Battle of Leuktra 371 BC

[PMBardunias]

I would see an argument based around the derailment of any Panhellenic crusade as anachronistic.

My point exactly, panhellenism was a mirage, and the notion of "selling out" rediculous in context. Greeks never suffered one of their own to rule for long. The talk of uniting under greek leadership was by turns a pipe dream of those who knew it would never happen and a propaganda tool of those abusing power.

It most likely reflects an upbringing in ancient history (the seventies) wherein Sparta still was the admired state that so effected the British public school system. Much was brought to bear to defend her actions.

In America we have the same blind allegiance to Athens. The Myth of the peaceful democracy is still governing our foreign policy. I don't write this to try to make Sparta "better" than the rest of the Greeks, simply to show she was subject to exactly the same excesses. Putting her on a pedestal of treachery adds to the mirage no less that making her a state of moral ubermen or goblin fighting lovers of liberty.

In relation to the above this is usually the first argument brought to bear. It is a view that ignores the Persian naval activity - the first (ignoring its direct financing of Spartan fleets) since the Peace of Kallias - in the Agean which detached Rhodes from Sparta and eventually resulted in the Spartan's catestrophic defeat at Cnidus. This activity - direct Persian activity - had begun during Agesilaos' actions in Asia Minor. Again, were we left only with Xenophon, we'd know little of this as well.

Again just as I said. Sparta was openly at war with Persia. Not surprising since she was romping through Anatolia. Part of the Persian plan was to foment revolt in her rear. This is what occurred and Sparta had to recoil back on her mainland possessions. The same tactic was attempted unsuccessfully against Alexander, this time with Spartan help, while the Athenians sat it out- cementing Macedonian rule of Greece.

Now if the Greek states truly viewed panhellenism as a goal to be achieved they would have not done exactly what the Persians wanted them to do. Instead they did not care much about panhellenism and, rightly, sought to trade an overbearing Hegemon in close proximity, for the increased influence of a far distant and far more mild Persian presence. If I recall, a generation later the Thebans are actually using the fact that they among the mainland Greeks fought on their side at Plataea to win Persian influence over the Spartans. Persia was simply another player in the global politics of the day, against whom a "panhellenic crusade" could be drummed up at need and cast aside just as easily when politically expedient.

[quote]The Greek states, far from derailing Sparta’s “liberationâ€

[Paralus]

My point exactly, panhellenism was a mirage, and the notion of "selling out" rediculous in context. Greeks never suffered one of their own to rule for long. The talk of uniting under greek leadership was by turns a pipe dream of those who knew it would never happen and a propaganda tool of those abusing power.

We are largely of the same opinion on most things. That last line – correct in all senses – applies directly to both Philip II and Alexander. It was the bedclothes that covered the imperial animal that the League of Corinth shared its bed with.

We differ with the use of my term “sell-outâ€

[PMBardunias]

We are largely of the same opinion on most things.

I am glad to see this, we simply come at it from different biases.

The Key to understanding Spartan policy, and thus Xenophon, is to remember that there were three Spartas. One that was the facade put up for consumption by other states, one that represented the official policy of the Spartan government, and the last that was the reality of the actions of spartans abroad, often at odds with the other two.

Xenophon often portrays the first, obfuscates on the second, he himself may not have always been sure (I'm not sure the spartan government was sure either!), and is capricious in the details of the last- depending on his relationship with the actors.

[quote]We differ with the use of my term “sell-outâ€

[Paullus Scipio]

Gentlemen, a wonderful debate!! D

Laudes to you both.....

[Paralus]

PMBardunias\\n[quote][quote]We differ with the use of my term “sell-outâ€

[PMBardunias]

No, not a 'general consensus' treacherously traduced, just a public declaration - if we take Thucydides' portrayal - that the aim of the war declared by Sparta was to "liberate the Hellenes".

I have no problem with that narrow definition. Spartan realpolitik is something we both seem to understand- as long as we don't single them out for it. This was my point in bringing up Conon and the Athenians perfectly reasonable support of Persia against a fellow Greek polis. Their support for Persia, and the war against Sparta, was the ultimate cause of the casting aside of the Ionian greeks. But for their rebellion and support of a non-greek, Ionia would have been "free." Surely they knew this, did the calculation, and decided that being free of Sparta was worth forcing the spartans to lose control of Ionia in favor of Persia. Helping persian sea power to make support of Ionia impossible was their aim (as well as anything else that required access by sea). Poor Ionians should have remembered to "beware Greeks bearing treaties."

A situation that, by the time of the common peace with Thebes as prostatai was near a century out of date.

Greeks, especially Spartans, had a long memory for such things.

[Paralus]

I have no problem with that narrow definition. Spartan realpolitik is something we both seem to understand- as long as we don't single them out for it. This was my point in bringing up Conon and the Athenians perfectly reasonable support of Persia...

Correct: they should not be singled out for it; it was a most Greek thing. It's just that Sparta's lingering "most noble of the Greeks" thingy seems to linger: the legacy of Thermopylae and their rhetoric of "liberty for the Hellenes". Why even the monument at Thermpolylae was a Spartan one until the nineties when the poor old Thespians were added. Still no mention of the helots who likely died with their masters either.

Athens - rightly - gets a good going over for its imperial hubris (so eloquently summed up in Thucydides' narration of the Sicilian expedition and the Melian Dialogue for example). Yet in all these centuries the slavery that dare not be mentioned - that of the Lakonian towns and Messenia - is looked away from or explained away. Not as much nowadays I'd admit.

All had a go at in turn: Athens, Sparta and then Thebes. Thebes' moment in the sun may, in fact, be the most romanticised. Epaminondas (wouldn't it be nice to have Plutarch's biography?) is idealised as the "greatest of Greek statesmen" in some quarters. A man who would lead Thebes and, one suspects, Greece into some new age of Hellenic rationality.

Right. No mention of the fleet that Thebes was busy trying to construct so as to relieve itself of its "ally" Athens. Have fleet will conquer - especially a major rival whose throat - literally and figuratively - resided in the narrows of the Hellespont. Nor of its king-making in Macedonia (via Pelopidas) which came back to bite it hard.

The real genius in Epaminondas' work was the insight that enabled him to not only emasculate Sparta but to set up power blocks in the Peloponnese that would keep its bellicosity busy with something bite on. All the while Thebes was free to move elsewhere. Philip II learned well. In 338/7 he built upon Epaminondas’ existing structures.

I'd differ on any Greek polis supporting Persia. Persia switched its support from Sparta to, initially, Athens to curb Spartan activity in Asia Minor. It then suported Sparta, via Antalcidas, to curb Athens' growing interference in its affairs.

Poor Ionians should have remembered to "beware Greeks bearing treaties."

He, he. To which I’d only add “mainlandâ€

[Paralus]

Oh dear! Appears I garnered some applause!

Much oblidged Paullus.

Just when I thought I was boring the socks off the forum...

[hoplite14gr]

Hmm....can't say I disagree.

All this mess though was forseen last century by various people.
Both in Athens and Sparta were fractions believing that Panhellenism was the only medicine for ensuring safety of the mainland.

Yet the bane of Greece was and is petty politics. Demagoges made sure that people like Pausanias and Cimon would be exterminated physicaly and moraly by appealing to the basest instincts of the mobs. The rest is history as we know it.

Unfortunately info on Epameinondas come from excrepts of Plutarch and C. Nepo.

KInd regards

[Paralus]

Both in Athens and Sparta were fractions believing that Panhellenism was the only medicine for ensuring safety of the mainland.

True in as far as it goes. Amongst the "elites" there were those who had some truck with panhellenism of one stripe or another. They were, though, the exception that proved the rule. Isocrates, in fact, represented that elite which sought restoration of order not only in the "uniting of Greece" against the "common enemy" but also in the transportation of that trash that ruined Greece: Iphicrites and his ilk. Settle the riff-raff in Greece's soon to be spear-won lebensraum in Asia.

Unfortunately info on Epameinondas come from excrepts of Plutarch and C. Nepo.

More's the pity. He seemed an incisive politico-strategic thinker. His meticulous dismemberement of the Spartan socio-military support system proved masterful.

KInd regards

[PMBardunias]

Athens - rightly - gets a good going over for its imperial hubris (so eloquently summed up in Thucydides' narration of the Sicilian expedition and the Melian Dialogue for example). Yet in all these centuries the slavery that dare not be mentioned - that of the Lakonian towns and Messenia - is looked away from or explained away. Not as much nowadays I'd admit.

