Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#111

Post by rsynnott »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #105
rsynnott wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is an academic historian. And it’s not… saying anything very controversial. It’s pretty much the mainstream view on Sparta. I mean, obviously reading more is better. But this is a perfectly fine resource and links to lots of further reading. This blog is a far better thing for a normal person to read than the stuff you linked; it basically represents current understanding, whereas some of what you linked,…

Well, now I don't know why you are being downvoted. Here, have a compensatory uppie. dang says that's part of being a good citizen around here. Edit: re fanfiction. I honestly have no idea what you mean. Fanfiction ? Who else do you think has more accurate and objective accounts of ancient history than ancient historians? Do you think modern historians have some kind of crystal ball that they can look through the mis…

> Who else do you think has more accurate and objective accounts of ancient history than ancient historians?

Modern historians who've synthesised the work of ancient historians and figured out, insofar as possible, what actually happened. Like, the sources are generally _contradictory_, and contain things which cannot possibly be true, and often supernatural elements.

> You really think that an internet rant is a better source for historical knowledge than ancient authors?

Unless you're willing to single-handledly reproduce a century or so of analysis, then, yes, reading this blog post (or a modern history text on Sparta) will give you more context on Sparta than reading the ancient sources. A _huge_ amount of work has been put into understanding ancient history, and ignoring it and just going for the ancient sources is nonsensical.

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#112

Post by deathcakes »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #108
deathcakes wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Herodotus made a hell of a lot up, relied on oral reports and explicitly states that none of what he writes is intended to be relied on - it is merely what people told him. I think you actually need to read the linked blog that you seem so dismissive of, and come up with some substantive rebuttals to the points he makes rather than just making this rather lame appeal to historical authority.

Yes, I've read the linked blog post, thank you very much for making an ass of u and me. And btw, that Herodotus, while being "the father of history" was full of shit, is something that any Greek school kid will tell you readily, so bringing this up is just a shallow dismissal of my point: that all we know about ancient times is what ancient authors have written, like Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Plato, and Plutar…

No sure, just you have strongly dismissive opinions of someone you mockingly refer to as a mere blog author, and I felt I had to weigh in. I confess I definitely don't know nearly as much as I'd like about the ancient world, especially not to the extent of having read the primary sources but I feel like you're missing the point of people's reactions.

I think the underlying point is that you actually can learn more about the ancient world despite not necessarily possesing any more primary source knowledge - things can be inferred, close analysis can change perspectives and so on.

I know it isn't the point you're trying to make but you sound like you're trying to dismiss the entire premise of historical research. Like, we don't have any new information (which is patently false by the way, maybe not so relevant to this particular topic but new information comes to light pretty much daily) so therefore we should simply not think about it anymore. I'm not trying to be dismissive of your argument and you clearly feel quite strongly about it.

Do you think all historical research is bunk or just this argument?

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#113

Post by arisAlexis »

dragontamer wrote: post #32
AmateurAtMost wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, statistical analysis of their victories and defeats. It's an excellent book. I'd recommend it.

It doesn't matter how "tough" Spartans were. They were largely illiterate and terrible at logistics. Its hard to win battles when you're terrible at supply lines. And its hard to keep track of supplies if you don't know how to read or write. ---------- I've commonly heard that Spartans were good at fighting but bad at war. Turns out that a band of illiterate warriors is largely a bad idea for an army composition. If…

Someone on the internet "commonly heard". Ok.

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#114

Post by arisAlexis »

ncmncm wrote: post #5

Or, much less than an army of super warriors. They did not win more battles than their rivals. I think of them as Greece's FARC, distinguished mainly by their abuse of their own children and everyone they depended on for their own survival.

Wikipedia has a different consensus on the subject. The abuse of children is not relevant to their military prowness being discussed.

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#115

Post by gumby »

Lazare wrote: post #53
myfartsarefoul wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the battle outcomes fair comparisons? What if they had great warriors but poor decision makers? Could they have fought poorly matched battles for the sake of conserving resources, etc? I don’t care about Sparta one way or another. But simply “looking at numbers” can be deceiving.

I highly recommend the linked series; it's accessible and fascinating. The upshot though is: Think of battle at the time as being a little bit like some sort of bizarre college sport where everyone lines up, locked arms, and then smashes into each other. With, yes, weapons, but fatality rates were not enormous. Spartiates - the tiny warrior elite of Sparta - are a bunch of very rich asshole frat boy jocks who are far…

This description also works well for the bands of knights in the so-called age of chivalry.

It’s easy to be on the winning side when you’re cruising around on a horse, protected from random arrows and blows from unarmored people on foot, and hacking away at same from above with a sword or axe.

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#116

Post by Jensson »

rsynnott wrote: post #109
Jensson wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sparta at its peak was 10-20 times smaller than Athens. With such a huge population difference you'd expect Sparta to not even put up a fight, but they did and often won and took over large parts of Greece. So to me it is strange to say that the spartan people didn't punch above its weight militarily. If they didn't nobody would have written about them since they were just another small town in Greece. The problem wi…

> Sparta at its peak was 10-20 times smaller than Athens. No, it wasn't. It had a broadly similar population; it's just that most of that population were slaves. And they did have slave auxiliaries, so it wasn't necessarily a manpower issue.

It is about 10 times if you count slaves, 20 if you don't.

They had conquered other territories which they used as auxiliaries, yes, but those were just normal Greek troops and wasn't anything special or unique to Sparta. And the reason small Sparta could conquer them in the first place was the strong army they had. Not strong as in super human, but strong as in numerous well trained soldiers. Anyone who made their kids practice warfare got soldiers to that level.

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#117

Post by nemo »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #108
deathcakes wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Herodotus made a hell of a lot up, relied on oral reports and explicitly states that none of what he writes is intended to be relied on - it is merely what people told him. I think you actually need to read the linked blog that you seem so dismissive of, and come up with some substantive rebuttals to the points he makes rather than just making this rather lame appeal to historical authority.

Yes, I've read the linked blog post, thank you very much for making an ass of u and me. And btw, that Herodotus, while being "the father of history" was full of shit, is something that any Greek school kid will tell you readily, so bringing this up is just a shallow dismissal of my point: that all we know about ancient times is what ancient authors have written, like Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Plato, and Plutar…

>all we know about ancient times is what ancient authors have written

Contemporary approaches to ancient history do not rely exclusively on literary sources, but build a much fuller picture from epigraphy (inscriptions and graffiti can tell us a lot), archaeology, and numismatics.

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#118

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

deathcakes wrote: post #112
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I've read the linked blog post, thank you very much for making an ass of u and me. And btw, that Herodotus, while being "the father of history" was full of shit, is something that any Greek school kid will tell you readily, so bringing this up is just a shallow dismissal of my point: that all we know about ancient times is what ancient authors have written, like Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Plato, and Plutar…

No sure, just you have strongly dismissive opinions of someone you mockingly refer to as a mere blog author, and I felt I had to weigh in. I confess I definitely don't know nearly as much as I'd like about the ancient world, especially not to the extent of having read the primary sources but I feel like you're missing the point of people's reactions. I think the underlying point is that you actually can learn more ab…

Where did you see all that? "[A]ll historical research is bunk"? I "mockingly refer to [The Pedant] as a mere blog author"? I'm "trying to dismiss the entire premise of historical research"? You found those things in my comments? Are you replying to someone else?

Are you sure you are in conversation with me, and what I wrote, rather than some other opinion that you have confused my comments with?

I mean, what the hell? I have said none of the things you say I said and I don't even believe them! Where the hell did I write "mere blog author" about anyone?

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#119

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

rsynnott wrote: post #111
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, now I don't know why you are being downvoted. Here, have a compensatory uppie. dang says that's part of being a good citizen around here. Edit: re fanfiction. I honestly have no idea what you mean. Fanfiction ? Who else do you think has more accurate and objective accounts of ancient history than ancient historians? Do you think modern historians have some kind of crystal ball that they can look through the mis…

> Who else do you think has more accurate and objective accounts of ancient history than ancient historians? Modern historians who've synthesised the work of ancient historians and figured out, insofar as possible, what actually happened. Like, the sources are generally _contradictory_, and contain things which cannot possibly be true, and often supernatural elements. > You really think that an internet rant is a bet…

That blog post is not scholarly work. It's one guy's opinion - rather, one guy's internet rant. Rants are no good sources of information and I wish I didn't have to explain why, but they are primarily aimed at emotions rather than the intellect.

If you want to read modern analysis, then read scholarly works, not blog posts on the internet. And it doesn't matter who the author is, a rant on the internets is a rant on the internets, not a source of knowledge.

Re: Sparta was more than an army of super warriors

#120

Post by eesmith »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #104
eesmith wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objectivity is impossible, and no one here is making the point that the author of this series had no personal opinions on the topic. It's a given that the author of this series has a bias, just like everyone does. Part of the academic tradition is to cite references (as this author does) and present the reasoning behind the arguments (as this author does). That said, if Herodotus does have biases in his Histories, ho…

What Herodotus (and Xenophon, Thucydides, Plutarch, etc) is writing about happened more than 2000 years ago. I don't have any "bias" that relates to what he wrote. I just can't get worked up about how the ancient Spartans murdered their slaves, as I can't get worked up about how every other Greek city did not grant any rights to "free" women, or how the priests of the Aztecs sacrificed POWs and then sold their flesh…

People got worked up over the question "are birds dinosaurs?". That event happened millions of years ago - 2,000 years ago is a blink.

So, you have a bias against moralizing ancient peoples - got it. (Though, when do you think it's okay to moralize about history?)

I assume also we shouldn't take knowledge of history from HN commenters.

Post reply on HN