Spartan Mora regiments at Battle of Plataea

[Ghostmojo]

I have no fixed view upon this although I do sometimes veer towards the points PMB made. I suppose it depends which particular campaign/period you are looking at. If there was a mixed mora composed of individual sub-units (be they at lochos, pentekosty, enomotia level or whatever) of alternate Spartiates, Perioikoi, and even Hypomeniones (or would they be with the Spartiates?), then these units would have had to have trained together for the mora to be able to manoeuvre cohesively on the field. Presumably that wouldn't be too difficult if the familiarity was there? Would these units be aligned side by side or behind each other? Either way - countermarching and other typically Spartan unit reconfigurational manoeuvres would be possible - possibly/probably easier, if the full blood Spartans (with their file leaders) were at the front (say the first 6 of a 12 rank deep file) with the lesser troops behind who basically followed and added weight and numbers (whilst being well-trained troops themselves).

That would mean the Periokoi were some kind of auxiliary body which beefed up the regular Spartan regiments all along the line rather than standing separately in their own units. There is some validity in that argument since the best men at the front would give heart to those behind - but also take the brunt of the damage (thus explaining Spartan casualty figures). The army would appear (at face value) to be Spartan because the frontage would have the best men very visible. The rear ranks would still be highly trained support hoplites (probably with a Spartiate file closer) but before and after battle would possibly march separately and certainly return to different (non-mess) homes.

A Mora of say 512 men containing Spartans from a call up of 32 age groups might be expected to have 16 enomotiai of 32 homoioi. However, it might only have 8 or 12 enomotia with the surplus as Perioikoi auxiliary rear troops. However, as I say this is mere speculation. The alternate argument would state the Spartans would not happily allow for mixed files on a battlefield or even mixed units. But if the units were quite separate then how do we recognise or evaluate the Perioikoi mora or regiments? I can't see how a larger mixed formation could easily manoeuvre if the breakdown were separate enomitiai, pentekostys and so on - although I suppose it is possible.

[Ariobarzanes]

Paul B. wrote:
Neither Herodotus, Thucydides or Xenophon mention perioikoi serving against fellow peloponnesians until the revolt of the Peloponnesian allies after Leuktra, when Xenophon mentions them in connection with Agesilaos' campaigns against the Arcadians ( who were of course Peloponnesians.)

Maybe, maybe not. Thucydides 5.54 may actually show the perioikoi being used on a campaign in the Peloponnese in 419 or so:

"At about the same time, the Lakedaimonians marched out in full force toward Leuktra on their own borders, near Mt. Lykaion, led by the king Agis son of Archidamos. No one knew where they were marching, not even the cities from which they had been sent."

Since he's talking about a levy of the Lakedaimonioi in full force, "the cities" here are usually interpreted as the perioikic cities. And while we don't know where they were going, the best guess is a campaign in the Peloponnese, since the immediate context is Alcibiades and the Argives mucking around in the Peloponnese.

[Paralus]

Sorry?...... but your post seems addressed to a non-existent point.

Not at all: in fact you singularly sidestep the point. I actually postulated that the periocoi did form part of the “units” of the Spartan army. You either chose to belittle that with your “non existent point” or, quite possibly, misread the post.

You seem confused about who are "Spartans" and who are "Lakedaemonians". The terms are NOT synonymous. All Spartans are Lakedaemonians, but not all Lakedaemonians are Spartans.

Nothing of the sort. It is precisely why I wrote “an army Herodotus refers to as the “Spartans” or “the Lacedaemonians” (he does this constantly). A subtly beyond your comprehension it might seem (??); written to highlight the fact that the periocoi do not appear in either the fighting or the dead even though they evidently formed part of the “Lacedaemonian army”.

If one does not grasp these distinctions, it is pointless to even attempt to discuss this subject....

I shall list that with the “military matters not being my forte” put-down shall I? At least I am “colourful”.

Isokrates 'canard' must be taken with a grain of salt

Another “unhelpful” passage I know. This, at least, is only reduced to “canard’. Other unhelpful passages are dismissed as "bastards" (the author being in question) or emended away.

Xenophon, of course, is absolutely reliable.

