Spartan Mora regiments at Battle of Plataea

[Ghostmojo]

Two ephors; two (if I'm not mistaken) of the four Pythioi; assorted hereditary flautists, heralds, and other mess-mates ...

[hoplite14gr]

Two ephors; two (if I'm not mistaken) of the four Pythioi; assorted hereditary flautists, heralds, and other mess-mates ...

Considering that "efordom" seemed to be "closed", add some form of patronage, even nepotism and you are probably right.
There were five infulential families in Laconia and the correspondance of the number of Ephors who were only accoundable only to their successors leaves a lot of room for thought.

Kind regards

[Paralus]

Agesilaos II could possibly be the closest thing Sparta ever produced approaching a pan-Hellenic uber-leader

Enter Paralus- stage left....

"Heavens to Betsy!" Enter, Snaggle-Parala-puss, stage right....

“Pan-Hellenic uber-leader” my left foot: much too-ing and fro-ing and alliance making to boot. A grand Hellenic invasion of Asia is not a description that fits Agesilaos' Asian Contiki Tour of conquest. Much Spartan flag waving gone wrong and stoic acceptance by Ionian Greeks of the inevitable result of Spartan power politics: meet the new boss same as the old boss.

Xenophon makes much of Timocrates’ Persian Darics and the effect this had in “bribing” states to go to war against Sparta. To Xenophon this is the ugly root that sprouts as the “Corinthian War”. He singularly fails to understand that money is a useless commodity in the hands of those unwilling to spend it. The fact was that Sparta’s erstwhile allies were already “in revolt” and the readies simply paid for a war that was, if not “declared’, already underway. As always one needs to read beyond the Laconophile (Hell. Oxyr. 10.2):

It is asserted by some that Timocrates’ bribes were responsible for the formation of the war party at Athens and among the Boeotians and in the other states which I have mentioned, owing to the ignorance of the circumstance that all of them had long adopted a hostile attitude toward the Lacedaemonians, and had been on the watch for an opportunity to involve the states in war. For the Lacedaemonians were hated by the Argive and Boeotian factions for being on friendly terms with the opposing party of citizens, and by the faction at Athens because it desired to put an end to the existing tranquillity and peace, and to lead the Athenians onto a policy of war and interference in order that it might be enabled to make a profit from the state funds. At Corinth, of the partisans of a change of policy the majority were hostile to the Lacedaemonians from reasons similar to those of the Argives and Boeotians , while Timolaus alone had become opposed to them on account of private grounds for complaint, although he was formerly on the best terms with them and a strong phil-Laconian, as can be ascertained from the events of the Decelean War. (Grenfell / Hunt translation)

Some things are rather plainer than the “phil-Laconian” Xenophon would have it. The discontent with Sparta amongst allies such as Thebes and Corinth is marked. This because of Sparta’s meddling in their internal politics. This is unremarked in Xenophon outside of matters he could not “hide” such as the seizing of the Cadmeia ( and Athens’ immediate reaction). Clearly Sparta’s imperial hubris and her “managing” of her allies grated.

In the end it was an attitude that Xenophon, try as he might, could not fail to remark upon – if only in his excusatory excursus that is his description of Leuktra. He cannot but help claim that the allies are not in any way enthusiastic and, in fact, were not at all displeased at the destruction of the Spartan right.

[Ghostmojo]

It wasn't Paul who said that - he was quoting me - and yes the clue is in the statement - no comparison with other Greeks is necessary since I was stating A2 was the closest thing (from Sparta). I never compared him to known Greeks who (maybe/maybe not) masqueraded as Pan-Hellenists like Phillip or Alexander. However, if somebody wants to tell me another candidate from Lakedaimon, I'm all ears ... Agis III perhaps?

[Paralus]

It wasn't Paul who said that - he was quoting me - and yes the clue is in the statement - no comparison with other Greeks is necessary since I was stating A2 was the closest thing (from Sparta). I never compared him to known Greeks who (maybe/maybe not) masqueraded as Pan-Hellenists like Phillip or Alexander. However, if somebody wants to tell me another candidate from Lakedaimon, I'm all ears ... Agis III perhaps?

Yes I realise that - I was using Paul's tag line as a point of entry. Used to enjoy Snagglepuss as a young'n.

