They were as good as any other....myth!

[Nikic031]

Hello everyone,

"Individually Spartans were as good as any other men....".
I started this topic because I felt it needed to be straightened out. And not tu ruin "hippeis not hippies" thread.

First, I will make a parallel between Spartan citizen soldiers with today special force units,and I have a good reason for that.Read on.

Nowhere today can the ancient Agoge be seen more closely than in these units,and nowhere today can high standards of discipline be seen,and achieved by brutal punishment than there.All members of these units come voluntary and have the same ideal in their minds(remember Tyratios’s poems).
How do I know.Not from History channel..Two of my close family members were and are members of our Gendarmerie unit,one 15years of service and one 4years(Gendarmerie here is same to British SAS only police,or even better comparison is with Russian OMON).And I talked with them on this topic and they helped me in understanding the effect and purpose of that hard drill,and will help my words having more strength to you readers.
Gendarmerie numbers 2000 men,has brutal training, and is not even the best special force here,as there is even more elite unit of SAJ(numbering some 100-150 strong,being one of the top in Europe,judging by: special force competitions,having many international awards and being declared by Israelis and British SAS as the „one in top 10 strongest in World.“).

Why did I write all this,it has strong point – SAJ and similar forces have unbelievable selection and drill,and the ferocious discipline and lack of all individuality. And their ultimate purpose as a team is perfectly organized and executed plan of action - for example storming a hijacked plane (For Spartans that was phalanx)..
BUT: Even SAJ members do not win every shooting competition as individuals,quite the opposite,they are usually second or third.They are beaten by civilian teams with better marksman,they are not the fastest runners-they get beaten often by civilian athletic competitors,they are not the strongest as they get beaten by lifters,not the best wrestlers as they get beaten there by wrestlers..But the thing is they are always in the top of the list,while wrestler sucks as shooting,shooter gets crushed in ring etc etc...That is the difference.They are the best team(twenty 2nd and 3rd places(not worse for sure) beat the one 1st and bunch of 17th,18th,and 20th places)...Just like the Spartiates. Get my point yet? That is the meaning of „Spartans are not better than others 1on1“..But not in sense you understood-that they can be matched by regular farmer,because it is surreal, but in the sense that there are some better individuals out there (just like SAJ case)..But there is no group with better average!
How can I be that sure-The system. It shapes men,men do not shape the system.

As for phalanx,well,it was the ultimate reason to do all this two decade drill.YOU CAN NOT HAVE A STRONG UNBEATABLE PHALANX WITHOUT AT LEAST EXCELLENT INDIVIDUALS(not necessarily the best out there,but the best average for sure,see above part). Phalanx is not some magical tank machine which kills on it;s own.It is broken down to two men being able to kill efficiently and be guarded by one on the right. It does not take +-23 years to master this simplest way of warfare.But it does take +-23 years to get men prepared to be a part of that machine.

And this is where my helpers go in:
Exercising only one thing(phalanx) would not get them unbeatable in it,just like running only 100m would not get you champion in it. In order to make a formidable phalanx you need a systematic training,and most of it is mental training. Quote the 15years Gendarmerie member „70 percent of drill is directed to mental toughness“. Until they think like Tyrtaios.
And then,or better say along it comes the wrestling,boxing,conditioning,sword and spear fighting and icing on the cake -phalanx perfection training (this is the room clearance and CQB etc..in special forces,you don't come to it until you are good enough).And all knew and know today,you need all of those components or you won't have a good team(phalanx).

I understand that we civilians can say „they directed training only at phalanx and as individuals they were same as farmers“.But military men laughed,honest word. They said,it does not work that way,not 2500years ago,not 1000years ago ,not today.
So comparing two decades of brutal SYSTEMATIC drill with a month a year at best of unwilling training of a regular hoplite (most of them),is just ridiculous.

