FilipeS 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr FilipeS, the above encyclopaedia says it is "authoritative and definitive"? And who are who? Mr. FilipeS, Did you know that the Romans copied and directly borrowed from the Doric Greeks? So if their government came from the Doric Greeks and the Romans labelled that form of government a 'republic', and what are your credentials? What is YOUR evidence that it is an anachronism? What proof? Or is that your opinion? Is "opinion" the standard at Wikipedia? How about you read this link http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/List_of_sources_identifying_Sparta_as_a_republic and notice how many people have used the word republic with Sparta! The list is long! How many websites past 2000 still use that word? I found four! not to mention tons of MODERN scholarship that says so. So who are you? and what scholarly journal, book says that? or is that just your opinion? Please place the evidence here Mr. Filipe. I did my research and if you look at the link provided I DID MY homework! So please, do YOUR homework and if you can't find any evidence---then, maybe, it is the TRuth that Sparta is a Republic! It was the Doric Greeks that created this form of government and it is unbelievable the people here that deny this honor to Sparta and deny her patrimony!!!WHEELER 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the reason to define an oligarchy such as Sparta as a "republic" is political, but you're right. If a source proclaims itself as "authoritative", who am I do doubt their God-given authority? FilipeS 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cicero called Sparta a republic. You know more than Cicero, fluent in Greek and Latin, proficient in Political science both Greek and Roman? You know more? To the charge of Oligarchy, Dicaearchus of Messana, schooled under Aristotle, intensively studied the Spartan Republic and labeled his treatise; the Tripoliticus. Did Dicaerchus label his treatise "Oligarchia"? NO. This man visited Sparta, studied their constitution and labelled it the "Tripoliticus". What does that tell you? Maybe it is NOT an oligarchy!?!? What is a republic? Mixed government. So what does the word "Tripoliticus" convey? That it was mixed! How hard is this!WHEELER 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As you no doubt know full well, in modern usage "republics" are assumed to be democratic -- which Sparta most definitely wasn't. They are often also assumed to not be monarchic, which Sparta was. I stand by my statement that describing ancient Sparta as a republic today is a misleading anachronism. Unless, of course, the ambiguity of the term "republic" be explicitly mentioned in the article... FilipeS 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, the Classical Latin res publica is not synonymous with the modern word republic, which is used in opposition to hereditary monarchies like UK or Denmark. Such monarchies may be democratic, and on the other hand, a republic is not necessarily democratic at all. If we keep to these definitions, Sparta was a monarchy or better: dyarchy, since it was formally ruled by two hereditary leaders. But it was not an absolute one, but rather a constitutional one, given that the power of the two kings were ordered by the constitution, the famous Rhetra.

As to the other question, if Sparta was a democracy, it depends on one's expectations. There was a government (the ephors) that was elected by and from the people, even though the details are uncertain. The legislative power was divided, it seems, between two chambers, the Apella (all male citizens) and the Gerusia (the noble citizens, what ever that might be). On the other hand, this democracy was limited to a certain class of the population, the Spartiats, whereas the Perioikoi had reduced power and the Helots no power at all - not to speek of the women... However, by these modern standards, Athens would perhaps not be considered a democracy, either Enkyklios 08:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aries

Can someone atleast mention that Sparta's patron god is Aries/Mars?

Add historical citation of sources

The article could be improved adding citations at the historical references, there is a certain lack of these in some parragraphs. Some inline citations could benefit from becoming footnotes references instead, cleaning the cluter and allowing bettr flow of the article Heltzen 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

was a city?

Since when was Sparta destroyed?

It was abandoned in the miidle ages when Mystras was built and was onnly re populated when King Otto rebuilt it in 1834. Kyriakos 03:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous People

I belive the mentioning of Angelos Basinas is out of place in this context and that the reference should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.190.19 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Undo latest change please

It's stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.250.53 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

saying it doesn't exist anymore is an insult.

At least rename it to Sparta (ancient). --Leladax 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Little note

Sorry, I know this isn't terribly relevant to the article as a whole, but after reading one part* I felt compelled to comment; Sparta might not be visually impressive, but the idea is that they loved the place so much that they defended it. They didn't need meters thick walls or anything like that. Sparta was all about the people, not the place.

• Referring to the mention that tourists would find it visually unimpressive.

NemFX 03:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Roofing Materials Equal Civilization?

"Settlements were scattered and mirrored the dwellings used during Greece's 'Dark Age' (1150–700 BC) which means that they were mostly thatched houses." That's a new one on me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.208.14 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Source and Article conflict?

Source: Sparta Reconsidered: The History, Beliefs, and Culture of Sparta states that Sparta has the first democracy, from 50 to 200 years before Solon in Athens. The article here says that it is an absolute monarchy. Any clarification on that? 68.45.201.243 00:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry to double edit, but to my knowledge ancient Sparta government did of course, resemble a democracy in some ways; the kings are advised, there is a citizen body, there is a council of elders... etc. 68.45.201.243 00:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

First Spartan

Hi, am I confused or is it true that Ares (or some other god) created the first spartan in full body armour? Please help me I want to remember what it was, but I can't find anything on the net. Mallerd 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Ares Mallerd 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Helots: 90% of the population

The articles says that "Others in the state were the perioeci, who can be described as civilians, and helots who were the state owned serfs that made up 90 percent of the population." Was the 90% ratio something fixed throughout the history of Sparta or was it the ratio at a specific point in time?

ICE77 -- 84.223.76.132 18:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no exact time line of Helot history of how many, but it is generally assumed by historians and alike that the 90% ratio is a fine basis and was most likely around that for the duration of Sparta. No source at the moment, sorry.Cleotheo (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Art or Architechture?

Hi- I'm doing a report on ancient Sparta-Athens and I needed to find stuff on Spartan Art and Architechture. I looked here and in some books and found nothing on these subjects. I googled and found this website: http://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Art.html which talks about this stuff. Since I'm not an expert or anything, could someone who is an expert or researcher add these subjects in the Sparta article? The stuff I found was neat and I think it should be shared. Please write any comments on ths here. Thanks.

Cites!! (Again)

In April of 2007 I noted that this article needed many additional cites. ( Talk:Sparta#Cites.21.21 ). There has been considerable improvement, but much work remains to be done.

• Section "Constitution": Still not a cite in the section
• Section "State organization": Still not a cite in the section
• "Foreign policy": Still not a cite in the section
• "The Spartan world": Not a cite in the section
• "Society": Not a cite in the section (including an uncited direct quote)
• "Military life": I see three cites. Needs more. My previous comment for this section was "Many assertions without cites." Has this section been improved at all?
• "Archaeology": Not a cite in the section
• Rest of article: Has many cites. Great! However, if there is anything else that doesn't have a cite and needs one, then we need to add it.

- Why am I concerned about this? Because WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence is one of Wikipedia's core policies. It is not optional. -- Writtenonsand 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Spartans may not have thrown babies away

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071210/lf_afp/greecehistoryarchaeologychildren_071210182228;_ylt=As3p6q3wmWeRdd0Yrpb7_ptFeQoB --Vidkun (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was the city left?

Barcovelero (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Babies were NOT thrown away...

What happened was that babies were left in the wild to fend for themselves, in a rather brutish manner, but the whole '300' portrayal of the physical cleansing of the society is the way they did things, it was in a bold manner, yes, but they were left in the wilderness.

Big daddy89 (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rise and decline

This section of the article doesn't have much on 'decline' - Having read it I'm no clearer on how this great city-state ceased to be and why the city itself no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.251.131 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Several issues

Crypteia: It seems that different sections (military life, culture) vary on what this was about:

Between leaving the agoge and joining the syssitia a select few young men were arranged into groups, and were sent off into the countryside with nothing, and were expected to survive on wits and cunning. ... This was called the crypteia, secret (ritual). This was very probably, in origin, an old initiation rite, a preparation for their later career as elite soldiers. Other sources claim that the crypteia (or krypteia) was an "adolescent death squad" made up of the most promising young Spartans. Their job was to roam the countryside killing helots at night in order to instill fear in the slave population and prevent rebellion.

Then, below:

"Spartan men were required to marry at age 20 after completing the crypteia.

One indicates that this was a program for a select few; the other that it was standard. Which was it?

The abandonment of children:

Could be at least add that this purportedly happened? I'm not sure that there is any firm evidence that this occurred.

"With it, or on it":

Was this customary of Spartan women in general... or should we indicate that this was one of Plutarch's recorded "famous sayings"?

Lesser Citizens:

What was the actual term?

Spartan Marriage:

"Not highly ritualized"? That's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Isn't the process of symbolically abducting someone and altering their appearance ritualistic in its own way? In fact, the word "ritualized" is used in the very next sentence! The two not meeting one another except to procreate? That's a bit direct, isn't it? Both Plutarch and Xenophon allude to the system being geared toward limiting sexual interaction as a means of ensuring better progeny (by building up their longing for one another and such), but the flip side of those statements points to a bond and feelings that went beyond simply wanting to pump out babies. Furthermore, the shaving and dressing was part of the wedding night itself--not a repeat occurrence.

Women competing in the Olympics:

At the very least, a mention of Cynisca winning an Olympic prize in the four-horse chariot event is needed.

