Spartans in white? Surely not!

[Paullus Scipio]

The term is therefore a very useful catch-all phrase enabling the Spartans to cleverly conceal the peculiar strata of their society, into one seemingly homogeneous whole.

Indeed! However,this whole was not homogenous in status,and thus could not be homogenous in look,so since they fought all together,their battle line as the army of Sparta would not be homogenous either.

Khaire
Giannis

I seem to recall that at one battle (Sphacteria? ) Spartan(Homioi) dead could not be distinguished from others ( I am in Europe currently and away from my sources! ), which argues that they were homogenous - either all alike in uniform or, more likely in my view, that none wore 'uniform' and that they were homogenous because all were individually dressed.....

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And on the Thespian thing, if they were praising Spartans at a place with only Spartans and was refering to Thermopylae then in my eyes its more likely they talked about the Thespians as well who heroicly died with the Spartans.

Well,OK,if you have to believe that the perioikoi were not fighting alongside the Spartans and that they wouldn't deserve to be memorized for being as brave as some Thespians!

which argues that they were homogenous - either all alike in uniform or, more likely in my view, that none wore 'uniform' and that they were homogenous because all were individually dressed.....

By not homogenous i meant basicly what you also said,that they were all individually dressed and thus not distinguishable. Perhaps the word was wrong and i ashould have said "not uniform".
Khaire
Giannis

[Phalanx300]

And on the Thespian thing, if they were praising Spartans at a place with only Spartans and was refering to Thermopylae then in my eyes its more likely they talked about the Thespians as well who heroicly died with the Spartans.

Well,OK,if you have to believe that the perioikoi were not fighting alongside the Spartans and that they wouldn't deserve to be memorized for being as brave as some Thespians!

The Periokoi did fought but didn't fought to the last man like the Thespians did, and it was most likely Thespias entire Hoplite force and they stayed willingly. Now I'm very sure the Spartans were impressed by that.

[Ghostmojo]

And on the Thespian thing, if they were praising Spartans at a place with only Spartans and was refering to Thermopylae then in my eyes its more likely they talked about the Thespians as well who heroicly died with the Spartans.

Well,OK,if you have to believe that the perioikoi were not fighting alongside the Spartans and that they wouldn't deserve to be memorized for being as brave as some Thespians!

The Periokoi did fought but didn't fought to the last man like the Thespians did, and it was most likely Thespias entire Hoplite force and they stayed willingly. Now I'm very sure the Spartans were impressed by that.

I absolutely agree with you.

Leonidas dismissed all the confederate Greek troops save (a) his 300 (by now 250+?) bodyguard; (b) the 400 Theban contingent (hostages or volunteers?) nominally commanded by Leontiades; and © the 700 Thespians who elected to stay of their own volition under their leader Demophilos. The Thebans as we know chose to surrender (for whatever reason) and the others died to a man - approximately 1000 men. I'm not aware of where this Perioikoi contingent comes into it. What are the references for their remaining with the Spartiates? Agreed, they were supposed to follow wherever the Spartans led - but in this instance Leonidas would not have expected that degree of sacrifice and I doubt these Lakonian (part-time) warriors were prepared to make it - especially when other Peloponnesian troops were returning home. Even the attendant helots were not expected to follow their masters to the grave - although we know some brave fellows chose to do so.

I think Arkhidamos was referring to all the brave fallen in the pass as Spartans and Thespians. In fact I'm certain of it. The Spartans (kings included) were not above praising and honouring others when necessary. Their recognition of the supreme part Athens played in the Persian War guaranteed that city's survival after the Peloponnesian War when Corinth and Thebes amongst others were clamouring for its destruction. Had there been Perioikoi amongst the fallen at the Thermopylai last stand - I'm sure Herodotos would have told us.

Perioikoi may have fallen in the daily fighting prior to the last day - but I seriously doubt they hung around when the other Greeks departed. In fact, I'm not even certain that they were even present since Herodotos doesn't mention any other troops leaving Sparta other than the Royal Guard with their king. No other Lakonians are mentioned as part of the Peloponnesians. The more I think about it the more I think there were no Perioikoi present. The latter would have been subject to the same restricitions governing the rest of the Lakedaimonian/Spartan army. The Karneia was in progress and the main army was not leaving until it was finished. Leonidas couldn't change that. He only had direct personal command of his guard (who went where he did) and their attendant helots.