And once again:
The meaning of „Spartans are not better than others 1on1“..Is not in sense many of you understood-that they can be matched by any regular farmer-soldier,but in the sense that there are some better individuals out there...But there is no group with better average(of first, second and third places in some imaginary scale of combat skill)...
And it has to be like that,system that strong and inflexible human being just can not resist,they would be made into excellent combat men even if they tried not to.AS INDIVIDUALS! BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS MAKE PHALANX,IT IS NOT MADE ON IT'S OWN.

Thank you for reading all this text.

[PMBardunias]

The meaning of „Spartans are not better than others 1on1“..Is not in sense you understood-that they can be matched by any regular farmer,but in the sense that there are some better individuals out there...But there is no group with better average(of first, second and third places in some imaginary scale of combat skill)...

I disagree completely that this was the intention of the quote. The whole point of the line is to emphasize that, due to their extensive group training, Spartans could move and fight in a level of synchrony and cohesion that was unattainable by more amateur forces, or by implication the cream of the Persian elite. It is not that Spartans were further along on a bell curve than other men in terms of individual fighting skill.

Persian immortals for example may well have been on average better individual combatants than Spartans. Why? Because they were drawn from a much larger sample set than the tiny population of Spartiates could produce. So even if the average Spartiate were better than the average Persian, the Spartans must include all of their variability, the best and the worst, while the Persians are sampling only the very best of the best to make up the immortals.

There is a famous quote comparing French and Mamluk cavalry that captures the essence of this. Paraphrased for Spartans and Persians it would read: The average Immortal could outfight a Spartan, any 10 Spartans would be an even match for 10 immortals, but 300 Spartans were more than a match for 10,000 immortals. It is all about cohesion of the group, not individual fighting skill.

The above was to specifically address the intention of the line in Herodotus, but it is probable that a Spartiate was a better individual combatant than a "farmer." But remember that many of these spent a lot of time at the gymnasium and hired the services of hoplomachoi, so it is not the same as comparing the average raw conscript with the cream of Spetsznas. The ancient sources are quite split on the usefulness of individual weapons skills, like those taught by hoplomachoi, in any case. Plato tells us that the Spartans had no use for them (Laches), and Xenophon (cyropaedia) tells us that it takes no training to use a sword- any kid will know how to strike and you can't miss in a phalanx. As for mental toughness and a willingness to fight, this is of course hard to guage, but the ancient Greeks were a very agonistic society, so there was a lot of this as well.

[Nikic031]

I disagree completely that this was the intention of the quote.

I did not question the original quote.Just the poor explanations of it given here many times.

The whole point of the line is to emphasize that, due to their extensive group training, Spartans could move and fight in a level of synchrony and cohesion that was unattainable by more amateur forces, or by implication the cream of the Persian elite.

That is the point.We agree on that

We also agree on that Persian - Spartan comparison,although they were not typical adversaries. So I am not sure would an Immortal(as Herodotus called them) be superior to the heavy hoplite,or how high was Persian "best of the best" on a Greek scale.But I got your point.

It is all about cohesion of the group, not individual fighting skill.

Of course.But what makes the cohesion?
Your sentence as a rule applies only if there was a group of average individuals in a good team,fighting against good individuals in a bad team..Than individual skill would be more or less useless.
And none of those is good!!! And neither of those qualities alone make a good army!!! Every battle would be a gamble if you were in one of those teams.

So it does not apply to Spartans because we know they were an excellent team, and their system tells us they could not be nothing less than above average individuals in both armed and unarmed combat,morale and discipline.

"Xenophon (cyropaedia) tells us that it takes no training to use a sword- any kid will know how to strike and you can't miss in a phalanx"

Wait...I don't even think of sword fighting when talking about individual skill.Usage of sword is different story. Individual skill is much more a matter of fitness,strength,morale,discipline,perception,training...All are individual skills, and all are needed for an excellent phalanx.

[Paullus Scipio]

Nikic031 wrote

So I am not sure would an Immortal(as Herodotus called them) be superior to the heavy hoplite,or how high was Persian "best of the best" on a Greek scale.

