Talk:Sparta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sparta article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within classical antiquity.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Sparta as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French,  Hebrew or Spanish language Wikipedias.

Archive 1 (Jan 2004 to Mar 2007)
Archive 2 (Mar 2007)
Archive 3 (Mar 2007)

Contents

[edit] Misc

I think that this article (about Sparta) should have more pictures and photographs. Please add more. --Mc 5 k 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You should also add in this article the 'Spartathlon' event.It is about Sparta and it is very popular around the world. --Mc 5 k 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the movie '300' you should add in the 'trivia' category of the Sparta article, that the movie did an official premiere show in the city of Sparta on 7th of March 2007 before the rest of the world at a special ceremony with guests from the movie company.

Another basic thing that is missing is the University of modern Sparta.

The image of the Spartan hoplite is taken from the book Warfare in the Classical World, by John Gibson Warry. I therefore think that the Creative Commons license is invalid, and the image should be removed, since it is in fact from a copy written work. Am I correct? Chadfust 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The only case that seems to apply to this issue is The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 97 Civ. 6232 (LAK) — Ruling that photographic or digital images of public domain art works are not copyrightable. --Jon Roland 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RfC

I am starting this section as a place for outside parties to comment on RfC I am planning on filing in regards to the issues surround whether or not it is appropriate for Sparta to be addressed as a superpower in the intro. AniMate 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to my RfC. It's two sentences and I think I've gotten both sides of the argument fairly well. This is a good start to getting this resolved. Hopefully you will get some outside opinions, though you may not or they may not be satisfactory for you. While we're waiting, lets continue to follow dispute resolution and disengage. Take a break for editing this article and certainly take a break from sniping at each other. The article will still be there in 24 hours, or even 7 weeks from now. AniMate 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has already been added on RFC by Mardavich, with a ridiculously biased formulation, plus I don't think that an RFC for this debate is a good idea. I prefer mediation from a neutral third party, after NN listens to my new proposals, and after he has apologised for his fallacies against me. Miskin 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also posted something at the Classical Greek and Rome Wikiproject which you can find here. Right now, you two seem more determined to discredit each other than actually improving the article. If you have anymore accusations against each other I suggest leaving them off of this page and keeping them on your own talkpages or taking them to WP:AN/I. I think things would greatly improve here if everyone says they're sorry and from now on keeps their comments here strictly focused on improving the article. AniMate 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I will participate in the RfC. Thanks for taking the effort. NN 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to go about this, my first RfC. This text is also posted to the Classical Greek and Rome Wikiproject. The version of this article prior to this dispute called and wikilined Sparta to World power [1]. I deleted this reference as the wikilink said "its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power over world diplomacy". This was then changed to superpower and references provided calling Sparta a superpower. The wikilink superpower says "ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". This again I believe is inappropriate as applied to Sparta, which certainly did not have any significant power beyond Greece.

The current article says in the introduction "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires". This is problematic for 3 reasons:

1) Classical times roughly is the period 5 BCE to 5 CE, a thousand years. Sparta's domination of Greece lasted about 30 years. [2] To the reader the introduction suggests Sparta's dominance lasted much longer than 30 years.
2) The wikilink superpower which reads "ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale" is inappropriate in describing Sparta. I understand some authors think Sparta was a superpower, but they could be ten out of ten thousand.
3) "overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" conveys a wrong impression. Sparta defeated Athens and Persia, but also lost to them. Especially overpowering Persia suggests Sparta conquered Persia (that did not happen till Alexander).

I suggest the following changes:

A) The time period should be more specific than the generic "Classical times". Specifically the period of Spartan hegemony could be used.
B) If the word superpower is to remain in the article, it should be moved down to the middle of the article where there will be more material about Sparta's victories and defeats to give the reader a more accurate context.
C) If the mention of Sparta defeating Athens and Persia is to remain in the introduction, then it should be toned down and balanced by mention of its defeats by Athens, Thebes and Persia.

Thanks for reading this,

NN 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A) the use of generic terms is useful at the beginning of the article because those people that are unfamiliar with what the term 'hedemony' means would not need to go on a reference book trip to determine what the article was about. However, a further clarification of the time period presented would be useful a little further down the page. It is considered good article writing to start an article using broad, general terms, and then using the article itself to further define them. Then someone can research as much as they desire to, rather than be required to do additional research in order to understand even the opening sentences.