Finally, Thermopylai was far from your typical set-piece battle. It was a defence. The main Spartan/Lakedaimonian army was noticable by its absence. The regular Hippeis were replaced by older family men (Leonidas himself was around 50-60 years old) and given the narrowness of the pass the usual Mora-based phalanx wasn't practical anyway. I believe there was no mixture of Periokoi and Spartiates in the more conventional manner. The topography of the battlefield wouldn't really allow for it. I think smaller units fought in turn, much as we are told they did so. The Middle Gate of the pass was barely 15m wide. 300 men divided by say 8 deep would present a frontage of about 38 men. Closely packed together they might take up half a metre each (probably more) which would easily cover the pass width. When they moved out into wider sections of the pass the ranks frontage might increase in width and the files decrease accordingly.

Anyway, this discussion (interesting as it is and as it has developed) was originally about the colour of uniforms etc. I know there are historic references to it and I have found one I remember in the shape of Plutarch's comments upon Lykourgos's dictates that "... he arranged they should have a red cloak and a bronze shield, on the reckoning that the former presents the greatest contrast with any female dress, as well as the most warlike appearance; the latter certainly can be polished very quickly and is very slow to tarnish ..."

I don't think it is too great a jump to assume that kind of logic extended to their chiton, himation, cuirass, spolas or whatever. Via Xenophon we find the writer of the Respublica Lacedaemoniorum mentions a dark red tunic. Eupolis who wrote at the time of the battle of Mantinea in 418BC, mentions red tunics (rather than cloaks per se). Therefore, we really don't know the exact nature of the colour at all - red, scarlet, crimson, magenta, maroon? A dark red as suggested there, would assist in hiding blood stains - but even if it didn't, the analogy is more metaphorical that realistic.

Red is the colour of blood and war. I believe it applied to the tunic and cloak (when worn), and that if not wearing bronze armour or leather spolas, then perhaps any stiffened linen protection may well have been coloured likewise - and certainly away from any womanly colours (like white) for all the reasons alluded to above.

[PMBardunias]

Therefore, we really don't know the exact nature of the colour at all - red, scarlet, crimson, magenta, maroon? A dark red as suggested there, would assist in hiding blood stains - but even if it didn't, the analogy is more metaphorical that realistic.

I used to think that they must be more purple due to the fact that the famed Myrmex shell was common off Laconia and had drawn the Phoenecians there in times past. The most famous purple die in antiquity comes from this snail. I have since learned that the snail extract also makes a dull crimson dye if not "properly" handled. It has something to do with exposure to sunlight, but I don't recall the process.

For what it is worth, I see no evidence that Spartan armor was any different than that of other cities. In fact we often see other cities aping spartan wear- especially thebes. Also, it is debatable just what percentage of a Spartan phalanx was wearing any type of corselet in parts of this period.

As a perhaps humorous aside, it should be noted that red is sometimes accociated with blood in Near Eastern cultures all right- menstrual blood, thus very feminine.

[Ghostmojo]

... As a perhaps humorous aside, it should be noted that red is sometimes accociated with blood in Near Eastern cultures all right- menstrual blood, thus very feminine.

It is a real wonder Paul, that the Spartans didn't arm their women and send them out to fight as well!!! :lol: 8) :!:

[Paullus Scipio]

Well, there are one or two occasions when Spartan women had the opportunity to do just that......I'll leave it to Paul B. to elaborate ... D

[hoplite14gr]

Actually despite their reputaton Classical Spartan women behaved infamously (Life of Agesilaos , Hellenika)
Only in ther Hellenistic Period agianst Pyrros and the Romans (when therte was no agoge) Spartan womwn showed their merit. (life of Pyrros and Polyvios)
Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

It is a real wonder Paul, that the Spartans didn't arm their women and send them out to fight as well!!!

Spartan women were surely active enough to go to war. They excercised naken out of doors and there is some evidence that they may even have hunted. I tend to believe this since they had a lot of power within their society, and just as modern women have sought to do traditionally male functions as a sign of eqality, they may have as well. Surely the strongest Spartan women approached the the weakest Spartan men in ability.

Stephanos is correct that the Spartan women acted shamefully when for the first time they smelled the smoke of enemy camp fires during the Theban invasion, but this may have been preserved precisely because it was unlike their normal character. They owned and ran many of the Kleroi that the Thebans were looting, so perhaps this is forgivable.

There are instances of Spartan women fighting in battle. The most famous, and probably mythical, occurs when the Spartiates are off besieging Messene. The Messenians send part of their army off to attack the undefended Sparta. The women take up arms and defeat the men of Messena. The story then goes on to describe the Spartans coming upon thier own armed women and attacking them in the belief that thay are Messenian men. Luckily the women strip off thier armor and an orgy of reunion ensues.

The Spartan women famously excavated the defenses, including a deep trench, around the city during the attack by Pyrrhus. They work all night so the men can sleep and then act to support the men and boys who do the actual fighting the next day. As a note, Pyrrhus clearly believed that the Agoge was still in place at this date since he tried to lull the Spartans into complacentcy by asking if his sons could be educated in it.

The last famous stand of "Spartan" women occurred at the battle of Diro, in 1826, during the war of Greek independance, where some 300 women and old men armed with agricultural tools somehow kicked the crap out of 1,500 Egyptian/Turkish troops.

If we consider Dorian women as a whole, then the most famous warrior-women is the old mother who slew Pyrrhus with a roof-tile! There is also a story of the Agrive women defending the city after Cleomenes of Sparta beat the argive men at the battle of Sepeia.

In our zeal to masculinize the Spartan women, we should remember that they served a vital purpose in the Spartan military- creating reenforcements. There is a reason that the only two ways to get yourself buried with honors in Sparta is to die in battle or to die in childbirth. :wink:

[Ghostmojo]

Yup, I'm aware of the various references to the women of Sparta showing their teeth on occasion - all except that is for the reference to 1826!!! (which is somewhat out of our usual frame of reference :lol: ). It is interesting to see that the old habits died hard even by then, although I seriously doubt these redoubtable ladies were of pure Dorian stock and direct descendants from the ancient city. Sparta was apparently depopulated at the time of Alaric's invasion in 396AD and abandoned thereafter - nearby Mystra later becoming the dominant settlement as I recall. I also believe that the original inhabitants moved down into the Maina peninsula where these Maniotes continued an interesting existence. Much later they built these tower houses with each neighbour trying to outdo the other in terms of height! They could then rain rocks down on each other in true Pythonesque fashion!!!

I'm no expert on these things but successive invasions of Greece during the Dark Ages and later, introduced waves of different ethnic groups who intermixed giving us the less pure modern population. I daresay there is still some Dorian, Aiolian, Ionian and even Akhaian stock in there somewhere - but intermixed with a lot of slavic and other groups. However, perhaps these brave 300 ladies had returned north from their temporary hideaway to give the Turks some what-for!!!?

[hoplite14gr]

Professor Cavalli-Sfortza would seriously question your opinion. You can check his genetic tables.
Also Balcan hiastorians do not like to mention that national caracter is closelly realted to "ethnic cleansing" :twisted:
Add to the mix that Balcan people do not like to mention that the Ottoman army was essentially composed by their compatriots!
I know its hard to accept but just some individuals execsice their right to their opinion doesn´t mean that historical people simply dispear because historians say so.
Example: You can tell the Avars in Dagestan that they not exist simply because 1911 Encylopediea Britanica says so :twisted:
Kind regards

[Phalanx300]

Yes, I believe that the modern Greeks would be about 90% ancient Greek, I'm pretty sure in was in the 90s at least.

And the people of Mani are definately interesting, they apparantly only mary other Mani so that means that they are the closest we get to modern Spartans. :mrgreen: And because of its remoteness also to ancient Greeks.

Also nice to know is that they were never conquered by the Ottomans and were important in the revolt against them. And I've read that Napoleon could posibly be the descendant of a Mani colonist and thus part Spartan. :twisted:

[PMBardunias]

I seriously doubt these redoubtable ladies were of pure Dorian stock

The Spartans didn't consider themselves "pure" Dorian stock- remember that you can't be descended from Heracles and pure Dorian as well. One Spartan King proudly proclaimed himself an Achean.

I also believe that the original inhabitants moved down into the Maina peninsula where these Maniotes continued an interesting existence.

This depends on how you quantify such things, and who gets to, but clearly they have a better claim than anyone else. Maniates considered themselves the rightful heris of Sparta and were adressed officially as Spartans by Napoleon in his correspondence.

[PMBardunias]

Professor Cavalli-Sfortza would seriously question your opinion. You can check his genetic tables.

More recent work have gone far beyond those early studies. Greece is very different from the Balkhans in many ways genetically. The peoponnese shows a high percentage of elements shared with Crete that are not seen in the Balkhans to a great degree. That is not to say there is no slavic, albanian or turkic and "frankish" elements. During the revolution the turkic and turk-albanian populations appear to have been eliminated from southern Laconia or at least driven to Tripolis- the traditional border between moslem and christian in the south was the river I'm named after. Other slavs, like the christian Melingi and "Epitrotes" which however you slice it had to have a large admixture of albanian blood were absorbed.

I've read that Napoleon could posibly be the descendant of a Mani colonist and thus part Spartan

Most deny this, but what is undeniable is that he grew up with Maniates, the Stephanopoulos clan if I recall, and his godfther was a Maniate. So perhaps we should classify him as a Xenos. :wink:

[Ghostmojo]

... I know its hard to accept but just some individuals execsice their right to their opinion doesn´t mean that historical people simply dispear because historians say so ...