Herodotus probably knew the answer to that:

First here is what Demaratus, an exiled Spartan King said:

Personally I do not claim to be able to fight ten men - or two; indeed I should prefer not even to fight with one.But should it be necessary - should there be some great cause to urge me on - then nothing would give me more pleasure than to stand up to one of those men of yours who claim to be a match to three Greeks. So it is with the Spartans; fighting singly, they are as good as any, but fighting together they are the best soldiers in the world.

....and he goes on to give the reason as discipline under their iron law.

Evidently Demaratus didn't think much of his chances one-on-one with an Immortal........

And at Plataea, Herodotus explains why the Persians lost, and it had nothing to do with courage or 'martial arts skills' :

...in courage and strength they[the persians] were as good as their adversaries[the Spartans], but they were deficient in armour, untrained, and greatly inferior in skill. [ that is, untrained to fight as a phalanx, en masse, and unskilled at the drill that allowed the line to move as one, as becomes apparent in the next few lines] Sometimes singly, sometimes in groups of ten - perhaps fewer, perhaps more - they fell upon the Spartan line and were cut down....while Mardonius was alive, they continued to resist and to defend themselves, and struck down many of the Lacedaemonians; but after his death and the destruction of his personal guard - the finest of the Persian troops - the remainder yielded to the Lacedaemonians and took to flight. The chief cause of their discomforture was their lack of armour ['hopla' = Hoplite arms including shield, helmet, and large thrusting spear - bigger and heavier than the Persian one], fighting without it against heavily armed infantry.[Hoplites]

.

....yet despite their inferior equipment and lack of skill at fighting as a phalanx en masse, they managed to kill "many Lacedaemonians". I think these lines tell us that man for man, the Spartans were not superior to other men......

[Nikic031]

I think these lines tell us that man for man, the Spartans were not superior to other men......

If any conclusion can be made out of this English translation of ancient text, it is man for a man(probably without armor) Spartans were not superior to other...Persians.

And I was not talking about Persian-Greek comparison,especially because they have two completely different fighting styles,different armor weapon and tactic and are not typical adversaries...

Demaratus was talking in Persian wars context, and we translated it into "Any regular Greek hoplite from any city could take Spartan one on one".And that is what I am fighting against here.
Spartiates were not football hooligans to be dangerous only in masses..they were carefully raised,relatively small group of something that is ancient equivalent to professional soldiers and they could be matched only by other well trained men one on one...And in their speciality-phalanx they evidently could not be matched by any. At least in the glory days (roughly speaking - late 7th,6th,early 5th BC...)

Curiass to curiass,shield to shield, helmet to helmet is what can be compared. Greeks fought with same tactic and same equipment with each other. I would like to know how can it be possible for a regular "man turned to hoplite in times of war" to defeat Spartan citizen who was trained in the art of war(wrestling,boxing,pankration,spear,sword,shield etc etc and finally combining it into phalanx) very seriously since he was a child??

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Well,lets try another way of comparison: Not only Spartans,but other "untrained" greek armies did equally well against the Persians in the same period. The Athenians defeated them with minimal losses. And even in Plataia the Spartans were not the only ones who were doing well. And if the Spartans were so hard pressed(and i'm telling you,because i visited the place,Spartans were in a favorable position in that battle) then one would think that other greeks were much more hard pressed due to their "lack of trainning", but they didn't break.