B) "Superpower" is based on referenced material, but I suggest that it could be reworded as "considered to be a superpower by many" or something similar to diffuse your argument against a 20th century term. The reason it's an effective statement is because it brings the historic reality into a modern perspective. I fail to see how the definition of the term, as a nuclear worldpower or the equivalent, would confuse anyone into thinking that Sparta had nuclear arms or something.

C) This is an introductory statement that appears to be designed to draw the reader in. I think a clearer phrasing might be that Sparta "held it's own" against Athens and Persia in battle. That seems to more clearly define the relationship, and "tone it down" a bit.

The introduction is intended to be a summary of Sparta throughout it's time span. It's a highlighting of "what's important to know about Sparta" with further breakdown afterwards. Perhaps a stronger leaning towards a timeframe in the rest of the article would be more useful. That way there'd be indication that Sparta wasn't this huge superpower where Athens and Persia stood trembling in it's shadow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Right, I'm here following the RFC. This talk page is startling even for me, and I've seen some talkpages. I'm here because I know a good amount about the theory of international relations, and have a decent working knowledge of the classical world, though my expertise is with the Roman rather than any of the Greek empires.
The first point is a simple one. A cursory glance at the mess above - which is all anyone is going to give it, really - indicates that a crucial point is that references have been found which use the word superpower in the context of Sparta (All I've looked for is the specific information on references. I have not considered the specific arguments deployed any further than I must). Checking the article in its current state, two references have been provided. One is from the American Journal of Arch., and is written in 1936; is a survey article on Lysander, and uses the term 'world-power'. This is obviously unsatisfactory.
The second reference is from Donnelly's textbook. The precise wording is, as quoted above: "And Thucydides' account of Athens provides a striking historical illustration of the imperial aspirations of a bipolar superpower." I disregard for now the possible objection that this is something of a passing use of the word. It is certainly true that Athens' behavior is considered 'illustrative'. In that sentence, it seems clear, the word 'illustrative' can be replaced with 'representative' much more readily than 'example'.
A similar point can be made about another reference quoted above, the Hobsen-Hobden book. The sentence reads: "The 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR". Note that the original places superpower in quotes; in addition, the reference does not compare the power of Sparta and that of the US, but says something about the nature of the contest.
One other reference, from OUP, is mentioned; the book in question is a published D.Phil thesis by a classicist.
These are plainly insufficient references with which to redraw the definition of a word with a rich intellectual history within the theory of international relations.
Even more plainly, Athens and Sparta may have behaved like superpowers, may have thought like superpowers, but they do not satisfy the definition, which is considerably better referenced than anything presented here.
Above all, if a word is so controversial, replace it with a more accurate phrase.
Hornplease 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I provided two suggestions, either refer to Sparta as enjoying a period of hegemony over Ancient Greece, or use a more general term such as its pre-eminent position following the defeat of Athens. I really see nothing wrong with these suggestions, I too found the whole discussion ridicolous after a while and regret ever taking part. --A.Garnet 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease welcome and thanks for your input. At this point I need to emphasise that the sources mentioned in the article are not the only sources at hand, they were picked at random. It has been proven that the term 'does' meet mainstream use for ancient states such as Rome, Persia, Macedon including city-states like Sparta, Athens and the Roman Republic. In regards to Sparta it was proven here [3]. A. Garnet see my comments on 'hegemony' below and please try to focus on the points I brought up. My argumentation is that in the absence of a counter-reference, Sparta was as much as a superpower as Persia (albeit not superstate). In fact she had unarguably more powerful land forces than Persia and most of the states in her "known world", prior to the reforms of Epaminondas. In that respect, if we were to argue the use of 'superpower' in ancient times in general, we'd be going against the huge amount of references which make a frequent use of the term in such a context. If we were to question its use on Sparta in specific, then please see here [4] and read my edit below. Miskin 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I've been rejecting NN's persistent effort to change the head is very simple: All arguments he've brought forward so far are based on an errounous POV and imperfect understanding of the historical period at hand, as well as on imperfect understanding of WP:ATT. In accordance to NPOV, I've repeatedly asked from NN to provide us with a credible reference that would give some credit to his argumentation but he has yet failed to do so. I will now analyse how NN's last argumentation (because his argumentation varies from day to day) is flawed and falls under original research:

  • Claim:"Classical times roughly is the period 5 BCE to 5 CE, a thousand years. Sparta's domination of Greece lasted about 30 years. [5] To the reader the introduction suggests Sparta's dominance lasted much longer than 30 years."
    • Answer:Very Wrong. The Classical period of Greek history spans over the 5th and 4th centuries BC. In more specific context, it begins with the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC and ends with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC.
    • ConclusionImperfect knowledge of the subject.
  • Claim:"The wikilink superpower which reads "ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale" is inappropriate in describing Sparta. I understand some authors think Sparta was a superpower, but they could be ten out of ten thousand."
    • Answer:WP:CITE et al explicitely mentions that a wikipedia article may never be used a source for edits. This is a very fundamental rule and we can easily figure out why. Secondly, concerning the "10 out of 10K" comment, I cannot count how many times I have invited you to cite a counter-opinion. You didn't even have to come up with a 10-10K ratio, all I have asked from you in order to accept your accept your POV was a one lousy credible source. I feel that I have been very clear and flexible on this, yet you never managed to fulfil it. Instead you chose to try and discredit my initial sources, ignoring the magnitude of their credibility.
    • Conclusion:Disruptive editing via Imperfect understanding of WP:ATT.
  • Claim:"overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" conveys a wrong impression. Sparta defeated Athens and Persia, but also lost to them. Especially overpowering Persia suggests Sparta conquered Persia (that did not happen till Alexander).
    • Answer:This I have been willing to modify and I did in fact change it to "match the Athenian and Persian Empires", but it did not make you content either so I changed it back to the original formulation (if you deny this I'll get you the diff). During the discussion with Yannismarou (which evolved around this wording) you claimed that you cared about the 'superpower' wording, thus how this matter was interrupted.
    • Conclusion:Disruptive editing via unwillingless to compromise and unstable argumentation regarding the dispute at hand.

Regarding NN's suggestions: (A)Refuted above - the Classical period of Greek history is by unarguably not generic. Also the hegemony is independent to 'superpower status'. Regarding the specific period, a Hegemon is a superpower, but a superpower is not necessarily a Hegemon. Two superpowers can exist without having one assuming Hegemony over the other - e.g. see the sourced parallel between Athens vs Sparta and USA vs USSR in the Peloponnesian and Cold wars respectively. Hegemony was assumed after the war was over. Furthermore, the proposal to insert Spartan hegemony in the lead (rather than the "Rise and Decline" section where it is currently found), will make the formulation even less precise. As you may have read in the homonym article, Spartan hegemony lasted for 30 years, but its superpower status lasted from 490 to 371 BC (Battle of Marathon to the Battle of Leuctra) - and that is only in the Classical period. Sparta had underwent various ressurections during the Hellenistic period as well, though this is not yet mentioned in the article. (B) See my proposals below (C) Refuting: As the referenced in the article state, Sparta was founded in the 11th century and remained undefeated at land until the Battle of Leuctra to Epaminondas of Thebes. Sparta is credited as the leader of pan-Greek alliance to have defeated the Persian Empire in the Second Greco-Persian War (see Battle of Mycale and Battle of Plataea). As the leader of a Peloponnesian alliance she defeated and submitted Athens and Thebes after the Peloponnesian war. That's where her Hegemony begins, albeit not her superpower status. This is when she also invades the Persian Empire, and Persia was obliged to ally itself to Sparta's enemies (Athens, Thebes and Corinth) in order to deal with the threat. The Battle of Leuctra and the related naval defeats of Sparta against Athens, Persia and Thebes, are already mentioned in the "Rise and Decline" section, and I see no rational and NPOV reason to bring them on the head. After all the head never states that Sparta dominated the planet, it only emphasises its military and geopolitical power during the Classical period. There's no room for abundancies such as Sparta's undefeated record and/or military losses, which are already detailed within context in the Rise and Decline section, few lines below. I reject this proposal for the same reason that I'd reject the proposal of adding the Vietnam War in the lead of the United States article, right next to the superpower mention. It simply adds undue weight and implies a biased POV.

Now NN if you need a source for any of my above claims don't hesitate to ask me. Most I've already analysed and sourced in the past but as they're lost in the talk page, I'm willing to do it again. In order to make a constructive discussion, please reply on the comments I just made, and stick with the point. I'm not answering to the anon's points because the edit is already getting huge. If you want me to comment on his proposals then let me know. In the meantime I'll make some proposals of my own, which on the complete absence of counter sources, are frankly the only rational compromises I can think of:

Proposals: Despite my strong fidelity to WP:ATT, I'm willing to make a compromise and consider the definition given in the article superpower. In order to add precision I'm suggesting the following changes:

  • (and) unlink superpower to plain 'superpower'
  • (or) disambiguate with the word 'ancient' to 'ancient superpower'
  • (or) disambiguate with the word 'military' to 'military superpower'

Miskin 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're fighting the last war. The suggestions you make do not address my lengthy discussion above. Please note that I think that Garnet is heading in the right direction and would concur with any outcome based on his suggestions. Hornplease 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have replied above by citing the rest of the sources whose use of the term is much clearer than the ones you treated. However, I do have a question: Do you think that the term superpower can be applied to the Achaemenid Empire? Miskin 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Miskin says I was wrong in saying "Classical times" lasted from 5 BCE to 5 AD when it actually lasted only over 4th and 5th century BC. I would like to say the current introduction says "Classical times" rather than "Greek Classical times" and that is what my statement was based on. If you do a Google search for "classical times" you get different results, none of the top results is as short a period as 4th and 5th century BC. The fourth result is Wiki's Classical antiquity which reads "Classical antiquity, era, or period is a broad term for a long period of cultural history centered on the Mediterranean Sea, which begins roughly with the earliest-recorded Greek poetry of Homer (8th–7th century BC), and continues through the rise of Christianity and the fall of the Western Roman Empire (5th century AD)". I think "classical times" is ill-defined enough (what exactly is it anyway?) without making it worse by saying "Greek Classical times".
Unlinking to plain superpower rather than superpower is not helpful as the commonly understood meaning of the word superpower is correctly expressed by superpower. It would be equivalent to saying "Oooppsss, the link caught using something that does not apply, so let us unlink and pretend it does not exist".
Disambiguation using more adjectives actually makes the meaning worse. There seems to have been difficulty enough defining superpower, with getting into "ancient superpower", "military superpower" etc. What is a regional superpower anyway? Reminds me of Mel Brooks "World famous in Poland".
NN 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeating question to all: Do you think that superpower is appropriate to be used for the Achaemenid Empire? Miskin 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


About the sources you have linked to, I must ask you to apply the analysis I provided above to each. Does the reference state that Athenian or Spartan power satisfies the requirements for being a superpower? Does the fact that every single quotation that you have listed modifies the application word superpower - either applying it as a descriptor of the conflict, or analogising it, or saying 'relative superpower' or 'superpower in her world' or simply putting it within quotes - not suggest that using the term for Sparta and Athens was considered a stretch even by the classicists that by and large compose the corpus you quote?
About the Achaeminids; I don't know. I havent thought about it; certainly they come closer than the Greek states, given that Fox's definition requires worldwide force projection, and the A.E. was. probably much more capable of that within the Known World than either city-state. I would nevertheless avoid the term for that empire as well. Hornplease 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the AE question is a digression, and we have had quite a few of those here already. Unless the questioner explains why this question is important in determining whether Sparta was a superpower I am not willing to answer it. NN 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Moving this to the bottom) I agree with Hornplease, I too believe Garnet is heading in the right direction and would concur with his suggestions. NN 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just choose two for now. An Oxford University Press gbook mentions: "They developed and persisted as the propagandists' authorization for the hegemony of a current superpower, or of Athens and Sparta"[A Commentary on Plutarch's Life of Agesilaos] and:
Sparta and Lakonia - Page 223 by Paul Cartledge "...Both Persians had reason to support Sparta against Athens, ... a defeated Athens should simply be replaced by another Greek superpower with imperial and 'Panhellenic' ambitions" - "Sparta and Lakonia", provided above by Nikosilver. As with the majority of the sources in [6], the term is used literally, therefore I can't that your personal judgement on two out many as a sufficient argument. I see your point however and I'm willing to to follow a different approach, by comparing Sparta to the undisputed superpower of its known world: The Achaeminid Empire. First we need to draw the line between superpower and superstate. Secondly I would like to hear an ellaboration on what makes the Achaemenids more of a superpower than Sparta. The article in the Achaemenid Empire mentions "political superpower" in the very lead. The article on Sparta makes use of "military superpower", and I find the equivalence just. If you don't, then we can rephrase both. If you want to remove the term solely from Sparta then you need to explain why. Miskin 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Comment - I found this discussion per the Rfc process, I have not been previously involved with the discourse. Couching Sparta, or any other ancient power as a superpower per Fox criteria is problematic as it hedges towards anarchronism. Fox couched his criteria in very modern terms, of which military projection was only one criterion. Furthermore, the phrase is not popularly used for any reference before 1943. We may try to hypothesize whether a modern Spartan equivalent would have qualified, but such a discussion is needlessly academic, and definitely original research. Just my thoughts. Djma12 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