Although the source does not come to mind right now, I know for a fact there were several graffiti and textual references in relation to Cynisca and the Olympics. Akaricloud (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty:

It should be noted that the points of view that indicate sexual relations between adults and adolescents come almost exclusively from individuals who either--

a) did not live in Sparta, or

b) were not contemporaries of Sparta during the Classical Greek era.

I think it's rather telling that the one individual who purportedly wrote from an eyewitnesses' perspective belonged to a social stratum (Athenian aristocrat) that would have accepted pederasty but nonetheless described a situation in which sexual relations between adults and adolescents were qualified in harsh terms--as akin to parents sexually indulging in their own children.

That's not to say, of course, that all Spartans were chaste, obedient to the Lycurgan principles, or necessarily heterosexual. See, for example, Lysander, Agesilaos, etc.

Anyways, should I make these changes... or does someone more invested in this page wish to address this?

Phoebus Americanos (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article seems to be the constant target of infantile, 14-year old vandals who, apparently, take great delight in constantly defacing it, deleting parts of it, or introducing nonsense into it. How about semi-protecting the article so that massive amounts of juvenile vandalism doesn't constantly have to be removed by legitimate editors? 83.140.239.143 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting translation of the word Sparta in albanian.

First i want to make clear that this is a discussion and we speak our minds here. Now however my claims contradikt with greek nationalism it is still my right to speak my mind. So dont remove my thoughts as many nationalists have done before.

And before you accuse me of making this up i must ask you to pick up an Albanian - English lexicon to confirm my claims.

The "Greek" tribe and the ancestors of Spartans, Dorians and their king Dorus, have an interesting meaning in the albanian language. Doros or Doroc is a common surname in Albania, held by familys that have won blood feuds, the name also reveals a family of skilled warriors. It may also be an evolution of the albanian word Dorushëm wich means patient, may also mean duro wich means to endure (spartans were indeed known for endurance)

Dorus or i Dorës (vocally identical) literally translated "of the hand", meaning skilled with handling a sword. This sheds more light of spartans ancestorage being skilled warriors.

The Ancestor king of Dorians, Aegimi(us)(Latinised)[os][Hellenised] whos name literally translates into "sunrise" in Albanian. It is also a name that is still used by Albanians and as of my knowledge only by Albanians.

The Albanian word for sword Shpata means sword in Albanian. Sparta may also be an evolusion of the albanian word for swordsman, shpatar. Sparta may also refer to the albanian word spata wich means "didnt have", this sheds further light of the naked warriors not having clothes and living with very few acomodations. Just to make an argument against my own claim, we may have been ispired by spartans and named "sword" and "didnt have" in their honour. Wichever you chose to belive it is undoubtable that albanians are deeply rooted in the balkans. And Greek nationalists will have a very tough time to accept the language as a factor deciding the origin of this people. And as for the Greek meaning of Sparta, no one wants to translate the word Sparta in greek but my request only gets erased, wich is very childish. --Durim Durimi (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

SPARTA redirect

i redirected SPARTA to this article. --11gaudrco1 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

dual Kingship

Can we get some sources for this section under the constitution header? There are a bunch of theories in there I have never heard of, and I studied Sparta as a subject for quite a long time.Akaricloud (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch. I did not read any primary sources; I only used the following secondary sources:

• The Spartan System
• Spartan State, including the Model of the Spartan State Graphic
• The Penguin Atlas of World History

If I am wrong, I would like to know it, and would be happy to change the graphic.--Publius97 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rise and Decline

I just read the Rise and decline section and I feel that a mentioning of the battle of Thermopylae which takes up several lines is both irrelevant to that section of the article and also far too emotional. I think it was added by someone who had just watched 300. I think it should be removed, or at least cropped significantly so it just gets a side mentioning.Akaricloud (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. And the use of the word 'sickly' in describing the unfit Spartan infants is a direct lift from Frank Miller that is very tasteless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.elias13 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to criticise // This article needs a MAJOR clean up

Please do not misconstrue what I am about to write, I appreciate the effort that has gone into this article. But it seems to me that the current article is filled to the brim with both irrelevent information and information which is not backed up or is just plain missing. I plan to do a large edit of the entire Spartan article when I get some spare time (and access to my books and references once again) If you look above you will see I already started pointing out individual sections which I see problems with, however I think it is best if I just make a list of all the problems I see with the article and then post them as Durim Durimi did above. I personally have no qualifications on the Spartan topic, and most of what I know came through study with books printed over 10 years ago. A lot of new ideas which contradict what I learned may have surficed, however I don't think its possible that all that much has changed in 10 years. I think as part of the Greek Collectorate this should have top priority to be cleaned up. Akaricloud (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I only have Sparta watchlisted so that I can revert the folks who replace parts or all of the article with "This is Sparta!" periodically. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it is Sparta, hence the title/subject of the article. --NEMT (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right the verity of the section on marriage seems particularly dodgy. The Emuseum source is a "student-run organization with professional oversight". A couple of other resources. [10] [11] [12] either disagree or appear to be from the same source, none cite that source which suggests it's spurious information. Sparta Revisited seems the most cogent and thought out (doesn't make it true I know) - particular in it's disagreement of the oft-quoted Plutarch by noting that Spartan youths would know their "wives" by virtue of having grown-up in close contact with them. If sources such as "Emuseum" are to be believed then there was no incest ... to be completed Pbhj (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a serious cleanup. Apart from the bits which are obviously lifted from Britannia - I assume it's the bits where the style suddenly has a whiff of early 20th century about it - it has one of the most boring and unhelpful introductory paragraphs I have ever read on a topic of such importance. I am no expert on Sparta, but then this article doesn't need revision by an expert on Sparta. It needs revising by a good editor. Even with the few books I have on the topic, I am sure that I can come up with at least a better intro. The intro as it stands belongs in a paragraph about Sparta's geographical location; it gives no sense of the notability of the subject matter, which is the purpose of an intro. And what's with that supposedly helpful diagram illustrating the structure of the Spartan state? Somebody obviously put a lot of work into it, but a diagram is supposed to simplify things. Lexo (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And what's with that supposedly helpful diagram illustrating the structure of the Spartan state? Somebody obviously put a lot of work into it, but a diagram is supposed to simplify things.

Not just simplify, but illustrate as well. My goal was to capture the "constitution" and societal structure all in one diagram, which I believe I've done.--Publius97 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern Sparta

Does Sparta still exist? I couldn't find any mention in the article of whether or not there's still a place called that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.214.2 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's located here: Sparti (municipality). _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

On the infobox, it says that Sparta's rule ended in 371 BC. In the years, after 371 BC, Sparta's rule dominance of the Peloponnesian League and Greece ended as well as its control of Messenia but Sparta's self rule as a city state lasted until 189 BC when it was fully incorperated by the Achaean League. Does anyone object with it being changed? Kyriakos (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

None whatever. I will change it, seeing as I've been changing so much other stuff around here lately. Lexo (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Two Corrections

In the Eugenics section a passage describes the infanticide as being carried out more extensively against women. This is true only of non-Spartan polis. In Sparta, the men that were prospective members of the Homioi were subject to infaticide for centuries which contributed to the declining birthrate of males, which weakened the able warrior-population.

This is stated explicitly in the work of Paul Cartledge, a Professor of Greece in Antiquity at Cambridge and world renowned expert on Sparta. It is stated most accessibly in a PBS documentary, 'The Spartans', for which he was the historical consultant.

Also, the program of infanticide was not as discriminating as the article suggests. There were in fact significant exceptions especially in the case of royalty. One only has to look at Lysander (who's mother was a Hellot), and Agesilaus III (Who was believed to be deformed from birth). The importance of Spartan Eugenics might better be described as a propaganda tool or the purity of linneage the Spartans thought themselves as having.

Just thought I should annotate in case nobody had caught it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.elias13 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow hold on fellas.What has been written in the article? Spartan infants were not thrown anywhere, if they were weak they were placed in "εκθέτες" "αποθετας" depository and exposed to the elements like all Greeks did and the children were taken usually by others and raised as "θρεπτοί".Kaiadas was for criminals with miasma only and infants were merely placed in ekthetes.Megistias (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope nobody has actually used such a specific word as 'throw' when talking about infanticide unless they have some substantial evidence. Documentaries that sensationalize Spartan history imply that unsuitable Spartan males were tossed into the Apothetae. But I suppose Frank Miller, without their help, has rewritten history for many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.elias13 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Question - the English word used here is "apothetae", which is apparently transliterated from the Greek "αποθετας" ... but that says "apothetas". What's with that? Petitphoque (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the way we pluralise greek borrowed words, I'm not sure if it's proper greek however but that's how we do it - compare with typothatae in dictionary where it's called a latinised plural. Pbhj (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle's Criticism of Sparta

In the current article's Criticism section, there is the following statement attributed to Aristotle: "It is the standards of civilized men not of beasts that must be kept in mind, for it is good men not beasts who are capable of real courage. Those like the Spartans who concentrate on the one and ignore the other in their education turn men into machines and in devoting themselves to one single aspect of city's life, end up making them inferior even in that." The quote is footnoted as coming from W. Forrest's A History of Sparta 950-192 B.C. I am wondering if it is supposed to be a quote from Aristotle, or rather just Forrest's paraphrase of something in Aristotle. Also, I wonder whether it'd be better to find the original passage in Aristotle and cite it instead of Forrest. The passages that I've found in Aristotle that come closest to the quote are Politics VII.15.1334a36 and VIII.4.1338b9. Any thoughts? Isokrates (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New lead paragraph - suggestions, anyone?