Here is where we fall out again. The Messenian helots were not enslaved, this is pure anti-spartan propaganda, they were serfs and the difference is far more than semantic. Every state in Greece was rife with true chattel slaves, many of them fellow Greeks, so there was no pseudo-abolishonist movement. What there was, was a realization that by creating a state that never existed historically as a united political unit, giving them a real big capitol, and calling them Messenia would fetter Sparta.

As for the Laconians, I'm guessing you mean the Laconian helots and not the Perioic towns, for surely there can be no question of these being enslaved. The political organization in Laconia is far too complex to charaterize it as simply domination from Sparta. The continuous support of Perioic towns and Laconian helots during threatened or actual invasion of Laconia show this to be the case. I don't buy the notion of a mass case of Stockholm syndrome.

[hoplite14gr]

Paul mostly agree.
The only dark spot is that Spartans could at the begining of the year legaly execute a vast number of helots when the Ephors declared war on them.

As for the Laconian towns they were dowing most non military functionss tha society needs and they didno have the burden of the "agoge" or constant military service. and until mid-4th century they had never seen their lands devastated-Spartan Army had seen to it. So why not support a bunch of "canon-fodder" that kept you safe?

But remember until roughly 400 B.C. slaves (douloi) were more or less serfs or intenured servants rathe than slaves as we understand them today.
So there were not much difference between helots and slaves.

Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

Paul mostly agree.
The only dark spot is that Spartans could at the begining of the year legaly execute a vast number of helots when the Ephors declared war on them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Spartans were nice to the Helots, only that they were nothing like Chattel slaves. Serfdom can be much worse than slavery. No one decares war on their property, so the fact that you would declare war on them annually goes a long way towards proving that they were viewed as a conquored serf class.

As for the Laconian towns they were dowing most non military functionss tha society needs and they didno have the burden of the "agoge" or constant military service. and until mid-4th century they had never seen their lands devastated-Spartan Army had seen to it. So why not support a bunch of "canon-fodder" that kept you safe?

I agree completely. As you may know, I study social insects for a living, termites and ants, so this kind of society, with specific warrior and worker castes, is familiar to me. The caste system in India and ancient Egypt and Israel, are perhaps a more closely intgrated example. Each caste has benefits and costs.

But remember until roughly 400 B.C. slaves (douloi) were more or less serfs or intenured servants rathe than slaves as we understand them today.

You are referring to the state controlling and apportioning helot labor, even for private use, until this date? Tell me more, i'm not sure what changed in 400.

[hoplite14gr]

Actually Ancient Greeks had two terms.
Doulos = = intenured servant
Andrapodo = literally "walking thing" non entity

In Arcahic period a Greek would be hypodoulos = under force obligation to serve or work. The only case of andrapoda is for Kirreans after the Holy War.
But they were punished for sacriledge.
Usually andrapoda made the non-Greeks (i.e. Persian Prisoners)

Eksandrapodismos appears very much after the Pelopenessian War where political grudges and brutalization from a long struggle affected the people.

Cretans seem to had a public owned serf class from the Dorean invasion round 1100 and Hellenistic Era. Usually ex-Achaic-minoic people who didn´t migrate to Cyprus (Eteocretes) were the serf class.

Kind regards

[Paralus]

The Messenian helots were not enslaved, this is pure anti-spartan propaganda, they were serfs and the difference is far more than semantic. Every state in Greece was rife with true chattel slaves, many of them fellow Greeks, so there was no pseudo-abolishonist movement. What there was, was a realization that by creating a state that never existed historically as a united political unit, giving them a real big capitol, and calling them Messenia would fetter Sparta.

Quickly, as I need to get to the office. The Messenian helots were, in no real way, "free". Yes every state (and notable) in Greece existed off "slave" labour - particularly Athens in its Laurium mines as an example. They were a percentage of Greek and mostly "others". They enabled the flourishing of Athenian democracy and culture. The difference is that Athens did not set about subjugating the entire population of Attica and reduce it to agrarian serfdom in support of its minority citizen elite. In fact Sparta reduced an area (not checking maps here) larger than (certainly more productive) and more populous than Attica to agrarian serfdom to support its minority elite. This by might of arms. This is no anti-Spartan "propaganda"; rather history as we know it. Thus the helots were always ready to “eat the homoioi aliveâ€