(edit conflict)

As I said, the OUP book is a published DPhil thesis by a classicist discussing one of Plutarch's lives. The other reference is open to similar problems. I have established that the other references all share the same diffidence towards the term, suggesting it is deeply inappropriate for the lead of an encyclopaedia article.
On comparing it to the A.E.: first of all, any comparison in the lead should be a bare statement of facts: Sparta won a defensive action against the overwhelmingly more powerful A.E., causing it to for several decades to view itself as the repository of Panhellenic ambition and the Aegean's natural protector.
That the A.E. article uses the word as well: as I said, it is more accurate there, but as I also said, I wouldnt use it. Remove it by all means, replacing it with a phrase that can summarise the A.E.'s political size and military strength. Hornplease 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't accept this argumentation as long as it remains unreferenced. Your logic can be easily refuted by many historical examples where the defender overpowers the attacker - see for example the Battle of Vienna and the hegemony assumed by Habsburg dynasty over the Ottoman Empire. On the question of Sparta and Persia, it wasn't by coincidence that Persia entered its long-term decline after the failure in the invasion of Europe. Besides your assumption ignores the Spartan invasin of Asia Minor and Persia's incapability to remove her by military means. Anyways, it is NN who started this whole issue, so I'll leave it up to him to decide. Miskin 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to remove political superpower from the AE article, go for it. I will not object. In fact I just did more than that, I edited the AE article to remove superpower from its introduction. NN 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Djmal2, all counter-arguments provided up to the present moment have been original research. I'd like to remind that Sparta defeated the Achaemenids at war, invaded its land, and fought them in equal terms when they were allied to the most power powerful Greek cities. Therefore it is ridiculous to consider the Achamenids a superpower while ignoring Sparta's clearly superior military exploits. NN let us make an agreement, if you manage to reword the "political superpower" from the Achaemenid Empire I agree to reword 'military superpower' from Sparta. If you fail then we'll restore it on both. And the RFC may close, what do you think? If I cannot convince the masses of the importance of sources over POV (including POV criticism on the sources) then I can at least propose to avoid double standards. Miskin 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept it would be a double standard to say Sparta did not have worldwide influence, but AE did. Though AE was a huge empire, still worldwide influence is not correct. I accept your compromise of rewording both (in fact I have already reworded AE even before you offered it as a compromise) provided you also in the introduction either 1) remove the mention of Athenian and Persian defeats, OR 2) specify precisely (for example 404 BC to 371 AD) when Sparta dominated the Greeks OR 3) balance the mention of Spartan victories with Spartan defeats (for example by Thebes). You can choose which one of the 3 suits you, I am fine with all. NN 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More POV. If you had already reworded then it means you were aware of it. It seems to me as if you've had a personal agenda since the beginning. I'll put AE on watch to make sure that the articles are not treated with double standards. Miskin 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict Adding 4th option: Garnet's wording is my preferred solution along with removal of superpower from both Sparta and AE. NN 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I only agree to reword superpower and change 'overpowered' to 'defeated' or anything equivalent which emphasises Sparta's military superiority on both other states. I don't agree with your abundant information in the head, this is POV-pushing and undue weight. Miskin 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to examine the evidence before you make these allegations. I was not aware of the AE superpower use. I became aware of it after your post at 19:28 12, March. Check the history of AE. I reworded it at 19:40 12, March. That is after becoming aware of it by your post. Really, these things are easy to verify. NN 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, Garnet's wording is preferable (also preferred by Hornplease). I will accept rewording of AE as desired by you. NN 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the RFC maybe close. The decision applies only for the wording of 'superpower' so this is the only thing that changes. Also if the term is removed from here, it should be removed from all ancient states, including Athens, the Achaemenids etc. Will you take responsibility for removing it from all similar articles (and make sure it stays removed)? Miskin 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I searched the Athens article and could not find the word superpower. I have already changed it in the AE article. As for taking responsibility for it "staying removed" I think you are well aware of Wiki policies like 3RR. No one can honestly promise anything like that. NN 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I will be traveling for the next 6-7 weeks starting tomorrow with uncertain internet access. NN 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Whatever happens in those other articles, the wording proposed by Garnet should be applied here, imo. semper fictilis 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Semper F, the wording of Garnet is accurate. NN 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Miskin, I think you need to calm down. Accusing disinterested editors who have come to this page following a request, and have done so because of their knowledge of their subject, as 'the masses' who prefer POV to references is a sentiment which, even if you feel, it is best to leave unstated. Further, nobody is going to take any responsibility for policing all of Wikipedia, and nobody is going to let the clarity of one article be contingent on policing all the others. This is a community enterprise, and we fix things when we see them.
I am also mildly amazed at the degree to which you believe Sparta had 'military superiority'. Your Vienna example is of course useful, but may not be applicable; you need to consider the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Anyway, come up with a draft based on Garnet's suggestion. And calm down, this isnt a historical debate forum. Hornplease 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, the edit is unprecise and does not reflect Sparta's real geopolical power. Sparta assumed a hegemonic influence and became the mightest military state in its own world. Look, the debate was about the term 'superpower' not about the rest of the lead. Sparta is known for its military achievements and this is what the lead needs to emphasise. Anyways I can't spend my life in this place, decide a wording and I'll make my edits if I find it unsatisfactory and vice versa. NN I didn't mean preserve it by "rv-warring", I meant by starting extensive disputes as you did in here. If for some reason it is restored elsewhere, you must agree to restore it here. This is a perfectly fair solution and I'm surprised someone didn't propose it earlier. Miskin 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Hornplease but I can't help but suspecting the obvious. NN just admitted being aware about the term's presence in Achaemenids, however he chose to come here and cause all this mess, and accuse me for having a eurocentric view. I agree on a fair deal, but I can't pretend to be stupid enough not to see NN agenda on the subject. Also NN, don't forget History of Iran, I put both articles on watch. Miskin 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, stating it had "military superiority" is another bold claim which should be avoided. Certainly one can provide facts which directly contradict what you are saying, take for example the Kagan quote i provided earlier: ""For a short time [Following Athens defeat] they clung to a kind of hegemony over their fellow Greeks, but only so long as the Persian king wanted them to do so. Within three decades of their greate victoy the Spartans were defeated by the Thebans in a major land battle, and their power was destroyed forever" - Would this indicate military superiority over Persia? Or the fact that Persias aid to Sparta is often cited as the reason behind its victory over Athens? My point is such bold statements can be undermined with verified facts, if you want to discuss the extent of its military capability then perhaps you can do it within a section in the article. --A.Garnet 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the 'Rise and Decline' section of the article. Persia allied herself to Athens because she feared further Spartan expansion into Asia, and because she couldn't face Sparta at land. The King's peace was positive for both Persia and Sparta. Miskin 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, but if we have facts which say Sparta could not defeat Athens without Persian aid, is it still appropriate to say it was militarily superior over both? Better not to make a statement which can be undermined with sources and instead provide a detailed narrative in the article. --A.Garnet 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, she would have most likely not been able to defeat Athens at sea. This is due to the fact that Athens was an ancient naval power while Sparta owned only a couple of fishing boats at the time. In any case don't sweat it, I'll find a source focalising on Sparta's infantry, which was by far the most powerful of its time. This excludes tactics, it only has to do with hoplites' training and equipment compared to those of their contemporaries. The strategy factor depends on the leader. Miskin 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways she had unarguably the most powerful infantry until Epaminondas' reforms of the Theban army, and as Alexander III proved, infantry was the most important unit of ancient warfare. However, at its peak, Sparta was more powerful than its alies in both infantry and navy. Anyways, everything will be sourced Garnet so there's no point arguint about it. But now I really have to go, I'm glad this is over. So decide a wording and replace it, I'll make my edits on top. But please try not to massacre the article, keep in mind that I've only agreed on the wording 'superpower' so far. As this debate was started out of personal agendas and not real interest on the article (rather the opposite), I find that changes should be restricted to rewording of 'overpowered' and 'superpower'. Miskin 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the infantry/navy distinction between Sparta and Athens. I know part of Pericles strategy was to deliberately avoid facing Sparta on land, but the fact remains one can question it's military superiority if it was unable to launch an effective naval campaign against Athens. Please see my proposal below, i've emphasised its military prowess. --A.Garnet 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(I am commenting here in response to the request for impartial editorial input as requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography) The term superpower dates from the 30s, and in particular took form in the 40s and 50s to denote a military power (in particular USA and USSR) that could project force on a global scale. This to contrast with regional powers. In the early days of the term, it was part of the discussion around the decline of Great Britain as a superpower and the rise of USA and USSR. In a strict sense it does not apply to Sparta; contemporary to Sparta were other great military powers in Asia that the Spartans were not even aware of, let alone capable of projecting any meaningful force. The only manner to apply it is to redefine the concept of “global” to some local region, based on the subjective world-view of that region’s inhabitants. But that then begs the question of what a “regional power” in that world view is left as? In any case, the term is a modern one and should not be projected back in history in a direct manner – it can certainly be referred to as part of historical discussions to draw various analogies, but that’s another matter. I hope this helps, and since this seems to have been a sensitive topic, feel free to flame me on my talk page. I have thick skin. --Psm 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Result