I have been thinking about what this article needs. Right now it is not only too long and too derivative, it is also swamped with trivia and badly organised. The lead paragraph needs to tell the reader something about why Sparta is still famous. I am working my way through a stack of books on the subject but in the meantime, I want to invite suggestions for a totally new lead paragraph, as the current one is actually about the geography of Sparta and is almost no use at all.

Here is a rough outline for a suggested lead para, and I invite suggestions as to appropriate dates and improvements of phrasing. References are not a problem, there are any number of books which will testify to the continuing fascination of Sparta, but let's fix that later. Right now, let's get a good lead paragraph up and then consider how to use the considerable amount of good material that has already been accumulated. Here is my suggestion - I have left WP: CITATION templates in place so that we can insert appropriate references later:

'The city of Sparta [include cyrillic spelling here] was a city-state in ancient Greece, situated in the southern part of the Peloponnese. Between the years ( ) and ( ) it was the dominant political and military power in the region, and as such played a major role in the defence against the Persian invasion of Greece. Later, it was the principal enemy of Athens during the Peloponnesian War. By the year ( ) Sparta's heyday as a major power was over, but the so-called Spartan myth continues to exert a major influence on Western culture.' Lexo (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have used a revised and properly sourced version of this para as the new lead para. I think the article now begins more in the manner of an encyclopedia article. I've tried to sketch out the importance of the subject matter in a non-controversial way, and suggest the scope of the article. I'm not totally sure why there is a separate article on the History of Sparta, especially when you consider that the history is gone into in some detail in this article. I welcome criticisms. Lexo (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Plan for major rewrite

I have been reviewing this article and also looking at some of the major articles it links to, such as Ancient Greece and Classical Athens, and I have been thinking about how it can be usefully restructured and rewritten.

Obviously topics like 'Sparta' and 'Classical Athens' are huge subjects, and a single article cannot hope and should not be expected to give all the facts on the places in question. An article specifically about Sparta, as opposed to one about the modern Sparti, can only hope to be a reasonably comprehensive overview of the major topics, with links to articles about specific sub-topics - the history of classical Sparta, the subsequent histories of Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, the politics of Sparta, the organisation of the Spartan army, the position of the Helots and Perioeci, the battles of Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, etc. To name but one topic, 'women in Sparta' is a massive and complex subject in itself; I have an entire book on it, which I admit I haven't read yet.

We can't possibly hope to explain all this stuff in a single article; rather, this article should be (as it were) the extended introduction to a notional 'book' about Sparta, consisting of this article plus all the other WP articles on the subject. Right now, the article is suffering from knowledgeable people wanting to put down everything they know about their particular specialised subject in individual subsections of the article, often without reference to sources, or at any rate contemporary and authoritative sources.

I want to propose an overall redesign for the article's structure. We need this article to provide everything that the casual reader could want to know, without burying the reader in too much detail, but also whet his/her appetite for further exploration in the articles on specific topics. So here's a rough draft structure - the titles are only guides to the subject of each section, not suggestions for section titles:

1. Intro - overview of the overview, including a note on nomenclature (incorporating and cleaning up the current bit about Lacedaemonia). 2. Geography of Sparta 3. Prehistoric Sparta: early settlements, Sparta in Homer 4. Consolidation of Sparta: Great Rhetra, conquest of surrounding territory, rise of Sparta to military dominance 5. Sparta in Greco-Persian Wars: Spartan leadership of Hellenic League, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea 6. Sparta in Peloponnesian War 7. Decline of Spartan manpower, battle of Leuctra 8. Hellenistic Sparta 9. Roman Sparta 10. Sparta during and since the Ottoman Empire 11. Women in Sparta 12. Historical/cultural significance of Sparta 13. External links 14. Notes

Each of the sub-sections should contain a link to a separate article on the subject.

Our guiding principle must to be to keep the article free of excess detail. The historical record on Sparta being as gappy and as problematic as it is, it needs to be stressed how one-sided and unreliable records are, but at the moment the article really is swamped by the well-meaning efforts of its contributors. There's some great stuff here and a lot of it must and shall be preserved. But as a whole, it is baggy and shapeless and I, who am fascinated by the subject, find it almost impossible to read. We can do better.

I invite suggestions about my plan, as I am sure it can be improved upon. But I would like us to work out in advance what we are going to do before we do it. I have no interest in telling people what to do, but I believe that a major rewrite of the article will only be useful if it is done with a certain amount of organisation, and if nobody else wants to be the annoying person then I volunteer. Lexo (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

...And you have my keyboard. Well sir, I have been watching this article for a while now, but did not want to tackle it by myself. I agree with everything that you have said and I would be willing to collaborate. The only problem being: I know very little about Sparta. But that's never been a problem for me in the past; what I do have is intrest in the topic, which I've always found more useful than prior knowledge. I think it's an excellent to go through the article and discuss what should be done before we do it. Now with an article this size, I hope that we can attract more people to work with us, but I am eager to learn and willing to type. Blackngold29 23:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up. This article should focus on the history of Sparta as a city-state, village, municipality or whatever it has been throughout its 3500 years of existence. Right now the article focuses solely on the classical/dorian history of the city, which is wrong and belongs to a separate article called History of Classical Sparta or something. So yeah, this is a great idea and a great plan. I'm glad to see that this article finally attracts attention from serious editors who care about making actual contributions and improvements, rather than simply removing or changing around other people's edits in order to make them compatible to their own personal POV. Miskin (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Miskin for his encouragement. I am conscious that I am not yet up to speed on the subject, and am still working my way through all the research, and since I have a full-time job (which is entering its busiest season of the year) it's taking a while. But I am sticking to my plan, and I hope that we can get this article into a better shape before Christmas. In the meantime, one job that I am not looking forward to but which has to be done is the creation of a proper References section, and the conversion of the current references into properly formatted citations. This will clean up the look of the article, and will provide a template for future contributors. Any editor who wants to do that will earn my undying gratitude. Lexo (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to recommend that some clean-up the famous persons section. I believe that Mattius Pimpius or Suckius Mycawkius were not Spartans, as neither figure was known for his wit, let alone the possession of one that might be described as Laconic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.181.20 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "boardman" :
  • "The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World" p. 141, John Boardman, Jasper Griffin, Oswyn Murray
  • The effects of the war were to establish Persia's ability to interfere successfully in Greek politics and to affirm Sparta's hegemonic position in the Greek political system.<ref>Fine, ''The Ancient Greeks'', 556-9

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Some highly debateable conclusions unreliably extrapolated from sources

The following lines appear in the article:

There were women, such as Arachidamia and Chelidonis, who led troops into battle. Arachidamia (should this not be Archidamia) of Sparta was famous for leading female troops and fighting against Pyrrhus during the siege of Sparta in the third century BC.[30] Princess Chelidonis also led female warriors.[31] Hydna was an athlete and swimmer who destroyed the Persian navy in battle.[32] The first woman to win the Ancient Greek Olympic Games was a Spartan, Cynisca[32].

I here enclose the relevent paragraph from Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus:

"When night had come, the Lacedaemonians at first took counsel to send their women off to Crete, but the women were opposed to this; and Archidamia came with a sword in her hand to the senators and upbraided them in behalf of the women for thinking it meet that they should live after Sparta had perished. 3 Next, it was decided to run a trench parallel with the camp of the enemy, and at either end of it to set their waggons, sinking them to the wheel-hubs in the ground, in order that, thus firmly planted, they might impede the advance of the elephants. When they began to carry out this project, there came to them the women and maidens, some of them in their robes, with tunics girt close, and others in their tunics only, to help the elderly men in the work. 4 The men who were going to do the fighting the women ordered to keep quiet, and assuming their share of the task they completed with their own hands a third of the trench. •The width of the trench was six cubits, its depth four, and its length eight hundred feet, according to Phylarchus; according to Hieronymus, less than this. 5 When day came and the enemy were putting themselves in motion, these women handed the young men their armour, put the trench in their charge, and told them to guard and defend it, assured that it was sweet to conquer before the eyes of their fatherland, and glorious to die in the arms of their mothers and wives, after a fall that was worthy of Sparta. As for Chilonis, she withdrew from the rest, and kept a halter about her neck, that she might not come into the power of Cleonymus if the city were taken."

'Led female warriors' seems a rather impossible conclusion to be drawn from this by Salmondson. Doubtless they assisted in the war effort, but this perspective is very far outside mainstream history and should be deleted without more authoritative sourcing.

'A swimmer who destroyed the Persian navy' Pausanias 10.19.1: "father and daughter completed its destruction by dragging away under the sea the anchors and any other security the triremes had." Again hardly justifiable of this remark or that of the page of Hydna herself. (In addition, what does Scyllis have to do with Sparta?)

'The first woman to win the Olympics...' Doubtless recorded as a victor, but this suggests that she personally participated. As the Hellenica/Agesilaus of Xenophon make clear, this was in her capacity as financier of the chariot team.