In another note,Pericles was teasing the Spartans for trainning all their life to do what the Athenians were doing anyway! And no one would say that the Athenian phalanx was better than the Spartan,yet it had perhaps succeded more victories than the Spartan one in the 5th century! And yes,we didn't finally see an open battle of Athenian and Spartan hoplites,but there is no reason to exagerate about the poor Spartans! The evidence from those who saw them,fought alongside them and lived them is in front of our eyes.Yet,we continue raising them in standards equal to modern day tv-martial artists! It's only not fair for them!
Khaire
Giannis

[Nikic031]

[size=130:1upr1ulz] Cleomenes, son of Anaxandridas

When somebody inquired of him why Spartans do not dedicate to the gods the spoils from their enemies, he said, "Because they are taken from cowards."[/size]

I will end it here. Who wanted to understand the point understood it,from my first text.Who wants to undermine the strength of these men can do that as well.
I was not talking about Persian men,Medes,Immortals(as Herodotus called them),nor comparing Persians to Spartans or any other Greeks.There was no need to bring them up,but anyway I thank to those who did shared these "Persian vs Greek" examples with us...

Greek on Greek,typical Spartan citizen could be defeated only by equally trained man, or some "Son of Zeus" the wunderkind of his village/city like Milon of Croton...Not because Eurotas had some magic potion in it,but because of the system that made good warriors on purpose.Don't degrade that.

[Ghostmojo]

I've stayed out of this one, but briefly I feel inclined to concur. If there wasn't any point to the life-long rearing of hardened individuals to produce toughened fighters - then the Spartan Agoge wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. The fact that other states eventually produced equally tough warriors, through other means, does not diminish the high regard with which Spartan soldiers were held - even in their twilight period. There was always a mirage at work when viewing Sparta, but one should remember there is also no smoke without fire.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And one should at last read and remember what the ancients and the Spartans themselves thought about their men, and what this agoge (for which we know so,but so little in reality) was all about and what men it produced. And it produced specialized men in something. Now if you want to call them as the ancient equivalent of any modern team,call them so,but know that you are without base.
Poor Spartans,there has been written about them by modern historians and peaple more than what any ancient historian ever wrote or even indicated. It is a pity because it seems indeed that thr Spartans were some spectacular peaple with a spectacular state, but they simply weren't spectacular in the way that most modern peaple would perceive it.
Such discussions always make me think of filmaker of historical movies where if you ask them why the costumes are like that and why the soldiers fight like that,they will reply "but because it looks so much more fancy than the reality" and they never think that reality may had actually been greater,but less fancy.
So yes,the spartans had an educational system that lasted many years,and yes,they were focusing on war,but how exactly we don't know,and because one spartan general is said after centuries to have indicated that his foes were cowards it doesn't say anything.
Khairete
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Greek on Greek,typical Spartan citizen could be defeated only by equally trained man, or some "Son of Zeus" the wunderkind of his village/city like Milon of Croton...Not because Eurotas had some magic potion in it,but because of the system that made good warriors on purpose.Don't degrade that.

....let us go beyond the myth and look, as best we can, at the actual historical record of Spartan armies - complicated by the fact that Spartan'Homioi' provided the minority of troops in 'Allied' armies ( which I have gone into on another thread) - it is worth repeating here.

That in the 5C BC, when Sparta was at it's military peak they won around 50% of their battles ( c.f. Athens 69% success rate).....though this is a little misleading ! They won 80 % of major battles - also misleading, see below, ( 470 BC Tegea; 464 BC Dipaea; 457 BC Tanagra 1; 423 BC Lyncestis; 422 BC Amphipolis; 418 Mantinea 1; 404 BC Porus and 403 BC Halae Marsh) but only 37% of minor ones and skirmishes ( Athens won 68% of major ones, and 69% of minor ones)....Of these ONLY 1st Mantinea involved the Spartan army in strength.

It would seem that Pericles boast, referred to above by Giannis, had a good basis in truth ! Athenians were indeed more successful than Spartans :lol: :lol:

That in the 4 C BC they won only one clear-cut victory ( Nemea 394 BC) . Coronea was a technical win ( the Thebans recovered their dead under truce - but were elated that they had broken through the Spartans twice), but more of a draw - but there was only one Spartan 'Mora' present, and the initial struggle was arguably decided by the Cyrean mercenaries ( digression: Plutarch refers to fifty 'volunteers/friends of King Agesilaos who acted as his 'bodyguard' on this occasion. )

Four years later, at Lechaion, a Spartan 'Mora'/brigade was heavily defeated by Athenian peltasts.