This is the sort of uninformed comment which leads to confusion.

I’ll add that to the above. The Greeks looked askance at hubris…

When one looks holistically at all the evidence it is quite apparent that 'perioikoi' probably never served in Spartan 'Morai'.

In which case they served in totally distinct units … err… sorry, mora. Pity there is absolutely no evidence for this. Further, not a single periocoi served in the seminal battle of the late fifth century – Mantinea. Evidently the Spartans could well do without them?

As for your continued reliance upon “citizen troops”, this is, I’m afraid, a neatly constructed furphy. Such a “neat” distinction, based on the translation of Xenophon, renders it absolutely certain that not a single periocoi took the field at Leuktra (or, if they did, not a single one survived).

[PMBardunias]

Paullus Scipio wrote:
Paul B. wrote:
Neither Herodotus, Thucydides or Xenophon mention perioikoi serving against fellow peloponnesians until the revolt of the Peloponnesian allies after Leuktra, when Xenophon mentions them in connection with Agesilaos' campaigns against the Arcadians ( who were of course Peloponnesians.)

Hey! Don't mix up your Pauls. I would never have commented on Herodotus and Thucydides writing anything about the aftermath of Leuktra. hock:

Toynbee's suggestion, not mine and not one I believe, is that the "Mora" was composed of coupled lochoi, one of Spartiates and one of Periokoi. His explanation of the "lost" lochoi at Mantinea was that Thucydides calls the combined pair "lacedaimonian" lochoi and thus undereports it by half. I found the paper if anyone is interested. His whole scheme of coupling Spartiate and perioic is interesting for its social implications if a bit fanciful.

[Paralus]

The potted, abridged and pocket Readers’ Digest Toynbee is:

• * There is the Spartan army of Herodotus (Plataea).
  * There is the Spartan army of Xenophon.

Briefly, Toynbee states that the in the army of Plataea Periocoi and Spartiates are brigaded separately. The army is brigaded into five lochoi which are commanded by lochagoi

In the army of Xenophon (and of Mantinea) Spartiates and Periocoi are brigaded together and the army is now made up of six mora which are commanded by polemarchs. The “big change” occurred sometime after the great earthquake.

Lastly, Thucydides fails to take into account that the mora is the largest unit in the Mantinean army and Thucydides’ numbers should be doubled as there were six morai and one more of “Brasideans and neodamodeis”.

The other side is:

• * The Brasideans and neodamodeis are indeed separate units and not the “Lacedaemonians themselves” as above.
  * Polemarchs appear in Herodotus’ army: “The general of the Lacedaemonians was Euaenetus son of Carenus, chosen from among the Polemarchs, yet not of the royal house…” (7.173.2)
  * The Lacedaemonians comprised both the Periocoi and Spartiates (as I’ve opined above).

The latter view relies on the fact that Herodotus gives the dispositions for battle (7.28.2-3) with the 10,000 “Lacedaemonians” holding the right wing:

On the right wing were ten thousand Lacedaemonians; five thousand of these, who were Spartans, had a guard of thirty-five thousand light-armed helots, seven appointed for each man. The Spartans chose the Tegeans for their neighbors in the battle…

Herodotus has used both the terms “Spartiates” and “Lacedaemonians” in this description. One doesn’t suppose that the Spartiates stood alongside the Tegeans (next to their left) and allowed the other 5,000 “Lacedaemonians” (obviously the Periocoi) to hold the extreme right. It would seem more likely that they made up the rear ranks of the 10,000 Lacedaemonians.

As already noted, Herodotus records dead Tegeates and dead Spartiates but no dead Periocoi. Perhaps they were in the rear four ranks? Perhaps, at Mantinea, the army of Xenophon was yet to appear and lochos was the correct term?

Hey! Don't mix up your Pauls. I would never have commented on Herodotus and Thucydides writing anything about the aftermath of Leuktra. hock:

He, he. Perhaps you should become "New Bruce"?

Toynbee's suggestion, not mine and not one I believe, is that the "Mora" was composed of coupled lochoi, one of Spartiates and one of Periokoi. His explanation of the "lost" lochoi at Mantinea was that Thucydides calls the combined pair "lacedaimonian" lochoi and thus undereports it by half. I found the paper if anyone is interested.