I would suggest that the final remark is clarified and that the others are deleted or made more in line with actual historical opinion both of the sources and modern scholarship. Or someone demonstrates a source text or less biased historian that accords with these historical liberties. 82.4.243.152 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenophon's Hellenica is not a totally reliable source. I believe that the consensus of opinion is that while Cynisca undoubtedly did not race her own team, she more than probably trained them. It wasn't like Spartan women couldn't ride horses. It's true that the sentence is not clear enough, though. Lexo (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please sign posts in future, btw. Lexo (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for all of the bias inherent in Xenophon, there is no challenge explicit or otherwise to the well-founded view of Cynisca as financier/breeder of the 'fast-footed horses,' as opposed to training or racing them personally, in other literary accounts or modern scholarship. Doubtless, the possibility is there, but since all other Greek entrants, to my knowledge, acted in the same capacity, Cynisca would be an even more exceptional figure than she already is seen as if she acted as anything other than financier. It might be helpful for this article to note just how exceptional Cynisca was at all, even in being the sponsor, and that this was still very much a triumph by Greek standards and that many victories were as such. Also, it may be prudent to note that this appears to have begun a trend of wealthy Spartan women financing winning teams. 82.4.243.152 (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted a purely speculative line from the "decline and fall" section of the article, which stated that a Macedonian invasion of Sparta "would have resulted in a massive casualties and a pyrrhic victory" for the invaders. This might have been the case in an invasion, but the wording is far to definitive for an event which, after all, dd not happen. My edit modified the language to a more balanced statement that an invasion "would have risked potentially high losses," which is more defensible, historically. My edit has been reverted, but I'm putting it back in. I feel the new version is far more consistent with what we want in an encyclopedic article. If anyone wishes to argue the merits of this change, please give arguments on this talk page. Louiebb (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was exactly the kind of edit that this article needs, and I thank you. Lexo (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

'Constitution' diagram

The diagram is very illustrative, but could it perhaps it's simplification of the lochoi should be amended in light of scholarly controversy on the matter (Anderson, Cartledge, Lazenby). Not that it needs to be removed, but perhaps edited. 82.4.243.152 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Publius97 about the diagram. While I think it's accurate, I have suggested it be moved to a separate article on the Spartan Constitution, because I don't think it really makes things simpler for anyone who doesn't already know anything about Spartan society. Lexo (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair call, it is such a nice diagram that it would be a shame to change it.82.4.243.152 (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lexo did reach out to me, which I very much appreciate. I am new to this, so I will defer to you guys on both Sparta and History of Sparta. I was thinking about it, and while I appreciate the compliments, the diagram being good doesn't in and of itself justify keeping it in, if it doesn't fit. It probably makes sense as part of a more detailed "Constitution of Sparta."--Publius97 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Publius97's graciousness. I am trying to find ways to simplify and clarify the article, and I really think that a brief verbal description of the Spartan constitution would be more useful in this particular article. There is a lot of stuff the article has to cover, and on some topics - such as the history of Sparta after the rise of the Romans and its later history under the Ottoman Empire - it is almost silent. We have a load of good information, too much for a general overview, which is what this article has to be if we want to stop it from becoming bloated. Lexo (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Error in the first line of article!

The city of Sparta (Doric Σπάρτα; Attic Σπάρτη Spartē) was a city-state in ancient Greece, located on the Peloponnesus peninsula.

=========================

Article states that: The city of Sparta (Doric Σπάρτα; Attic Σπάρτη Spartē) was a city-state in ancient Egypt

This is false. Should be present-day Greece and/or on ancient Peloponesus peninsula, Greece.

Apologies if I did this incorrectly, but it was more glaring and misinforming than the usual punctuation, grammar, and layout changes I normally correct.

Remember--PIE: Perception Is Everything (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Error in the first line of article!

The city of Sparta (Doric Σπάρτα; Attic Σπάρτη Spartē) was a city-state in ancient Greece, located on the Peloponnesus peninsula.

=========================

Article states that: The city of Sparta (Doric Σπάρτα; Attic Σπάρτη Spartē) was a city-state in ancient Egypt

This is false. Should be present-day Greece and/or on ancient Peloponesus peninsula, Greece.

Apologies if I did this incorrectly, but it was more glaring and misinforming than the usual punctuation, grammar, and layout changes I normally correct.

Remember--PIE: Perception Is Everything (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting it, although it would have been even more helpful if you'd corrected it yourself (a look at the article history shows that it was just vandalism). Lexo (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro

The intro features a line which I'm guessing was placed there by someone with an understandable anti-Sparta bias: "The majority of inhabitants of Sparta were helots who, every autumn during the Crypteia, could be killed by a Spartan citizen without fear of blood or guilt." This is not strictly true, in more ways than one. Sparta was the place where the Spartans themselves came from. The helots came from various places, mostly Messenia, which was itself part of Lakonia, the name given to the region under direct Spartan control. The Crypteia itself is murky and our sources are not always very helpful, but the reference here implies that it was some sort of killing festival which all Spartans celebrated in the autumn. In fact it seems to have been a kind of juvenile death squad, made up of young Spartan men as part of the later stages of the Agoge. All Spartans did not take part in the Crypteia. (The women definitely didn't.) In view of the inaccurate nature of this sentence, I'm going to cut it until its author can either phrase it better or find a better place for it than the intro. Sparta is an unusually legend-encrusted subject and it would be better if people writing articles about it referred to the extensive recent research on Sparta, rather than relying entirely on ancient sources which are, in this case, notoriously partisan and inconsistent. Lexo (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sparta and Athens

Sparta and Athens are considred to be the most important city-states in ancient Greece. Though close together they are not very simalar. This essay will explain the similarities and differences between Sparta and Athens. 1. Goverment. The people of Athens and Sparta had a simalar goverment. The goverment was a democracy. A democracy was a goverment witch was run by the people of the city-state. Whenever a new law was anounced the people would vote on the law. If more people said yes then no the law would come to pass. Women, slaves and foreigners were not allowed to vote. But if somone were an adult male citezen that person could vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krischa123 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My reasons for cutting the bit in the intro section about Helots

I found that the passage about Helots being killed "during the Crypteia" had been restored and what's more, rephrased in a rather clumsy way. I've cut it again. Let me explain why.

I am not trying to whitewash the Spartans. Spartan society was based on the systematic economic exploitation and violent subjugation of the Helots. But the intro paragraph to an article of this sort should be brief. We can't fit everything into it, and with that Helot bit included it looked as though we are trying to flag our disapproval of Sparta as soon as possible. I think that the whole intro para (most of which I am responsible for) can be re-edited to reflect the presence of the Helots (and let's not forget the Perioikoi) in Spartan life, without having this clumsy and, I insist, inaccurate passage about the Helots stapled on at the end.

Inaccurate why? I cannot over-emphasise this: Please do not uncritically rely on ancient sources when writing articles on ancient subjects. Quite apart from the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to rely on secondary literature anyway, we need to be extra careful when we assume that anything written by an ancient author is absolutely reliable. The ancient sources have their own agenda: Plutarch was writing centuries after Sparta's defeat at Leuctra, Xenophon was writing from an explicitly pro-Spartan viewpoint and Herodotus by his own account mostly reports stories and does not, unlike Thucydides, take pains to verify everything that he heard. (At least one modern historian, Ernst Badian, thinks that Thucydides was as pro-Athenian as Xenophon was pro-Spartan.)