Form Sparta? No, can't think of one. The Spartan monarchs that came after Agesilaos were not so much pan-Hellenic as "pan-Peloponnesic"; more a case of resisting whomever (generally Macedonia or Achaea) in attempts to restore Sparta's Peloponnesian primacy. As such, to my mind, they likely compare better with that great Athenian imperialist of the fourth century Thrasybulus. Where the Spartan kings (that make it to our histories) tilt at restoring Spartan power in its "ancestral backyard" (the Peloponnese), Thrasybulus and his fellow travellers tilted at restoring empire lost.

"Real" pan-Hellenists belong to the preceding century; their "king" being Kimon.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

The discontent with Sparta amongst allies such as Thebes and Corinth is marked.

...."Allies" ?????? Surely the use of that word requires some elaboration/qualification ! Say rather 'bitter and jealous rivals', who sided with Sparta temporarily for self-serving reasons, such as 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. There is a clear differentiation between 'allies' such as the Perioikoi, and makeshift/temporary expediency between the larger Poleis in 'alliance', with all sides cynically knowing the score.

The mood of the times is caught by Thucydides....

the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. ...

( which might conceivably apply to the perioikoi until after Leuktra, though I believe their loyalty was genuine enough.)

P.S. Nice to see good old Snagglepuss again, and as a Who fan from way back, enjoyed the clips, and appreciated the connection to the question at hand, so not entirely off-topic... D lol:

[hoplite14gr]

Paralus wrote:

...."Allies" ?????? Surely the use of that word requires some elaboration/qualification ! Say rather 'bitter and jealous rivals', who sided with Sparta temporarily for self-serving reasons, such as 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. There is a clear differentiation between 'allies' such as the Perioikoi, and makeshift/temporary expediency between the larger Poleis in 'alliance', with all sides cynically knowing the score.

The mood of the times is caught by Thucydides....

the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. ...

But this is international politics up to our times if I am not mistaken....


As for the Panhellenic idea it requires a thread of its own.

Kind regards

[Paralus]

Paralus wrote:

The discontent with Sparta amongst allies such as Thebes and Corinth is marked.

...."Allies" ?????? Surely the use of that word requires some elaboration/qualification ! Say rather 'bitter and jealous rivals', who sided with Sparta temporarily for self-serving reasons, such as 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. There is a clear differentiation between 'allies' such as the Perioikoi, and makeshift/temporary expediency between the larger Poleis in 'alliance', with all sides cynically knowing the score.

I agree: qualification of the term is warranted.

Corinth, I believe, spent the better part of the "classical" period as an ally of Sparta: a key member of the Peloponnesian League. Thebes had just spent over thirty years as an ally of Sparta: she certainly did not fight on behalf of Athens from 431 onwards. The Perioikoi might well be described as "allies" by Agesilaos and, possibly, his admirer Xenophon. It is rather plain they'd about as much choice in the matter as did the Melians in refusing Athens' advances in 416 or Mitylene in rescinding its "alliance" in 428.

I too like The Who.

[Ghostmojo]

... and as a Who fan from way back, enjoyed the clips, and appreciated the connection to the question at hand, so not entirely off-topic ...

No, not so off topic - "we'll be fighting in the streets, with our children at our feet" could well have been the clarion call of Sparta in the latter times!!! D wink:

Me too - I am also a big fan of the Oo ... gawd bless 'em (especially Keith and John [size=85:1z8bdbug](RIP)[/size]).

[Paralus]

Paralus wrote:

And whereas I would not dispute Herodotus’ lack of travel to some places in his “History”, I imagine he likely visited Plataea.

...in fact, Herodotus makes it fairly plain he had almost certainly NOT visited Plataea - in speaking of the graves he says "...so far as my information goes..." and "...which I am told.." (H. IX.84 )

At 9.84 Herodotus does, in no way, make "it fairly plain he had almost certainly NOT visited Plataea". What he does make quite plain is that, amidst the division of the spoils, he has no idea who took the body of Mardonius nor who buried it and where. What he relates - about this subject - is that "which he is told". The passage has not a whit to do with the burials of the Greeks and relates - plainly - to his dissertaion on the division of the spoils. This he makes makes plain when he follows with "But the Greeks, when they had divided the spoils at Plataea..." (9.85.1)

Your cited literary "evidence" (9.84.1):

As for the body of Mardonius, it was removed on the day after the battle; by whom, I cannot with certainty say. I have, however, heard of very many countries that buried Mardonius, and I know of many that were richly rewarded for that act by Mardonius' son Artontes. [2] Which of them it was that stole and buried the body of Mardonius I cannot learn for certain. Some report that it was buried by Dionysophanes, an Ephesian. Such was the manner of Mardonius' burial.

To claim that this relates to the burial arrangements and tombs of the Greeks is a stretch too far.

[Paullus Scipio]

S..o..rr..eee! You should have kept reading! The citation was a "typo" caused by the fact That some years ago I lent my Loeb Herodotus out....yup! You guessed it - never got it back ! :evil: ......so I had to rely on the 'Penguin' which does not number paras, and I guess I miscounted. It should be the next paras IX.85-86 where Herodotus discusses the Greek graves.

After the distribution of booty, the Greeks proceeded to bury their own dead, those from each contingent in a separate grave.The Lakedaemonians made three graves - one for the priests(Eireis), amongst whom were Posidonius, Amompharetus,Philocyon and Kallitrakes; another for the rest of the Spartans; and a third for the Helots. The Tegeans buried all their dead in a common grave; so did the Athenians, and the Megarans and Phleiasians buried together those who had been killed by the cavalry.
Unlike these tombs, which were real containing the bodies of the dead, all the other funeral mounds which are to be seen at Plataea, so far as my information goes, erected merely for show. They are empty and were put up to impress posterity by the various states who were ashamed of having taken no part in the battle. There is one tomb there, bearing the name of the Aeginetans, which I am told was constructed at their request ten years after the battle by Cleades son of Autodicus, and representative of Aeginetan interests in Plataea...

As most commentators recognise, Herodotus' informers about Plataea are Athenian. De Selincourt points out ( I paraphrase)..witness him saying that the centre 'missed the battle', which is incredible because both Spartans and Athenians were in full view of their position, and in fact they had a hard fight with the Theban cavalry. Athenian spite is again plain from Herodotus' remarks that the Megarans etc 'died to no purpose' and that the Corinthians and other Peloponnesians had no casualties at all. Their burial mounds were there to give the lie to this calumny. Aeginetan casualties were doubtless among those who made up the difference between Herodotus' 759 Spartans, Tegeans, and Athenians who died and Plutarch's 'Aristides' of 1,360. Plutarch also ( in his attack on Herodotus' inaccuracies) quotes an elegiac poem of the battle by the contemporary poet Simonides ( not commissioned by Corinth) which refers to the Corinthians 'holding the centre' ....hardly 'missing the battle' ! Given his information sources, it is hardly surprising he comes up with a garbled version to explain the three Spartan graves, and given the importance of Plataea, it is hardly likely that "false" graves would have been tolerated. Clearly Herodotus did not travel to Plataea, or Cleades or someone else would have set him aright about the tombs, and it is obvious his "information" about the tombs comes from a scurrilous Athenian source.

[Paralus]

He, he, he. I knew that would get a response! To paraphrase the movie: "Write it (just so) and he will respond...".

I have no issue with "Athenian spite" - I have, in fact, remarked on it elsewhere (the Spartan dilatory response based on the near fictional Isthmus Wall). It is somewhat apparent in Thucydides words placed into the mouths of the Athenians in the debate prior to hostilities in 432/1. We need not be surprised that will relect, in part, views effecting Herododotus a decade and more earlier.

That said, Herodotus when he says, in your translation, "so far as my information goes" is clearly referring to the fact that he is told (by Athenians, likely, as you point out) that these tombs were built for show. I don't see it having any bearing on whether or not he'd seen the tombs himself. In fact your copying of the passage seems to lack "were" prior to or immediately "so far as..." The same can be said of the line referring to the Aeginetan tomb "which I am told, was constructed after....". This does not mean he has not seen it, rather that someone has told him that what he has (possibly) seen was built ten years after the battle.

Perhaps the Perseus (Godley) translation is clearer:

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.

[Paullus Scipio]

As I said in my previous post, it is as plain as a pike-staff that he had not travelled to Plataea. If he had, he would surely have learned something other than the "Athenian version" of events...in fact he could hardly avoid doing so.His absence of any description of the tombs, or even the place generally speaks eloquently too, for normally he gives us detail about the places he has actually visited.

[Paralus]

That was not your argument of the previous post at all. Your argument was predicated upon Herodotus' use of "so far as my information goes" and "which I am told" (from your translation and your bold). I have pointed out that, clearly, these phrases do not relate to Herodotus' seeing or not of what he describes. As usual you sidestep.

Have you located the missing "where" as yet?

[Paullus Scipio]

"sidestep"? .....not at all. Rather than argue pointlessly about the significance or otherwise of those phrases, I merely point out other reasons, in addition, for thinking Herodotus did not visit Plataea - not to mention that no commentator I know of supposes that he did.....