Hippeis, not Hippies

[Ghostmojo]

... The “reluctance” of Sparta to tilt at war was, apparently, well known in antiquity. This is not a result of the fact that Spartans were cowardly or craven. This is the result of a conservative mindset that well knew its aims and limitations ...

It was also the continuing recognition that Spartan militarism was not essentially aimed at expansion or foreign adventures (at least not before 400 [size=85:21eur7eb]BC[/size]). Initially the need for a male warrior society was to preserve and protect the hard-won greater Lakedaimonian territory in the southern Peloponnese and their particular socio-political establishment. They had subdued Messenia; annexed Kythera; acquired various fringe areas on the Lakonian/Argolid/Arkadian borders; and created a series of client states in Elis, Arkadia and elsewhere to keep things settled as much as possible. Part of that conservatism was seemingly accepting that the boundaries of their immediate spheres of activity and influence were quite enough. They largely concerned themselves with affairs in Peloponnesos and were always reluctant to venture north of the Isthmus of Korinth.

... I must add only that I feel it is very wrong to speak of Spartans in general, not noticing the huge differences in this city before and after the great earthquake.

... Earthquake not only destroyed the city and irreplaceable number of people,it changed the mind set of the new generation citizens and the army. Soon into Peloponnesian wars Spartans became just another city state which lived off it's earlier glory...that was the time time when they abandoned the hero image, and showed great attention and desire for cosmetic uniformity in various things,clothes,hair,beard,shields and God know what other "symbols of Sparta" we know of today..all completely pointless, and irrelevant to the art of war -- which they seems to forgot somewhere along the way.

So if we talk about Spartan army being elite or not(or anything else concerning this city), we must be precise of the period. The latter post earthquake Spartans frankly did not do anything to earn the "elite" reputation. And all those "Spartans were known for" things derive from earlier times ...

It is an interesting diversion to discuss the earthquake of 464 [size=85:21eur7eb]BC[/size]. I'm not so certain we can be sure how devastating the losses were. The ancient sources may have exaggerated the loss of life, although it was certainly severe. The idea of Arkhidamos II leading the army out of the city to safety is also a curious story. You don't just form an orderly series of units and march during an earthquake - you tend to take to your heels! Sparta as a city was spread out and lacked masses of large storeyed buildings and who knows for certain were the army was stationed? Clearly the events were significant enough to create tremendous confusion and destruction, and presented an opportunity the Helots could not resist. Ultimately, the way Sparta dealt with offers of help - particularly from Athens, did much to sow mistrust between former allies of the Persian Wars. It obviously had its effect upon available and generational manpower, but I'm not certain how great it was.

... I too can “learn” by witnessing: I might perform Michael Jackson’s dance routines because I’ve witnessed them many a time. No one would want to see the result though ...

I would!!! :lol: Please post a link to youtube ... :wink: