11-21-2011, 12:07 AM
Quote:Do you think they still maintained their militaristic view of life?
I don't have any sources at hand to prove it, but I don't think so. The main reason Sparta ever became so militaristic was to keep their Helot serfs (if I may use that term) quiet; they lost most of them after the campaigns of Epaminondas when Messene was liberated. After that, tradition and ambition may have kept the Spartans going, but I cannot see Rome tolerating a militaristic, pseudo-autonomous city-state in their midst.
Compare the letter where Pliny asks for a fire brigade for Nicomedia and is told by Trajan not to organise one, since "the Greeks are likely to turn it into a political club". The Romans did have trouble with cities occasionally attacking one another (Lyon and Vienne in 69, Oxyrhynchus and Kynopolis for religious reasons sometime in the 1st century, Pompeii and Nuceria rather famously at a gladiatorial games), but they were put down in most cases. I doubt the Spartans would have gotten away with much more than some ritual traditions to keep them happy and remind them of their past whilst not being able to present a real threat. If they had such a splendid agora as Pausanias describes, then the influx of luxuries will have undermined real spartan ideals anyway.
Naturally, this is mere hypothesis.
M. Caecilius M.f. Maxentius - Max C.
Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493
Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)
Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur
- Q. Ennius, Annales, Frag. XXXI, 493
Secretary of the Ricciacus Frënn (http://www.ricciacus.lu/)