Yes please...

[hoplite14gr]

To ancient and modern Greeks the terms of "Lacon", "Lakedemonian" amd "Spartiates" are synonymes.
If you want to consider them as meaning separate things you are naturally entitled to your opinion.
When ancient sources want to distiguish between homioi amd perioikoi they simply make the distinction.
Only in the Roman period there was an attempt to distinguish officialy the population of Laconia as Spartiates and Eleutherolakones - but thats what the Romans wanted to think. The Greeks never adopted the distinction.

Kind regards.

[Paralus]

To ancient and modern Greeks the terms of "Lacon", "Lakedemonian" amd "Spartiates" are synonymes.
If you want to consider them as meaning separate things you are naturally entitled to your opinion [...] The Greeks never adopted the distinction.

Kind regards.

That may well be so in some instances; in the instance I've quoted it is Herodotus who makes the distinction. Whilst the army (from Laconia) is refered as the "Lacedaemonians" (9.55.1 e.g.) or "the Lacedaemonian / Laconian army" (9.53.4 e.g.), the "Spartiates" are a distinct entity within this body. Herodotus lists the "ten thousand Lacedaemonians" as holding the right wing and then goes on to make plain that five thousand of these "were Spartiates" even unto stating that these were the ones with seven helots to each man. The distinction is, therefore, drawn by Herodotus between the Lacedaemonians (who number 10,000) and the "Spartiates" who number 5,000.

A similar distinction is made in other passages where only 91 "Lacedaemonians from Sparta" are killed along with seventeen Tegeans. Later, for the Spartan burials, there are tombs for the irens (where a few are named), the rest of "the Spartiates" and the helots. The Periocoi, who marched to Boeotia with these and were described as a distinct memeber of the "Laconian army", are not buried or did not suffer any killed. Again the distinction is Herodotus' rather than mine.

[hoplite14gr]

Xenophon's treaty on the constitution of Laconia is "Lakedaimonion Politeia" he could just as well write "Lakonon Politeia" or "Spartiaton Politeia".

Sorry but I do not see "Spartiates" here:
http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... loc=9.54.1

In 9.48.1 Herodotus used both Spartiates and Lakedaimonioi refering to the same group

In 9.29.1 The Spartiates and Lakedemonioi here is a way to destinct homioi from perioikoi

If I went to the wrong paragraph please correct me.

Kind regards.

[Paralus]

If I went to the wrong paragraph please correct me.

Kind regards.

Sorry: forgot the reference (though it was in a previous post):

Her. 9.28.2-3
On the right wing were ten thousand Lacedaemonians; five thousand of these, who were Spartans, had a guard of thirty-five thousand light-armed helots, seven appointed for each man. The Spartans chose the Tegeans for their neighbors in the battle, both to do them honor, and for their valor; there were of these fifteen hundred men-at-arms.

...to men dexion keras eichon Lakedaimoniôn murioi: toutôn de tous pentakischilious eontas Spartiêtas ephulasson psiloi tôn heilôtôn pentakischilioi kai trismurioi, peri andra hekaston hepta tetagmenoi. [3] prosecheas de sphisi+ heilonto hestanai+ hoi Spartiêtai tous Tegeêtas kai timês heineka kai aretês: toutôn d' êsan hoplitai chilioi kai pentakosioi...

The others:

Killed, 9.70.5
Of the Lacedaemonians from Sparta ninety-one all together were killed in battle; of the Tegeans, seventeen and of the Athenians, fifty-two.

Lakedaimoniôn de tôn ek Spartês apethanon hoi pantes en têi sumbolêi heis kai enenêkonta, Tegeêteôn de hekkaideka, Athênaiôn de duo kai pentêkonta.

Burials, 9.85.5:
The Lacedaemonians made three tombs; there they buried their “irens,”1 among whom were Posidonius, Amompharetus, Philocyon, and Callicrates. In one of the tombs, then, were the “irens,” in the second the rest of the Spartans, and in the third the helots.

Lakedaimonioi men trixas epoiêsanto thêkas: entha men tous irenas ethapsan, tôn kai Poseidônios kai Amompharetos êsan kai Philokuôn te kai Kallikratês. en men dê heni tôn taphôn êsan hoi irenes, en de tôi heterôi hoi alloi Spartiêtai, en de tôi tritôi hoi heilôtes.

In 9.29.1 The Spartiates and Lakedemonioi here is a way to destinct homioi from perioikoi.

Exactly as I've been pointing out.

[Ghostmojo]

And your actual Spartans (citizens of various grades of the city itself) break down into Spartiates, Hypomeiones, Mothakes and then there are the Trophimoi Xenoi. These distinctions might not be made by ancient sources in battlefield context but they did count in Sparta's very stratified society. The Lakedaimonians as an army would have included the new citizens - because, despite being a low grade, the Neodamodeis were enfranchised free Lakonians - although of course that citizenship did not mean involvement in Spartan affairs of state whatsoever - it was a freedom to be exercised elsewhere, later. Various sources use the terms interchangeably from time to time but ultimately it surely is - in a purely Spartan context - the law of circles within circles ... your low-born Lakonian Helot at the very bottom (outside the largest circle) and your aristocratic Homoioi at the top (inside the smallest circle). Given the Spartan penchant for secrecy it is hardly surprising that nobody from that particular city was necessarily going to clarify matters for the interested observer. I don't think that the terms should always be treated as interchangeable. There are degrees of necessity when it comes to categorising the Spartan forces, depending upon the point being made. A Spartan army might have actually had very few Spartans in it at the simplest level - to some extent the control of and purpose of the force is often more significant in telling a story, than the internal breakdown of that force.

In simple terms all statements are true at different times. A Lakedamonian might mean specifically a Spartiate/Spartan - or alternately a dweller from the larger extra-Spartan area of Lakedaimon - or indeed also a soldier from anywhere in Lakonia. Within the context of the army it mattered less than it did politically.

[Paralus]

And your actual Spartans (citizens of various grades of the city itself) break down into Spartiates, Hypomeiones, Mothakes and then there are the Trophimoi Xenoi. These distinctions might not be made by ancient sources in battlefield context but they did count in Sparta's very stratified society. The Lakedaimonians as an army would have included the new citizens - because, despite being a low grade, the Neodamodeis were enfranchised free Lakonians - although of course that citizenship did not mean involvement in Spartan affairs of state whatsoever - it was a freedom to be exercised elsewhere, later.

It's a pity the attestations for the stratification of Spartan society are so scant. Much relies of Xenophon's story of Cinadon.

The neodamodeis, when the term comes into use, are always a separate entity to the “Spartans” when it comes to enumerating forces. It appears they held no rights and were simply “freed” helots: helots who were no longer helots! The perioici also were not “enfranchised” in that they too held no rights when came to the machinery of state. The neodamodeis will likely have held less. The other “citizen” groups (Hypomeiones, Mothakes …) likely were brigaded amongst the “Spartan” mora as Paul Mac has observed.

Herodotus and Thucydides did not know of those later subgroups. Whether that was due to Spartan secrecy or the fact that they were not utilised as a resource until later in the fifth century is anyone’s guess.

The point above, though, is that Herodotus clearly indicates that 5,000 Spartiates made up half of the “Lacedaemonians” or the “Laconian army” at Plataea. If the Spartiates stood the Tegeans to their immediate left were the perioici (and other subgroups – if in existence) on the far right? It might be more likely they formed the rear half of the “Lacedaemonian” phalanx.

[Paullus Scipio]

Firstly, let me begin with an apology to Paralus/Michael, for my rather forthright and too strongly worded post of 31st Oct....in mitigation, I can only plead over-tiredness, and my own frustration at views which I, after many years study, have concluded are more than likely to be incorrect.

As I mentioned initially, the whole subject of 'perioikoi' is fraught with difficulty, because there is nothing conclusive anywhere - and hence my not wanting to get bogged down in a debate which probably won't reach any consensus or agreement......

