Spartan helots in battle

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

....nor should it be forgotten that the life of a Spartan Helot was little or no different from that of a serf/peasant/poor villager in Attica or Boetia or anwhere else for that matter.....

However,Paul,we should also admit that the slave in Athens had a chance of gaining back his freedom,if he were a skilled craftsman,or his master sent him to work for another citizen or for the state.But on the other hand,a citizen could become a slave could he not pay back what he borrowed from his neighbour.This fact shows some of the nature of slavery in Greece.
In contrast,helots were theoretically considered war captives and thus could be treated in whatever way...Just some thoughts
Khaire
Giannis

[hoplite14gr]

Paul before 430 B.C. the helot had the risk of Crypteia dagger in his back so he was slightly worse.

No Giannis they would always look to you as an upstart and make sure you get the shitty asssignments...and give you the demeaning look

...By the way ourfriedly Persian recruiter is taking about double rations double pay and a silk chiton at the end of service.
Its alow risk job of whacking some Egyptian rebels. What ever souvenirs we find is ours. Dot you get tired of three obols per day rowing hards and the Megarean steersman screaming at you?

Lets go to exotic places and whack exotic people and get paid for it :twisted:

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

This is what we would actually do after 404 bc...And if we are helots living somewhere near the borders with Arcadia,well...we have a good chance following some big hairy guy in his jurneys to the east.If we stay alive,we'd return back rich enough to buy these villages,Sparta :wink: 8)

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis, I believe you are talking about Athens before the reforms of Cleisthenes and others.....
But my point was merely that the 'tillers of the soil' had much the same lifestyle whichever place they lived.
But your point about them being permanent 'war captives' is a good one - Plutarch tells us that Aristotle recorded that on taking office, the Ephors would renew the 'Declaration of War' against the Helots, so that it was not unlawful to kill them, so their lot was not a secure one !.........on the other hand, as Jona has pointed out with regard to the Krypteia, we should take much of Plutarch's more sensational reports with a grain of salt.
For that matter, it was not unusual for the rich and powerful to have the power of life and death over the poor anywhere in the ancient world

[qcarr]

This is a very interesting topic, and all of you have made excellent points. One thing that may be relevant is that Laconian helots seem to have had a very different status in Spartan society than their Messenian cousins. Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly where I read this, but am pretty sure it came from one of the ancient sources.

Is it likely that Spartiates took Laconian helots to battle with them more often than Messenians? Did the Krypteia operate more in Messenia than Laconia? Why didn't the local helots revolt after Epaminondas' liberation of Messenia?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

It is logical,in the sence that Laconians were closer to their masters in Sparta and thus could be controled easier.Also,origin was importand back then and the fact that Spartans were Laconians,too,with the same Deities,ancestors,heroes etc,probably made them more "friendly" to Spartans.
Don't forget that Laconia was captured befor Messenia and for centuries Spartans and Messenians were at war.Probably the Messenians were true war captives when the Laconians were servants for generations.
All these reasons and more,made the Spartans more suspicious towards Messenians than Laconian helots.
Now,I suppose helots were following the Spartans as private servants,like in other cities.This would mean that each Spartan would have helots from his personal cleros with him.This cleros could have been either in Messenia or Laconia,so there should not have been clear separation between them.
In fact,some time in the Arxhaic times,Sparta increased the number of homioi from the aristocratic to more "lower" cast citizens.This imcrease in number of homioi lead to the need fore more cleroi,so they captured Messenia.At that point,Messenian helots may have been more,as the new citizens were more numerous and their farmes were in Messenia.
Ok,I admit,I may exagerated a bit :lol: :oops:
Khaire
Giannis

[Jona Lendering]

One thing that may be relevant is that Laconian helots seem to have had a very different status in Spartan society than their Messenian cousins. Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly where I read this, but am pretty sure it came from one of the ancient sources.

I have never heard of Laconian helots and have always understood that helotism was sort of created to accomodate an ethnically different, totally subject nation. Is it possible that you are thinking about the perioikoi of Laconia? I may be wrong, though.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

No,helots were just helots,not separated in Messenians and Laconians.Everywhere that there were farms belonging to Spartans,there were helots.But helots for themselves must have had an ethnical identity,especially the Messenians,as they could not from one day to the next become just helots.They must have continued to have their own customs etc,so even if they typically did not have a different status than the Laconian or any other helot,they must have been treated with more suspicion.At least inofficially.

[hoplite14gr]

Well in the Archaic world where family, clan and tribe were sacred the Spartans "innovated" The old Achaic families of Lakonia allied with the coastal Acheans of Messenia subjugated the Kresphondidae Doreans of Messenia. There was a chance that some Acheans in Laconia had helot status probably in the area of Elos if we belive Strabo and a distinction between Achean and Laconian helots could not be ruled out but there are slim evidence supporting it.

The "unusual" status of helots was probably a Spartan oddity as we have no informtation of similar harsh treatment of subjects from the Cretan Doreans, Beotians or even Thessalians. And we know from fragments of Athenian orators that slaves could go suppliants to a temple asking to be sent to a not cruel master.

Generaly the Greek distinguished betwwen DOULOI -servants or serfs and ANDRAPODA-(lit. wlaking things).
The DOYLOS had legal status the ANDRAPODON did not.
Douloi would support their master in a city defence since the enemy victors might make them ANDRAPODA espacialy if the enemies were non Greeks.

[qcarr]

I have never heard of Laconian helots and have always understood that helotism was sort of created to accomodate an ethnically different, totally subject nation. Is it possible that you are thinking about the perioikoi of Laconia? I may be wrong, though.

I really need to go back to the books to confirm, but I believe that the original helots were "natives" of Laconia subjugated by the Spartans before the Messenian Wars. These original helots must have consisted in large part of inhabitants in and around the villages of Sparta proper as most non-Spartan Laconians in Classical times were perioikoi.

A quick scan of W. G. Forrest A History of Sparta 950-192 B.C. yields this on pp. 32-33: "...there is no record of a campaign against any of the coastal cities except Helos at the north-east corner of the Gulf which had Argive backing. This was reduced by force in (Pausanias again) the reign of King Alkamenes, c. 740 to c. 700, and here a new feature appears--the people of Helos suffered the same fate as the Messenians suffered(c. 715), they were enslaved as Helots (some Greek scholars saw here the origin of the name)."

I guess Helos was not quite "in and around the villages of Sparta proper," but it was in Laconia.

[Jona Lendering]

Thanks!

[floofthegoof]

Holy Cow! You guys are right! I'm a..... slave!

Yeah, I guess it's not that bad.