Battle of Leuktra 371 BC

[PMBardunias]

...merely that the horrific treatment meted out to Athens mine slaves, and which did not ( as far as we know) occur in Lakonia was not because of any high 'morality' on the part of the Homioi, but simply because they didn't have silver mines to exploit.

I agree its probably impossible to run a benevolent slave mine, but to cut through this recurring misunderstanding, Spartans seem not to have extended a "moral" code to their dealings with helots any more than they would the managing of their game populations in the mountains for hunting. Spartan "morals" were generally external and based on the perception of others. One example of a merciful Spartiate I can think of is the "saying" where the Spartan says: "were I less angry I would kill you." Not something we would recognize as morally "good", simply a wish to not seem out of control. Since the only impact desired on Messenian helots was cowering fear, we would not expect "mercy" as our moral code defines it. Mercy was saved for thier greek foes- as in not persuing hard after victory in battle or razing defeated cities- and was always expedient and based on a calculated result.

As to the Helots status, if to kill a slave capriciously is to throw away money, what then of capriciously killing a serf who whilst allocated to you, technically belongs to the State?

Population control. If killing one state-owned serf keeps a thousand quiescent, then it is good policy. If that one slave were owned by an individual, then the cost would be felt acutely. There does not seem to have been a shortage of helots.

If the Krypteia did terrorise Helots by 'liquidating' trouble-makers on behalf of the State, then how is that significantly different to the KGB or CIA doing the same in our own times?

Leaving aside that I am unaware of the CIA slaughtering american citizens in great numbers and only fear their incompetance, the KGB analogy may not be so far off, since it grew out of a tradition of terrorizing serfs under the Romanovs not so dissimilar to Helots.

Which brings me to another point. There is a clear difference between Messenian helots and Lakonian helots. The latter evidently felt as if they 'belonged' to Lakonian society, as their persistent loyalty and repeated willingness to serve as Neodamodeis Hoplites, and serve well, demonstrates. ( And for Sparta, a cheap alternative to mercenary Hoplites)........and that they themselves felt their status was different from that of slaves. ( Athens could not utilise its massive slave manpower for military purposes, save in dire need it freed slaves to act as rowers....you can't run away on a ship.)

Thanks for pointing this out so forcefully, I have been confining most comments to Messenian helots. As you note, Laconian helots were a different beast. The fact that so many could afford to buy their freedom shows this dramatically. I believe that Laconian helots probably viewed themselves as a caste of Lakedaimonia- like low caste Hindus, though perhaps less accepting of the status- while Messenians were never truly integrated into society and retained a conquored population status. The main difference being that a Laconian helot might want to move up within Laconian society and a Messenian would simply want to cast off Laconian the presence.

To tie this back into the thread, the helot situation in Messania and Laconia must be understood to make any sense of the Theban policy following Leuktra- and more importantly why it was impossible to "liberate" the Laconian helots in the same way.