Of course, it is all Paul B's fault really, for 'suckering' me into a digression on 'perioikoi'.....where I had plainly said I did not want to go.... :wink: :lol: :lol:

Paralus wrote:

To reinforce that Herodotus, when he describes the dead, has no periocoi dead – none.

Paralus makes a telling point in favour of 'perioikoi' serving together with the Spartans ( by whom I mean 'Homioi' and 'Hypomeiones' ) at Plataea,if we can rely on Herodotus' passage.They seem to suffer no casualties ( perhaps as a result of serving in the rear ranks) not being referred to in Herodotus' description of the three graves. Paralus' point is based on this passage of Herodotus:
LXXXV. But the Greeks, when they had divided the spoils at Plataea, buried each contingent of their dead in a separate place. The Lacedaemonians made three tombs; there they buried their “eireais/priests"( in the manuscript - emended by some to read "eirens/youngsters/ new soldiers,”) among whom were Posidonius, Amompharetus, Philocyon, and Callicrates. In one of the tombs, then, were the “eireis/eirens,” in the second the rest of the Spartans, and in the third the helots. This, then is how the Lacedaemonians buried their dead. The Tegeans, however, buried all theirs together in a place apart, and the Athenians did similarly with their own dead. So too did the Megarians and Phliasians with those who had been killed by the horsemen. All the tombs of these peoples were filled with dead; but as for the rest of the states whose tombs are to be seen at Plataeae, their tombs are but empty barrows that they built for the sake of men that should come after, because they were ashamed to have been absent from the battle. There is one there called the tomb of the Aeginetans, which, as I learn by inquiry, was built as late as ten years after, at the Aeginetans' desire, by their patron and protector Cleades son of Autodicus, a Plataean.

This passage has long puzzled scholars, since whether we are talking "eireis/priests" or "eirens/youngsters", it makes no sense for them to have been buried separately. Even the loyal 'Helots' were seemingly buried with their masters on occasion ( e.g. Thermopylae, where all the Greek dead lay in a single tomb - though there of course the Spartans did not bury their own.) Essentially, H. is telling us that there were many tombs, some completely false, and that the "Lakedaemonians" separated theirs into three.
Unfortunately for Paralus' otherwise logical deduction, we can not rely on this puzzling and possibly corrupt passage.It is directly contradicted by Pausanias ( a native of Lydia and admittedly writing in Roman times c. 174 AD) who writes in his "Guide/Description of Greece":
[9.2.5] Roughly at the entrance into Plataea are the graves of those who fought against the Persians. Of the Greeks generally there is a common tomb, but the Lacedaemonians and Athenians who fell have separate graves, on which are written elegiac verses by Simonides. Not far from the common tomb of the Greeks is an altar of Zeus, God of Freedom. This then is of bronze, but the altar and the image he made of white marble.

He agrees with Herodotus that were three graves - but there was only one common grave for all the "Lacedaemonians". ( Spartans, perioikoi and Helots) Pausanias is an eye witness and accurate about things he had actually seen, as here. H. does not seem to have visited the place for he relies on "inquiry/ asking others".
Even if Herodotus' description is correct, it is possible that his term 'Spartans' here means of the whole "Lakedaemonian Army", for while a Lakedaemonian might clearly understand the difference between 'Lakedaemonians' ( people from lakedaemon, including 'perioikoi'; 'spartans' - people from the city of Sparta; and 'Spartiatoi/Homioi'; the aristocracy of Sparta), outsiders such as Herodotus or Thucydides might use the terms 'Lakedaemonian' or 'Spartans' interchangeably ( in respect of the Army, because the army was 'Spartan' led, as the Italian Army was 'Roman' led.)

Perhaps Herodotus forgot to mention them just as Paul Mac would have Xenophon forget them.

...that ancient authors could and did overlook component parts when describing armies is well known. Roman republican armies were accompanied by roughly equal numbers of allied Latins and Italian allies ('socii' or 'alae'). The armies are called "Romans" or "the Roman Army" with no mention of these allies unless they particularly do something which calls for their mention.