Leuktra (371 BC) was a significant defeat, of course, with the death of King Cleombrotus, and the subsequent loss of Messenia destroyed Spartan power forever.

At the "Tearless Battle" in 368 BC, the Arcadian and Argive foes apparently fled before the clash, and there was no real battle.... (Xen Hellenica VII.1. Plutarch 'Life of Agesilaos' XXXII.3)

At second Mantinea (362 BC ) the Spartans were once again on the verge of defeat but were saved only by the death of Epaminondas.

In all this, we have only two decisive victories against other hoplites - 1st Mantinea (418 BC)- almost lost by King Agis' manoeuvring blunder, but superior drill allowed outflanking and 'rolling up' of the enemy line, at some cost. The Battle of Nemea (394 BC)was the same - a right flank manoeuvre, product of superior drill.

All in all, a pretty dismal record if the Spartans really were an 'elite' army. It seems, despite their professionalism at drill and manoeuvre etc, the idea of Spartans being an 'elite' army was a total myth !!

...and of course these results for the 4 C BC, as partially referred to above ! ( Tenygra - lost; Leuktra - lost; 'The tearless battle' - no contest win; second Mantinea -a draw thanks to the death of Epaminondas; various minor battles lost )

.....and all this time the 'Agoge' - which was not , as far as we know, martial arts training, continued......

[PMBardunias]

I will end it here. Who wanted to understand the point understood it,from my first text.Who wants to undermine the strength of these men can do that as well.

I am quite sure that I have spent more time online "defending" Spartans than you, mostly because I am from Sparta! The one thing that is more damaging than those who seek to denegrate their society, is those who turn them into cartoon superheroes (a la "300").

What did they learn in the Agoge? To "give orders and take them." In short, to manage men in groups, which is why they were called an army of officers. Sparta was not a Shao-Lin temple, pumping out martial artists, and not every Spartan had fox-claw marks on his belly.

What did they gain from this training? They had a tactical flexibility that allowed them to drag their hind ends out of the fire more than once- usually from catastrophes of their own making. It is a classic example of how a small group, and Spartiates were always few comparatively, works together to multiply their own force through greater cohesion and mobility.

Epaminondas was more than happy when the Spartiates in Thebes decided to wrestle with the locals, for his Thebans gained confidence in beating them. Treating Spartans as superior individual combatants obscures the real beauty of their system. They created a landed gentry that were as enured to the hardships of war as a peasant farmer, with the skills of both huntsman and athlete, and the ability to work together of veteran drill team.

[Paullus Scipio]

...and I would heartily endorse that view ! Couldn't have put it better! D

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

It was like paraphrasing my previous posts,this means i also agree in everything.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

On a related note, unless you don't like this type of music, these guys rock: http://www.holy-martyr.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-fitj3Bc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFnBM8WU66M

[PMBardunias]

This is I think a perfect analogy for what we are attempting to convey: The upset of the American olympic basketball "dream team" by the Greeks. http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/wbc2006/n ... id=2568543

From the article:

Dwight Howard dunked emphatically. Dwyane Wade bounced the ball off the backboard, caught it and stuffed. Elton Brand jammed an alley-oop pass. Finally, LeBron James flew down the lane for a tomahawk...The U.S. has dazzling skill; the Greeks are a dazzling team.

The lack of experience -- and familiarity with each other -- was glaringly obvious against a Greek squad that has been together three years.

I think we showed everybody that maybe we're not very good athletes like them, but we know how to play the game," said Greek guard Theodoros Papaloukas, who carved up the U.S. defense with 12 assists. "We are clever."

"It's hard for one team, if they have so many big players, in one month to adapt to their new roles," Papaloukas said. "All these players are big stars, but you have to do small different things. I think that was the difference: In our team, everybody knew what they had to do exactly."