I never suggested that this was the case. However, it is manifestly clear that since ancient times other people have came and went across Greece and will have added to the genetic make-up. If the modern Greeks are indeed 90% the same stock as the ancients, then nobody is more delighted by me at such continuity, although I seriously wonder if the percentage would be quite that high.

I understand you viewpoint though and I'll give you an interesting and valid comparison. For reasons based upon nothing other than 18th/19th century romanticism; anti-imperialism; an acute sense of victimhood; political activism; and a desire for separate identity, and so on there has been a strong sense of Celticness at work in parts of the United Kingdom in recent decades. This is almost entirely based upon wishful thinking rather than any facts whatsoever - and yet the tendency has rooted itself and grown, and indeed spread further afield. There is not a trace of any of the peoples of these isles as ever having called themselves Celts before some part-time Welsh historian in the 1700s, decided there were obvious linguistic similarities (which there are) and physical characteristics (to some extent also true) between his own countrymen and the Bretons of northern France. Now there are clear reasons for this, but he invented a huge 'Celtic' northern European homeland hypothesis from this alone, which has been difficult to counter ever since. The main reason is that people want to believe this stuff - even if it is as bogus as the Tartan kilt industry.

I don't want to expand upon this particularly otherwise my text would run to several paragraphs, but the upshot of all of this has resulted in some established beliefs which are quite fatuous: (a) the peoples of the so-called Celtic fringes of the British Isles (i.e. Scotland, Cumbria, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland) are of an entirely different race than most of England; (b) they are homogenised 'Celts' and as such are the original inhabitants; © they claim cultural collectivism and superiority over later (i.e. English) invaders/arrivees (i.e. 'we were here first'!); and (d) they claim the English are entirely descended from invading Angles and Saxons during the post Romano-British period Dark Ages. Each of these propositions are at best wildly over simplistic and at worst completely incorrect. The peoples of these areas are (i) not proven Celts; (ii) are not homongeneous (the Welsh for example being a quite different group to either Irish or Scottish); (iii) are not the original inhabitants (who disappeared before the last Ice Age); (iv) certainly imported Celtic-type culture (but didn't originate it); and (v) did not arrive before the majority of the peoples living in England. Archaeological, linguistic, cultural and genetic studies have proved that whilst there are differences between the various groups around the UK, the vast proportion of ALL the inhabitants arrived at substantially the same time - immediately after the last Ice Age (the Norse and Danish Vikings and related later Normans being an obvious exception). They came via different routes, and from different glacial refuges in southern Europe, and are certainly of mixed ethnic groupings, but the whole story is far more complicated than the Celtic cultural activists would have us believe. The so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion was nothing of the sort (being merely the arrival of large, almost entirely male war-bands) and those people in England who can actually trace their genetic roots back to these invaders from northern Germany and southern Denmark, amount to a tiny 3% of the male population of East Anglia and Essex - all of which hardly makes England an Anglo-Saxon country, and also invalidates the whole Anglo-Saxon V Celtic split in Great Britain. This of course spreads further afield when you consider the WASP culture of North America.

I mention all of that merely to illustrate how modern beliefs about ethnic and cultural identity can be wildly off track and yet gain popular acceptance and currency.

... The Spartans didn't consider themselves "pure" Dorian stock- remember that you can't be descended from Heracles and pure Dorian as well. One Spartan King proudly proclaimed himself an Achean ...

The Return of the Herakleids proposition used by the Spartan royals - to give strength to their claims, regal, territorial and otherwise - takes us into the realms of speculation, since this is where conjectural (as opposed to recognisable) history gets jumbled up with mythology. I am reminded (as I think you were Paul) of Kleomenes I's monologue on the Athenian Acropolis where he tried to justify his presence and right to enter based upon the same claims - to Akhaian rather than Dorian descent. Who can really say? Without asking one, I think it is reasonable to propose (Agiads and Eurypontids aside) that your average Spartan/Spartiate citizen at the time would have considered himself to be of one of the three Dorian sub-tribes (Hylleis, Pamphyloi, Dymanes) which also occured in other Dorian city-states - as part of his make-up.

The issue with the Kings gets more confusing than just the Herakles-based claim to Akhaian origins, because Herodotos has us believe that both ruling families of the diarchy were members of (or at least connected to) the Hylleis tribe - claiming descent from Hyllos himself. I'm really not sure if this means the Hylleiotes believed themselves to be Akhaian rather than Dorian since their ancestor was supposedly Herakles' son. Can they be Akhaians and Dorians at the same time??? :?: :? That is truly baffling ...