In fact Herodotus himself does overlook, or 'forgot' the 'perioikoi' on another famous occasion - Thermopylae !!
Herodotus tells us (VII.202) of an epigram (VII.228) raised at the tomb describing how 4,000 Peloponnesians had fought at Thermopylae against the Persians.
However, earlier he had given the Peloponnesian force as:-
300 Spartiates, 1,000 Tegeates-and-Mantineans, 120 Orchomenians, 1,000 from the rest of Arcadia, 400 Corinthians, 200 Phliasians, and 80 Mycenaeans......a total of only 3,100.

So who were the "missing" 900-1,000 Peloponnesian troops?

Fortunately, there survives in Diodorus and Justin, an alternate account of Thermopylae ( including 'legendary' stuff such as the infamous 'commando raid' on Xerxes tent) and which likely derives from Ephorus, or another earlier source. In this, Leonidas leads a force of 300 'Spartiates' , 1,000 Lacedaemonians and 3,000 other Greeks "sent out with them" (Diodorus. 11. 4. 5), being 4,000 as a round number (Diodorus. 11. 4. 6; Justin. 2. 11. I ). That this other source was correct is indicated by the epigram which stated that 4,000 from the Peloponnese "fought here".
Further confirmation comes from Isocrates ( who is referred to earlier in the thread), who says of the Lacedaemonians
"selecting 1,000 men of their own" (4. 90).

So Herodotus DID 'forget' to mention the 'perioikoi' ( who incidently seem to have been sent back with the others when the pass was turned).....and incidently proves that they fought as a separate contingent in Herodotus' time, confirming Plataea. D

I hope from the above, which simply goes into one point, that readers will begin to appreciate the difficulties and complexities surrounding this whole subject of 'perioikoi' and why I did not want to launch into a digression which has baffled every famous scholar on the subject for over a hundred years....

[Ariobarzanes]

In simple terms all statements are true at different times. A Lakedamonian might mean specifically a Spartiate/Spartan - or alternately a dweller from the larger extra-Spartan area of Lakedaimon - or indeed also a soldier from anywhere in Lakonia. Within the context of the army it mattered less than it did politically.

Just to buttress Ghostmojo’s point, Thucydides shows really clearly just how flexible and murky terminology for Lakedaimonians and Spartans could really be. Whereas he’ll normally use “Lakedaimonioi” to refer to both Spartiatai and perioikoi, he is not only capable of drawing distinctions between these two groups (as at 4.8.1), but also on at least one occasion uses “Lakedaimonioi” to mean “Spartiatai”, to the exclusion of perioikoi. The passage in question is 3.92.4-5, in which he describes the foundation of Heraclea in Trachis:

Having heard them [the Trachinians and Dorians], the Lakedaimonioi decided to send out a colony… And so first they consulted the god in Delphi; at his urging, they sent out colonists of their own and of the periokoi…

a????????? ?? ?? ????????????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????????… ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????????, ?????????? ?? ????????? ???? ????????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????????…

Which words get used in any given passage really does depend largely on context.

[Paralus]

Firstly, let me begin with an apology to Paralus/Michael, for my rather forthright and too strongly worded post of 31st Oct....in mitigation, I can only plead over-tiredness, and my own frustration at views which I, after many years study, have concluded are more than likely to be incorrect.

Very kind but unnecessary.

He agrees with Herodotus that were three graves - but there was only one common grave for all the "Lacedaemonians". ( Spartans, perioikoi and Helots) Pausanias is an eye witness and accurate about things he had actually seen, as here. H. does not seem to have visited the place for he relies on "inquiry/ asking others".

Whilst Herodotus might have confused three graves with three Spartan graves, it seems unlikely that he would. And whereas I would not dispute Herodotus’ lack of travel to some places in his “History”, I imagine he likely visited Plataea. It is possible that the tomb itself was sectioned into three so as the “classes” listed were buried discretely. (Where was I reading about the Spartans buried at Athens recently - AW??)

Even if Herodotus' description is correct, it is possible that his term 'Spartans' here means of the whole "Lakedaemonian Army", for while a Lakedaemonian might clearly understand the difference between 'Lakedaemonians' ( people from lakedaemon, including 'perioikoi'; 'spartans' - people from the city of Sparta; and 'Spartiatoi/Homioi'; the aristocracy of Sparta), outsiders such as Herodotus or Thucydides might use the terms 'Lakedaemonian' or 'Spartans' interchangeably ( in respect of the Army, because the army was 'Spartan' led, as the Italian Army was 'Roman' led.).