Removal of the term superpower from all ancient states due to incompatibility to wikipedia's definition. Miskin 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is Garnet's original proposal: Following its defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta became the hegemonic power of classical Greece. I have linked it to Spartan hegemony. I will also argue for not having superpower in the AE article. NN 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look I said I didn't agree, now you're changing the topic of the initial discussion. No matter what you choose to add, I'm make an addition which will emphasise Sparta's military prowess, which btw expanded over its known world and not just the Greeks. The current agreement concerns the word superpower alone, everything else is still disputable. Miskin 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed superpower from History of Iran too. I am not changing the topic of the discussion. Hornplease and Semper F have already expressed approval for Garnet's version. Garnet please propose a version. NN 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the commentary on this talk page and cannot find a single impartial editor (e.g. one that was not originally part of the discussion) that upon reviewing the issue concluded that "superpower" was a reasonable term to apply to Sparta. I will therefore remove the use of the term from the article. --Psm 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

As a city state devoted to military training, Sparta possesed the most formiddable army in the Greek world. It's defeat of rival power Athen's in the Peloponnesian war asserted Spartan hegemony over Ancient Greece.

Ok? --A.Garnet 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. Garnet thanks! NN 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Imprecise. I don't understand why the entire initial phrase has to be replaced with something completely different and largely more simplistic. Please stick to the changes agreed. Miskin 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the version proposed by Garnet is accurate. Let us wait for others opinions about Garnet's version. NN 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the version by Garnet. The usage of the word Superpower in this context would be very limited with respect to the overall meaning, and IMHO not proper. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Garnet's proposal. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification? Is Garnet's proposal to replace this line: During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires, she regarded herself as the natural protector of Greece.

If so, I agree. It certainly replaces some of the vagueness present in the original statement. Please hotlink the "hedegmony" though as I feel it's a term that is possibly more obscure to to High School level researchers. (this post by 68.200.47.71 at 01:20, 13 March 2007)

Yes, that is the proposal. To replace the sentence "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires, she regarded herself as the natural protector of Greece." by Garnet's proposal. I would suggest hotlinking to "Spartan hegemony". NN 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
68.200.47.71, if you register and sign in that would help your participation in this discussion. NN 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this appears to be close to resolution. I'd also like to say thanks to NN and Miskin for keeping their personal issues with each other off this page today (for the most part). It looks like we should be able to get the page protection off relatively soon, if there aren't anymore objections. AniMate 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any objections. And I will not be online for a couple of weeks at a minimum. NN 07:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Garnet's proposal, sounds good to me. --Mardavich 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I only made a single comment during the long discussion (which was to bring the word hegemony back into the discussion) I would still like to say that Garnet's proposal is great! --Hodgetts 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epilogue