The exact nature of the Krypteia is murky. It is mostly attested in a brief passage in Plutarch's Lycurgus and he gives no clue as to how often the killing sprees took place. I don't know where the "every autumn" thing came from, but no modern historian I have read would be as confident and as cavalier with the facts as whoever has been writing this passage. The Krypteia will be covered in the article, and the Spartan reliance on slavery will be reflected in the intro, okay? In the meantime, if this passage or something like it is to remain in the article, can it be revised to reflect our uncertainty about the subject matter, and can it be placed in the body of the text, please? Thanks. Lexo (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that as Helots were the majority of the population, mention should be made of their condition in the introduction. It is providing information about their situation, not "flag our disapproval". Many have actually approved of the Helots treatment, for example Hitler as mentioned later in the article. I do believe that removing information about Helots from the intro is an attempt to whitewash the article. Also you seem to rather uncritically accept one modern author's opinion about the source of Spartan "military efficiency" and put it right into the introduction, while insisting that historical sources be removed. It is a rather odd position that Plutarch does not belong to the introduction but Cartledge does. Also I have removed "every autumn" from the introduction as you wanted. Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The killing of Helots without repercussions is an extremely informative and important aspect of Spartan society. It isn't just Plutarch who mentions the killing of Helots, also for example Thucydides states 2,000 helots were also massacred in a carefully staged event. LuxNevada (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is a general overview of the entire subject of Sparta, not an article about the Helots, which already exists, incidentally. The Helots were the basis of Classical Sparta's economic system, but classical Sparta is, or at any rate should be, only one sub-section of this article. You say that I "uncritically" accept "one modern author's opinion": I assume that you are not aware that Paul Cartledge is generally recognised as the leading modern authority on Sparta. He has written several academic books on the subject, including the most widely cited history of classical Sparta (Cartledge 2002 in the references), and is a major contributor to the Oxford Classical Dictionary. If he is not a reliable source, then the term has no meaning. Any classical historian will tell you that ancient sources have to be used with due care and attention. Yes, the Helots were exploited and murdered by the Spartans and there should be a place in the article that talks about this. I invite you to write it, as long as you don't mind your prose http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sparta&action=edit&section=20being edited. In the meantime, I maintain that the passage that you have restored is both ugly and in the wrong place, and I am going to delete it again. Please don't let's turn this into an edit war; I am trying to improve the entire article, not just the intro. Let's agree on the phrasing before we start reverting each other again and again. Agreed? Lexo (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To accept everything Cartledge says uncritically would be a mistake. He is definitely a fan of Sparta, after all he wrote "Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World". Come on, with your knowledge of history, it should be rather apparent that Greece and Persia had much more in common than, say Greece and Northern Europe. Also, if anything, it was Charles Martel's victory at Tours or the Ottoman defeat at Vienna that limited foreign rule over Europe, rather than some dubious last stand at Thermopylae. In any case, Alexander overthrew the entire Persian empire soon after, so it completely escapes me how Thermopylae could have changed the world. Cartledge [[13]] seems quite happy to give Herodotus a free pass when he wrote that 300 Spartans fought a 3 million strong Persian army (do you really believe that?). Nor does Cartledge criticize 300 for making the battle at Thermopylae into something about "fighting for freedom", given that you would be hard put to find a worse fascist state than Sparta in history. You left a message on my page about how Cartledge is important. I disagree. There are probably a hundred historians who have written about Sparta. Why should we accord Cartledge any special status? To reference Cartledge no less than 3 times in the introduction is in my opinion an error. LuxNevada (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the above is merely your opinion, so I'm not going to argue because most of it is essentially irrelevant to the main topic, which is this article's content. In any case, I am currently relying on Cartledge for two reasons. The first is that he is heavily attested in the literature as a major authority on Sparta, whether you like it or not. Frank Adcock said that "Leonidas and his Spartans died in vain"; he might have added "and their Helots, and the other Greeks who stayed there too", but in any case Cartledge would obviously disagree, and it is not, repeat not, up to us to come down on one side or the other. (Cartledge is not the only historian who thinks that Thermopylae was important, though; Tom Holland and Peter Green also think so.) If you are arguing that Cartledge is a sort of David Irving for the Spartans, someone who makes stuff up and lies in order to propagandise for them - well, good luck with that, because nobody else seems to think so. I would also not describe the Spartans as "fascist" because it is never wise to describe an ancient society in terms invented by a more modern one. It makes the ancient society seem more familiar than it really is. (I personally think that the term "bastards" or "shitheads" is quite adequate to describe the Spartans' attitude towards their subject peoples, and incidentally, even with your loose use of the word "fascist" I find it hard to believe that you could seriously claim that the Spartans were worse than, say, Nazi Germany.) You quote a USA Today article (mmm, love that research!), but appear never to have read any of Cartledge's actual books, and certainly never any of his scholarly ones.

The other reason I am using him as a source is that I just haven't got around to my other sources yet, but I'm starting to do so. I have already replaced a Cartledge quote with a Victor Ehrenberg quote - I assume you have no problem with him? In any case I am keen to broaden the base of sources, and have books by Anton Powell and Simon Hornblower which I haven't gone through yet. I am not giving Cartledge "special" status, but whether you like it or not he is a very heavy-duty source. He also writes popular histories which may make him seem, to someone who has never read him, like a lightweight one, but that would be a false impression. In the meantime, I would advise you to avoid letting your personal (and IMO fully justifiable) dislike of the Spartans get in the way of the need for this article to keep a neutral point of view. Lexo (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

One last thing - I read the USA Today article, and Cartledge does not give Herodotus a "free pass" about the size of the Persian army. He merely points out, quite rightly, that Herodotus is our "main source, pretty much" about the Greco-Persian war. That is simply true. It doesn't mean that Cartledge reads Herodotus uncritically, as you would know if you had read his books. He can also hardly be expected to make a serious criticism of a movie that he is supposedly helping to publicise; and he does actually criticise the Frank Miller book which was the basis for the film. As he pointed out himself, they employed him as a "consultant" and then didn't pay any attention to anything he said. So don't blame him for "300", which was a moderately fun movie but crap history. Lexo (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one more time in case I am being misunderstood: I am trying to make a major rewrite of this article, and I have no intention of downplaying Spartan cruelty, which is after all a major feature of their society. The article as it stands is bloated, inconsistent in tone and style, almost completely disorganised and full of repetition. Some of it will have to go. There are plenty of other articles where topics such as the Helots, the Nazi attitude towards Sparta etc. can be gone into with as much detail as people want, but this is a big, big topic and the article can only afford to be a general overview. I will be making cuts; I welcome debate, but even more than that I welcome people who can make constructive suggestions for how the article can be improved. Because it is in dire need of improvement. Lexo (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So on one hand you say we should rely on Cartledge, and on the other hand you say that Cartledge lacks integrity as he is influenced by whoever is paying him. Let's get some other credible historians into the article, and yes, that includes historical sources like Plutarch. LuxNevada (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that your persistent refusal to grant Cartledge credibility as a historian is influenced by two factors: your evident and admirable distaste for the Spartans, which by the way I share; and the fact that you have all too evidently never read any contemporary historical work on Sparta, including his. I repeat, Cartledge is attested over and over again as a major authority. I have his magnum opus next to me, Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History 1300 to 362 BC. On the back is a quote from a review in the Times Higher Educational Supplement: "...an important book on Sparta - the best so far, in many ways..." That's from Simon Hornblower, one of the editors of the OCD (Oxford Classical Dictionary). I urge you to track this book down and read the chapter 10, "Helots and Perioikoi", and then I will engage with you about Cartledge's credibility. In the meantime, I cannot keep arguing about his credibility when you don't seem to know anything about him. The guy is Professor of Greek History at Cambridge, not some fly-by-night Spartophile. Do you want me to quote him at you about the Spartan treatment of the Helots? Your refusal to grant him credibility is beginning to look increasingly irrational, if you don't mind my saying so. You also think that I have said that he "lacks integrity as he is influenced by whoever is paying him". That is beneath you, to be honest. There is a time and a place for making serious criticisms of "300", and as a matter of fact he does make some serious criticisms of the Miller book in his book on Thermopylae - of which you appear to have read only the title. Please, I welcome debate on this subject, but your distrust of Cartledge is something I am finding hard to take seriously. Lexo (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics

I'm no longer sure I see the point of this section. The more I reread this article, the more it seems to me a mass of redundancy and repetition - this section, for example, says nothing that hasn't been said earlier in "Society". The recent edit to it changes the point of what I meant and is also semi-literate. I'm going to fix the English as a temporary job, until I can get around to using the (good) references in this section in the Society section where they belong (actually they probably belong in a currently non-existent sub-section on "Education") and deleting this section entirely. I am also pretty tired of the constant comparisons in this article between Sparta and the Third Reich, especially since the comparisons themselves were not originally made not by respectable historians but by Hitler himself, who is not IMO a reliable source. Lexo (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics was an important aspect of Spartan society, so let the section remain. Also Hitler is not the source of news, he is the news himself. LuxNevada (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hitler is a source for info about Nazi Laconophilia. He is not a source about Spartan history. I have cut the section, because it wasn't saying anything that wasn't said better elsewhere, and I have done what I said I would do with the references. Lexo (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's views on Spartan eugenics is news itself. Your stated desire to avoid an edit war is not consistent with your unilateral removal of sections. LuxNevada (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about "news". I am talking about sources. If it's news, it belongs in Wikinews, and it's not news since it's been in the public domain for decades. There is undoubtedly space for coverage of Hitler's fascination with Sparta in the article on Laconophilia, and there is a link to that article in the intro. I removed the section because after I had removed what seemed to me irrelevant information, what was left had already been said in an earlier section. That's called editing. If you have valuable and useful information that is relevant to this article then I welcome it, and I have mentioned the exploitation of the Helots in the intro paragraph. But any major rewrite is going to entail some cutting, and it's the stuff that's not relevant, or is redundant, that has to get cut. That's the nature of the editing process. I would much prefer you to make constructive suggestions, instead of just insisting that nothing should be cut from the article. Lexo (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To show my good faith about not wanting to start an edit war, I am not going to cut the now utterly redundant section on Eugenics unless you can provide me with a good reason why we shouldn't delete it and insert a bit in the Society section - where the same information is already presented - about how some authorities have interpreted the Spartan practice of leaving unwanted children in the Apothetae as a prefiguring of eugenics, provided of course that we can actually find an authority who has done so. Let me remind you that the term "eugenics" was coined in AD 1883. I repeat that I don't want an edit war, but you have to admit that this section is now unnecessary as it doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said in the "Society" section. So why is it there? Lexo (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

LuxNevada, you have still not given me a good reason why we should not deal with this section in the way I have described above. If you don't provide one within 24 hours, I will proceed as I've described. If, after that, you restore it, I will take it as a sign that you are not interested in making constructive suggestions and merely want to block the article from being cut at all, and I will have to seek third-party arbitration. I think I have been more than reasonable. The section is simply repeating material that is presented verbatim elsewhere in the article, except that it uses the anachronistic term "eugenics" and links to an article on the subject. I await your reply with best wishes. Lexo (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't stand the tension anymore, not to mention the fact that this completely redundant section was standing out like a zit on the face of the article, so I cut it and accept the consequences. Lexo (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sparta and the Helots

The subject thread is getting too big. I think I need to make clear the place of Helots in Spartan life, which LuxNevada seems to be a little unclear about. The Helots were not inhabitants of Sparta, and nor were they a homogenous group. They were inhabitants of various places in the Peloponnese, mostly Messenia and also Lakonia, the immediate territory around Sparta. They were, originally, free Greek peoples that the Spartans conquered and enslaved, hence the name "Helot" which is generally translated as "captive". It was the fact that the Spartans enslaved other Greeks that outraged the Athenians, or at least outraged enough Athenians for other Athenians to use it as an excuse to fight Sparta. Spartan and Athenian empire-building also had a good bit to do with it. The Spartans often treated the Helots with great brutality and felt constantly menaced by them (cf. Cartledge 2002 p.152). On the other hand, compared to non-Greek chattel slaves elsewhere in Greece, the Helots were in some ways relatively privileged - they were allowed to get married and own personal property, for example. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the Helots were so on the lookout for opportunities to revolt (which they did, sometimes with great success, see below) and also perhaps why the Spartans were so brutal towards them. The Messenian Helots, who outnumbered the Lakonian Helots, were also a highly unified social group who were well-organised and politically motivated, and when the Spartans requested Athenian aid during the Messenian Helot revolt of c.465, the Athenians were (it is generally agreed) shocked to find that the Spartans were enslaving other Greeks and it was this factor that is thought to have been a major cause of the breakdown in relations between Athens and Sparta that led to the Peloponnesian War. It's also worth remembering that the Messenian Helots did eventually win their freedom in 369, a blow from which classical Sparta never recovered.

All of the above has to make it into the article, in condensed form, in some way or other. I am trying to demonstrate that the Helots under Sparta did not suffer from the same kind of treatment given to the Jews by Nazi Germany, in case anyone is under any illusion that parallels can be drawn. The situation was not one of Spartans routinely torturing and murdering a totally subjugated slave race. I am holding out a hand to LuxNevada and inviting him or her to find a way of bringing this material into the article, but only as long as we are all up to speed on the facts. And that means reading contemporary history which compares ancient sources to other evidence (such as archaeological evidence) and does not uncritically rely on someone like Plutarch - who is often right, but is never 100% reliable. Lexo (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Major edit

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

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

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

Just realised that I have forgotten to do one important section: something on the "Spartan Mirage", with reference to Laconophilia. That's more of a job for someone who takes an interest in such things. I am happier reading history books than I am at assessing things like "cultural significance". Lexo (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

More issues: the historical section is not very clear, particularly on the causes of the Peloponnesian War, which just seems to have happened according to this article. There were multiple historical sections in the original article and I just chose the best one, but it still could be clearer. The History of Sparta article has what I consider the serious blemish of being mostly cribbed from the 1911 Britannica. Lexo (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Helot dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take it you have seen these translations?

"... in order that there might be no impiety in slaying them."

• Plutarch (75 AD), "The Life of Lycurgus", in Parallel Lives, translated by Bernadotte Perrin, 1914. (From User:Bill Thayer's account at the official University of Chicago web-site).

"... that they might be massacred without a breach of religion."

• Op. cit., translated by John Dryden. (This version is also at WikiSource.)

"... that they might be massacred under pretence of law."

• Op. cit., translated by John and William Langhorne, 1834.

I'm looking for the Greek online. Slim chance I expect, please consider helping WikiSource with original language texts if ever you find the inclination.

The first translation looks like "formal equivalence" to me, and the others paraphrases. But what a ridiculous thing for me to say without seeing the original! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I've given up on finding the Greek. Perseus has Greek for several other lives, but not Lykourgos.

ORIGINAL TEXT. First edition, Florence, August, 1517; later editions, Schaefer. 1812-18, 1820-21, 1825-30; Sintenis, 1839-46, 1884-88; Doehner, 1846-55; Bekker, 1855-57.

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS I think I've found something: Lycurgus.zip.

Eureka! ... ὅπως εὐαγὲς ᾖ τὸ ἀνελεῖν. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lexo, you are welcome to continue with your fascination for Cartledge as a serious historian, however don't expect me to be converted. As I have mentioned before, someone like Cartledge who believes Thermopylae "changed the world" is a "fan", not a serious unbiased historian. However you argue the matter, an objective analysis will show that removing the information about the treatment of Helots in the introduction is an attempt to whitewash the nature of the Spartan state. The information about Helots indeed belongs to the introduction, no matter how many times you say it is "misplaced". As for Hitler's admiration from Sparta, that of course is important. It is ironic that you find it okay to have the bit about Sparta continuing to fascinate the West in the introduction, but keep insisting on the removal of a very prominent admirer of Sparta. As for the section on Eugenics, if another editor (who apparently hasn't heard the word eugenics before) thinks it should be renamed "child selection", so be it. LuxNevada (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello friends, how are you going? Is it just the two of you or is there room for another ancient history fan to join in? I don't know all that much, but I do know some ancient Greek. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alistair, welcome! Feel free to join in. I think a new opinion will do this article good. LuxNevada (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little worried that I will have nothing to offer unless I borrow a copy of Cartledge!

Don't answer that comment! ;)

I'll start by reading and learning, praising the good work that's been done, then I'll expose my ignorance by asking some questions, if that's OK.

<enters time machine and is transported to ancient Greece by the work of wiki editors> Alastair Haines (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cartledge??!! *gags*

I guess gagging isn't a comment, hah hah... enjoy your trip. You will probably find many related articles in Wiki itself with references for your adventure LuxNevada (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

LoL, you know Faulty Towers? "I mentioned the war, but I think I got away with it."

But back to my promise.

Preliminary report: the prose up to and including all the History section reads like a dream! So smooth and clear, full of info and interest, logical flow, with lots of footnotes making me feel very safe. I've got to dash right now, but I'll be back. Looking forward to the next episode! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read the Society section now. I'm learning a lot, finding the text of a uniformly excellent standard, though I'm noting very minor repetition of material. I briefly contemplated what it might have been like to be a helot, got too scared and read on. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you can empathize with the Helots. That is kind of the point I am making. The lot of the Helots doesn't get much mention when people talk of Sparta, and that is not the way it should be. Thanks, LuxNevada (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! I not only sympathise with such editorial discretion, I think we could defend it as more balanced historical treatment. I'm mainly here as a cheer squad, I'm afraid. Writing is such hard work, and so needs support, that I put my own on hold often to enjoy benefitting from others'. I owe you more feedback. Sorry for my tardiness. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize for any tardiness, I am worse! Also the benefit of a "cheer squad" is immense, gives me the encouragement to keep go.LuxNevada (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

LuxNevada, I see that in spite of the above material, you restored that bit about "without fear of blood or guilt" to the intro. I am, by now, extremely tired of your prejudice about Cartledge, which so far as I can see is based on nothing but ignorance of his work. You do not want to discuss this matter, you just want to see your sentences in the intro. Lexo (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you seem to object, above, to the assertion that Sparta continues to fascinate the West. It fascinates you, me, the people who made "300", the people who made "Meet the Spartans", and it fascinates the nutcases who regularly replace bits of this article with "THIS IS SPARTA!" To be fascinated by something doesn't mean that you endorse it. I am fascinated by Nazi Germany but I hate how it behaved.

The reason I have not posted anything here lately, in case you were wondering, is that I find it inexpressibly depressing to go on having the same argument with someone who only ever makes the same reply over and over and over and over and over again: "this sentence belongs in the intro". Lexo (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lexo! :) We haven't met yet, how do you do? I seem to have stepped in between the Persian and Greek battle-lines here. Is it a private matter? Should I choose a side? Or might there be some assistance I could offer to bring you two scholars to peace? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alastair, nice to meet you. I think it would be better for everyone concerned if you didn't take sides in the dispute between myself and LuxNevada; perhaps the most helpful thing you could do would be to determine from an outside perspective what it's about, because I suspect that he and I would give very different accounts of it. In my view, LuxNevada keeps importing the same two sentences with the same wording into the intro of the article. The sentences are these:

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

I question the inclusion of these sentences on several grounds: 1. They are inaccurate. The Helots, who were mostly from Messenia, did not live in Sparta itself. Sparta was the capital town of Lakonia, the greater territory under Spartan control. The Helots lived and worked in Messenia and Lakonia, under Spartan rule. Another inaccuracy is the use of the phrase "during the Crypteia", which implies that the Crypteia was some time period or festival. The exact nature of the Crypteia is murky but it was not a period of time, it was a body of Spartan youths, essentially a death squad. I do not dispute that the Crypteia (and other Spartans) killed individual Helots as a means of intimidating the rest of them, nor do I dispute that the Spartans on at least one occasion murdered two thousand Helots pour décourager les autres. 2. The last phrase, "without fear of blood or guilt", is meaningless. I don't know what "fear of blood" is supposed to be, and as I understand the Spartan legal code, the worst thing that the Spartans had to fear in terms of punishment for killing a Helot was "ritual pollution", or "breach of religion" as you state above. LuxNevada regards this as unacceptably euphemistic, no matter how accurate it is as a translation. 3. I don't think that these sentences belong in the intro to an article which is supposed to be an overview of the whole subject. The article needs much work, particularly in the area of Sparta's history since 370 BC. It is already far too much about Classical Sparta, and I am tired of being distracted from the difficult job of adding material about later periods by what I regard as a side-issue.
LuxNevada also questions the sources I have used, which have been almost entirely contemporary academic historians of ancient Greece, all of them with impeccable credentials: Paul Cartledge, Anton Powell, Simon Hopkinson, Victor Ehrenberg, etc. LuxNevada considers them and especially Cartledge as unacceptably pro-Spartan in bias, although I have never seen any evidence that s/he has actually read Cartledge's work, because s/he has only ever quoted Cartledge from two places: an interview in "USA Today" and the title of a book (which, again, s/he appears not to have read). LuxNevada also keeps saying things along the lines of "There must be less biased historians out there" but has never come up with the name of a single one, presumably because s/he doesn't know how unbiased the historians I have mentioned actually are.
LuxNevada's perspective is, I think, that I want to conceal the shocking and nasty truth about Sparta which at long last ought to be told, as if it hasn't been in the public domain for a couple of thousand years already.
What I think has happened is that LuxNevada is now in a position where I have repeatedly shown that the sentences s/he wants to insert are arguably inappropriate and certainly inaccurate, but pride forbids him/her from backing down. The strange thing is that both LuxNevada and I agree that the Spartans treated the Helots with extreme brutality and cynicism. The difference as I see it is that LuxNevada doesn't know anything else about the Spartans, and his/her dislike of the Spartans is colouring his/her judgment. But that's a subjective point of view.
Oh yeah, one last thing: I write really long replies. Sorry. Cheers - Lexo (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of freedom of speech is freedom to take as long as you need to say what you have to say, and that's what talk pages are for. Thank you for a full and frank explanation of your perspective on a challenge I'm confident you and LuxNevada will successfully negotiate.

Perhaps you could confirm I've understood you correctly, and Lux could also let me know if I'm missing the point.

I think I'm hearing a major issue (1) a minor issue (2) and two very particular points (3) and (4).

1. What prominence should the Helots have in an encyclopedia article on Sparta?
2. Are Cartledge et al. reliable, but only so far as a particular POV (especially on the above) allows them to go?
3. Is the particular phrase "fear of blood or guilt" more a neat paraphrase, or more an unclear and free rendering?
4. Was the Krypteia a (not-so) "secret society" (cf KKK) of elitist bloodthirsty Spartan youths (per Plutarch), or (by synechdoche) a name for the season of their "sport", or both?

I've listed these in decreasing order of "openness". The first has considerable room for editorial discretion (if only editors can agree); but the last should be able to be decided by sources, I would hope.

Back to you two. I suspect each of you has slightly different things to contribute at the article, which should leave space for co-operation, drawing on one another's differing strengths, if only we can turn the current hurdle into an opportunity for mutual respect rather than conflict.

Man, I hope I don't get shot at by both sides now. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

1. What prominence should the Helots have in an encyclopedia article on Sparta? This indeed is the heart of the matter. I believe that the condition of 80%+ of the population needs prominence. At the very least equal time compared to all the other information about how Sparta won this war, or that battle.

1. Are Cartledge et al. reliable, but only so far as a particular POV (especially on the above) allows them to go? My point is Cartledge is only one of hundreds, or thousands of historians who have researched Sparta. The article simply gives him too much time. If you look at the text of the article (the version that shows up when editing), the word Cartledge occurs 29 times, far more than any other historian. Even more than an original source like Plutarch (13 times). Personally I think Cartledge is a teenage boy's fantasy creator with his "consulting" for 300, and hype about Thermopylae ("changed the world").

1. Is the particular phrase "fear of blood or guilt" more a neat paraphrase, or more an unclear and free rendering? I am quite open to different wording. I think something like "without any legal consequences" or "without prosecution or any other legal repercussions" may be more suitable.

1. Was the Krypteia a (not-so) "secret society" (cf KKK) of elitist bloodthirsty Spartan youths (per Plutarch), or (by synechdoche) a name for the season of their "sport", or both? I am open to different answers to this one.

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

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

Well, both of you are making sense to me. I think I'm hearing willingness from both parties to settle things, and openness from Lux on a couple of specific issues, while holding gound on an important one. I guess it's Lexo's turn to move us further forwards. I can easily like each of you and respect your opinions. I do hope you get a touch of that for one another. You'll be needing it if you stay "trapped" in the same namespace together for a while. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alasdair, thanks for being a moderator and thanks also to LuxNevada for agreeing to discuss this, instead of just headbutt each other.

Point 1: I really feel like I have to point out that this is not an article on Classical Sparta. This is essentially the introduction and hub of a whole bunch of articles, some of which have not yet been written, about Prehistoric Sparta, Classical Sparta, Hellenistic Sparta, Roman Sparta, the (Classical) Spartan Army, the Spartan constitution, Women in Classical Sparta, Medieval Sparta, Modern Sparte, etc. The Helots deserve a large amount of space in any article on Classical Sparta. But this isn't that article. This is the general overview article. The Helots already have a lot of space in this article. I do not think that the proposed sentences improve the introduction: I think they make it unacceptably non-NPOV. The treatment of the Helots is already alluded to in the intro - anything more, and the intro will start to look, in my view, pro-Helot and anti-Spartan. I do not admire the way the Spartans treated the Helots, but there is a point to WP:NPOV and it is a point about the effort to be objective.

Point 2: The statement that Cartledge is "only one of hundreds, or thousands of historians who have researched Sparta" is very much like saying that Ian Kershaw is only one of many thousands of historians researching the Third Reich. I cannot help the all-too-obvious fact that LuxNevada is utterly ignorant of Cartledge's status in the world of classical studies, and that of the many serious works of scholarship that Cartledge has produced, LuxNevada's acquaintance with his work is confined to a newspaper interview which LuxNevada thought silly and a book title that LuxNevada objects to. Based on the LuxNevada's apparent total ignorance of Cartledge's work, I don't personally believe that LuxNevada is entitled to an opinion about Cartledge as a historian. Classical studies are a far more complex and difficult subject than LuxNevada appears to think; it is very risky indeed to simply quote ancient sources as if they were the plain and simple truth, because many of them demonstrably aren't. I have repeatedly invited LuxNevada to cite the supposed flock of historians who have a radically different take on Sparta than Cartledge's: s/he has never done so. Why?

Point 3: My point about "ritual pollution" as against "legal consequences" is a somewhat complex one. LuxNevada wants to make the point that the institution of the Crypteia, along with other things (such as the Ephors waging war on the Helots every year) enabled the Spartans to kill Helots without the risk of legal consequences. But my point is that, if the Ephors had not waged war on the Helots every year, any Spartan who killed a Helot would not have had to face any "legal consequences" in any modern sense of the phrase. The Spartans were very pious and did not like to do anything that they thought would offend their gods; "ritual pollution" was a more scary prospect for a Spartan than LuxNevada appears to believe. It should be noted that the Spartans' evident piety is in no way consistent with their cynical exploitation of said piety in declaring war on the Helots every year so that they could subjugate and exploit them with a clear conscience.

Point 4: Re the Crypteia: could LuxNevada please look up a history book and find out something about what we currently think the Crpyteia was? Do I have to do all the research myself? Or is the problem that the standard history books on Sparta are nearly all written by Paul Cartledge? As long as LuxNevada is unwilling to actually read a modern history book about ancient Sparta, we will have to deal with LuxNevada's irrational and baseless prejudice against the standard modern authority on the subject. LuxNevada's comparison of the Crpyteia with the KKK is, to me, yet more evidence of LuxNevada's ignorance of the subject. The Crypteia was nothing like the KKK - it would be more appropriate, but still wrong, to compare it to the SD.

To sum up: I would very much prefer not to include the sentences in the intro with slightly altered wording. I will still feel that the intro is the worse off for including them. I have tried to rephrase them and have experimented with including altered versions of them, but I do not think that they improve the article. Lexo (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It was stupid me not Lux that made the clumsy KKK analogy, and I only made it for the silly reason it alliterates with Krypteia. Woopsy! ;)

But seriously, it is time for me to jump in here and get "in between" like a mediator should. My rational mind hears lots of credible, well argued points from Lexo. BUT, and it's a big but, my heart flinches if I imagine myself in Lux' shoes.

To spare Lux from self-defence and to be more kindly towards Lexo than Lux might want to be, can I ask Lexo to admit the emotion of frustration and plead guilty (without punishment) for slipping in some unnecessary jabs at another editor.

Perhaps Lexo could consider striking the following as a demonstration of willingness to drop past frustration.

"LuxNevada is utterly ignorant"

"LuxNevada's apparent total ignorance" — better than above but not much ;)

"Classical studies are a far more complex and difficult subject than LuxNevada appears to think"

"could LuxNevada please look up a history book"

"Do I have to do all the research myself?"

"As long as LuxNevada is unwilling to actually read a modern history book about ancient Sparta"

"LuxNevada's irrational and baseless prejudice"

But to conclude more positively, thanks Lexo for being very clear on specific content issues, and for making a proposal.

I do have some views of my own developing, but I will hold my peace for the time being. You two are far more committed to this article than I, and have all the expertise between you to work out what is best without me. I am just crossing my fingers that Lux doesn't hit back with scorching flames as I would be dearly tempted to do in this situation. Some moderation of your own post might help a lot here Lexo. I hear and understand your frustration, and will admire you for swallowing it for the sake of building a viable working relationship into the future.