It may well be that the terms are used as you say. The only point that militates against it is Herodotus’ clear separation of the periocoi and “Spartiates” in the Lacedaemonian army on the Greek right and the fact that no periocoi are listed among the dead (Of the Lacedaemonians from Sparta ninety-one all together were killed in battle; of the Tegeans, seventeen and of the Athenians, fifty-two - 9.70.5).

Paul Mac – along with Ghostmojo and Ariobazarnes – make the point of the interchagability of the terms. I don’t disagree: at times this happens. The passage upon which I based the periocic brigading was the battle line up was a little clearer though:

Presently the whole Greek army was arrayed as I will show, both the later and the earliest comers. On the right wing were ten thousand Lacedaemonians; five thousand of these, who were Spartans, had a guard of thirty-five thousand light-armed helots, seven appointed for each man. The Spartans chose the Tegeans for their neighbors in the battle, both to do them honor, and for their valor; there were of these fifteen hundred men-at-arms. Next to these in the line were five thousand Corinthians, at whose desire Pausanias permitted the three hundred Potidaeans from Pallene then present to stand by them.

Herodotus goes on to list the contingents over to the left wing held by the Athenians. We have 5,000 homoioi alongside of whom, to their left, are the Tegeans. In both instances Herodotus uses the term Spartiate. As I say, it makes more sense that the perioici were in the rear ranks of the Laconian phalanx; the homoioi occupying the front four along the line. Several may have been wounded but, seemingly, none died. This would make better use of the 5,000 premier soldiers of the Greeks.

Time to get back to spreadsheets: I have a Melbourne Cup day form to peruse….

[Ghostmojo]

I tend to agree with PS's remarks likening Spartan armies to Roman ones. The similarities are often startling between Sparta and Rome. Two warrior king/generals - two consuls; mixed but conservative political constitutions etc. There are other elements as well (but would necessitate a different thread about if and how much Sparta was emulated by Rome as a model - as well as Cato's Sabines' origins). However, I recognise you were just pointing out how the nomenclature reference is similar.

I also should watch the late night postings since I really meant manumitted as opposed to enfranchised (i.e. freed but not allowed elective participation) when discussing the Neodamodeis. The latter seem to have occupied a limited historical period anyway - first appearing in the Peloponnesian War with Brasidas but seemingly not after about 369 [size=85:1bszpnl6]BC[/size], unless the possible later references to Agesilaos' use of a lower class of troops meant Neodamodeis (but more probably Perioikoi or mercenaries). In any event as the Kinadon experience showed, Sparta was usually keen to ship malcontents off to a colony somewhere - after initially gaining some military use from them.

Also, I suspect, whilst no doubt always being present to some extent - I believe the issue of the Hypomeiones and Mothakes became more pertinent and pressing in much later classical times and well into the hellenistic period. The manpower shortages and further army reorganisation go hand in hand with these matters.

On another subject though, I am not certain, however, Herodotos forgot about the Perioikoi at Thermopylai (as I have said elsewhere on this forum). I'm not convinced they were there in the first place. Leonidas was able to take his personal bodyguard with him as an advance force. He was not able to mobilise the whole army - nor did he have the power to do so. I take that as being an inability to mobilise the Perioikoi as well - unless he merely picked up volunteers along his march (which seems unlikely to me). The Spartan state decided on mobilisation of its citizenry and upon those who were foresworn to follow - i.e. the Lakonian dwellers around, some of whom were yeomanry hoplites like much of the rest of central and southern Greece. Why would they necessarily follow without being forced to by their Spartan masters (unless seized by some panhellenic spirit)? Surely that missing 1000 could be accounted for elsewhere and especially with Diodorus not being entirely reliable. If the Perioikoi had been persuaded, I think a matching figure of 300 might have been more likely - like for like as at Plataia? Is it not also possible approximately 1000 men came from no especially definable origins - just various smaller places within the Peloponnese, and possibly elsewhere, en route to the pass?