For the article to end up stable, future editors will need to line up behind what ever decisions have been taken in the past. Part of our discussion here does need to think about what will be the state of things in 10 years time, when all of us have moved on. Subpages sounds cool, workable and likely and may help us think "outside the box".

Hmmm, what do you want to say Lux, or maybe it's better you don't say that. ;) I really liked your last post, targeted right at content rather than personalities, perhaps it's only fair you express some disappointment regarding personal comments. You're more iron-skinned than I if they simply pass you by. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, thanks for your posts. Yes, Lexo does resort to a lot of personal attacks that I have consistently ignored. He has apologized earlier [[14]]. I can find no substantive reason for comments he makes alleging my ignorance ("Classical studies are a far more complex and difficult subject than LuxNevada appears to think", "As long as LuxNevada is unwilling to actually read a modern history book about ancient Sparta" etc.) other than the fact that I don't agree with him. If he was to refute my arguments with facts and cites I would be quite willing to acknowledge his superiority in this matter, but that is not how he proceeds. My points remains the same, that the lot of the Helots should not be hidden from anyone seeking information about Sparta. As the major inhabitants of the area ruled by Sparta, their condition is indeed important information, and an important aspect of the nature of the Spartan state. If Lexo believes that this position reveals my ignorance about Sparta, he will have to provide better arguments than he has done till now. Also Lexo believes that his visit to Auschwitz, the ethnicity of names he saw on suitcases, and the ethnicity of his wife are somehow relevant to this discussion [[15]], not something I can agree with. I think the way to have the best Wiki article is to stick to the facts rather than letting in personal issues. Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are an excellent example to me personally Lux. Sometimes I respond too quickly to people's expressions of frustration with me. Letting things pass is a very helpful thing. With your permission, I'll ignore that side of things now. It also allows me to conceed your hyperbole regarding Carthage? ;)

Friends, I think the way forward needs Lux to be open on the poetic, but questionable "blood or guilt" thing, and regarding the Crypteia. But I've heard that openness already! Yay! There's a case to be made for those views, but Lexo seems to have a stronger case.

I think both parties need to be more open regarding Cartledge. From your average reader's perspective, and from Wiki's he is a reliable source, but only one reliable source. Lexo is wise to cite additional sources where POV is raised as an issue, but Lux needs to accept that every POV, including Cartledge and Co. has a place at Wiki. It is the nature of the NPOV that we will always include POVs that are deficient or even wrong, but because a sufficiently large body of reasonable people have proposed them.

What would also really help is a source that does integrate the Helots into historical discussion. In fact, I suspect even Cartledge does this. A history of Sparta mainly means the political entity, and naturally "favours" those eligable, as citizens, to be part of the political process, but this cannot be divorced from the society that is governed, including its slaves and migrant populations—the polis served by the politicians. Additionally, a geographical sense of Sparta is somewhat relevant—the jurisdiction of the politicians, its natural resources, changing boundaries, defensive fortifications, neighbouring villages, ports and so on.

The first and conventionally most important definition above does exclude the Helots to a large extent, but the latter two unquestionably include them. It is not our place at Wiki to bring a radical new "Marxist" reading of Spartan history, but nor is it our place to be stuffy, precise and narrow in a political definition of what constitutes the history of Sparta.

I read Lexo as being honourable, wise, and careful in protecting the conventional approach to the history of Sparta, and that is to be commended. But I also read Lux as being honourable, realistic, and responsible in defending a "common sense" inclusion of a significant social issue regarding Sparta. The Spartan fear of Helot rebellion was very real and long lasting.

Do the Helots have a place in this article? Surely the answer is yes. How big? Well, give them a section of their own, once that is bigger than the rest of the article, start a new article on The Helots in Spartan society or Sparta: the issue of the Helots. Some diologue needs to happen with the Helot article too. Certainly, this article is about Sparta, the Helots have their own article, where the "political elite" have no special article but this one.

The discussion between Lexo and Lux on this topic is an important one. It doesn't have a fixed and permanent right or wrong answer, but it does have broad guidelines. It will be served best if both parties realised that their difference of opinion reflects a difference the broader community would share—both views are reasonable, both should be heard, and in this case it is a matter of balance—how far along the line of "no reference to Helots" through to "Helots refered to at every point" should this article lie? Well, it probably depends on each section, and exclusion of the Helots from the lead altogether would seem somewhat extreme.

OK, shoot me down guys. You are both more expert than me on this topic. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I accept that I can be short-tempered and that I sometimes resort to making stupid and ill-judged personal comments that do not help the article. I apologise to LuxNevada for any offence that any of my comments have caused, and I acknowledge that I probably intended the offence at the time (because I can be a very petty human being), and that such comments of mine were non-productive and unhelpful, and unlikely to resolve the issues that are still ongoing between Lux and me. I would not like to be told that I am ignorant of the subject of an article that I presumed to edit. Lexo (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I object most strongly to this statement by Lux: "Also Lexo believes that his visit to Auschwitz, the ethnicity of names he saw on suitcases, and the ethnicity of his wife are somehow relevant to this discussion, not something I can agree with. I think the way to have the best Wiki article is to stick to the facts rather than letting in personal issues." I made my comments on these issues on Lux's talk page, as a response to Lux's continuing insistence that I am somehow trying to "whitewash" this article's coverage of Sparta. I was trying to make the point that I am not personally sympathetic to the kind of government that Classical Sparta represented. Lux appears to be unwilling to believe this. Lexo (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally: Lux, can you quote me a single paragraph from any of Paul Cartledge's books, just by way of demonstrating that you have actually read them? Lexo (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Woops. Three posts from Lexo. #1 Brilliant self-flogging, very helpful. ;) #2 Fair comment about a Lux slipping in a blow that should remain off this talk page. I might have misread Lux, but I think Lux would provide a reciprocal self-flogging on that point. #3 Yikes! It almost undoes the brilliant work of the first post.

Friends, we don't have to prove our social morality to one another, nor our intellectual credentials. Even if Lux has read no more than the title of a Cartledge book and a news report, it doesn't alter the fact that Lux' request for a bit of serious treatment regarding the Helots is just a common-sense observation. Perhaps Lux wants more than the average person would, perhaps Lexo wants less than the average person might. We don't need three doctorates in Classical Sparta to settle that issue. Does that make sense? Some things are matters of historical debate, others are genuinely matters of editorial discretion, and that discretion can often benefit even from amateurs like most of us here at Wiki are.

Enough from me, you two are doing well, and will see it more clearly if I get out of your way for a bit. ... but I will be watching. muah ha ha ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Three cheers for both of you. In between parting shots, I'm hearing proposals and deals.

Lux, I think Lexo managed the classsic foot-shooting by "I would not like to be told that I am ignorant".

In the original context, it was part of showing empathy for what has been inflicted upon you several times.

Please have another look at the words, I think they were meant sincerely. Note also "I can be a very petty human being".

Quoting Cartledge is a great concession by Lux to Lexo. My personality would be inclined to refuse that sort of request (even if I could comply) simply on principle.

Above, you give almost everything that is asked of you, take insults graciously and only ask for 40 words in the introduction.

I believe Wikipedia should encourage the "asking nicely" for changes very strongly indeed. Sometimes the "asking nicely" is more important than an edit itself. Wikipedia is a "living" text. It is written by people locked in the same rooms with one another. We edit one another as much as the text, and should treat one another with the same respect.

I think a nice way forward might be for Lexo to assist in making 40 words (give or take) regarding Sparta in the intro be as "bullet-proof" as possible, finding ways of saying "some of these words will get shot by people in future" nice and co-operatively, rather than shooting Lux (or his own feet) in the process.

Take aim carefully here please Lexo. Please hit me rather than yourself or Lux when you shoot off your reply. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Very cleverly put, Lux. :) Please don't push the 20% too hard, though. If I were you, I'd aim at up to even 50 carefully chosen words aimed at not "upstaging" the mainstream political understanding of Spartan society. I'd also steel yourself to be willing for the lead to be extended above or around your summary of the place of the Helots, without badgering that 20% be some kind of set-in-concrete entitlement. Additionally, refinement, rather than radical censorship of the Helot portion of the lead should probably be met with equanimity (nice word). I trust you to do all these things well, and trust Lexo to "keep you honest". I think my part may be over if you two end up being able to be comfortable from here. I've got some other fish to fry, but I'll be watching the page to assist if I can at any point in the future. Feel free to hit the "talk" link next to my name if either of you'd ever care to involve me again in future. But feel free to seek someone else to help you over any future "challenges" instead. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, thanks for your posts. I wish you well with your editing, and if you feel I can contribute to any of the pages of interest to you, leave something on my talk page. LuxNevada (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How nice of you. :) Many of my interests are arcane, and so I don't trouble people to pursue my interests (4Q108, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3035, List of New Testament papyri and so on). A few involve politics more or less directly (Popper and After and my current project Educating Eve), and I don't like dragging friends into that. However, you and I share an interest in ancient history, especially social history of classical times. Rest assured that I know you to be an insightful editor on these things, and one with sufficient passion to be diligent in documenting them. I think it quite probable that at some point I will be needing and seeking your assistance, and will (gently) hold you to your promise. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)