Now that the dispute is over I would like to pose a rhetorical question to NN: You admitted to have been aware of the use of superpower in the article Achaemenids (Persia/Iran) even before I mentioned it in here, yet I have not seen you making any complaints about it that article's talk page. You also never made any mentions about its use in this article's Talk page. For a "neutral" editor who's been protecting NPOV on random articles, this is just too weird. I still think you owe me an apology for having falsely accused me many times and gotten away with it. You made other people believe that prior to the AnI event, you were being bullied by a group of Greek editors who were trying to pass their POV. In an ironic series of events the Greek editors became involved for a short period of time were all violently bullied off. However, no-one ever noticed that both before and after the AnI event, NN was largely supported by a coalition of Turkish and Iranian editors. This is a comment on the motives behind NN's and his more persistent supporters, and not on the RFC result which I do find fair and satisfactory. In my opinion the result of the RFC does prove that all those disputes (that some people found hilarious) did have biased motives and a largely non neutral support. This is the only thing I wish to announce. Miskin 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I hope you feel better for getting that off your chest. In the future, however, I don't think framing these kinds of questions in this way is helpful and in any case is not in keeping with WP:AGF. semper fictilis 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See [7]NN 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand if people agreed to my proposal or not since no one seems willing to implement it :) --A.Garnet 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Despite some hard feelings, it appears the editors on this page have reached a compromise. I requested unprotection [[8]]. I hope this article can be a little less contentious, and wish you all the best in future editing. AniMate 08:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madness

Why does this page redirect from Madness? Smiles Aloud 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That was some clever vandalism on the madness page. Apparently there's some movie out with the words Sparta and madness in the trailer. Robotman1974 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean that movie about 300 Spartans where 300 Spartans face-off against a vast army of Persians even though there are only 300 of them? If that's not Madness, I don't know what is. ;) Boonjava 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that was not madness, That! Was! Sparta! Or so Hollywood tells me. Hornplease 07:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mention of the movie "300"

I don't think this article, or articles about Thermopylae, or any other Greek related articles should have anything more than a cursory mention of the movie "300" in popular culture. We're trying to make wikipedia at least a little bit accurate, so let's not mention a movie, adapted from a graphic novel, which in itself was a overdramatization of facts. I'll remove mention of the movie in the main body of the article. Paranoid123 05:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's just ridiculous. I created Sparta in popular culture so that people would stop adding video-game and cartoon mentions in historical articles. Although the film and the graphic novel do not fit into those categories, they certainly do not fit in historical articles either. Nor does Kavafes' poetry, though it's temporarily included in the "popular culture" article. Miskin 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who reverted its removal, but if this is the consensus here, no problem (though I may differ a bit to the consensus!).--Yannismarou 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Something that could be useful would be the addition of a section "Sparta in popular culture" here as a resumee of the main article (in accord with WP:SS. I think that such an addition would be useful.--Yannismarou 16:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the Sparta in popular culture to Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture as all of the information came cut from the Battle of Thermopylae page and had nothing to do with Sparta in general. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spartan Culture

I'm surprised there is nothing about the Spartan marriage customs considering they are so unusual. I'll write something but I'm still learning how to do cites and don't want to mess it up so can someone add the cite for me? lol.

I found plenty of cites but this one is the simplest to read although it is marginally different from what I wrote as I also used a thesis paper on Dorian customs. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/aegean/culture/spartaculture.htmlWayne 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asia Minor?

"The recorded history of Sparta began with the Dorian invasions, when the Peloponnesus was settled by Greek tribes coming from Asia Minor via the northeast" Are you sure that Dorians come from Asia Minor? What it was teached to me is that Dorians were one of the ancient tribes of Greece, as well as the Achaeans, the Ionians, the Aeolians and the Arcadians, but the the most northern tribe so the most far from Crete and the Minoan civilization (which influencad the Mycenaean civilization). Just that. Not a foreign tribe from Asia minor (then inhabitated by very different population).

Consensus holds that prior to the expansions of 1100 BC, Dorians were settled in Epirus and Macedonia. Their previous location cannot be verified and claiming that it was Asia Minor is blatantly an unsourced POV, so this recent edit should be reverted. Asia Minor might be an existing view but it certainly doesn't meet consensus. However, all Greek-speaking tribes migrated the Greek peninsula from a different location, this doesn't make them "foreign". They became "Greek" only after they settled that region, mixed with the local non-IE element, and formed a civilisation. This is valid for all IE invaders, the Greek-speakers were relatively late IE settlers in the Balkans. Miskin 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Would someone please change the sentence fragment, "it was comprised of elements of both monarchical, oligarchical, and democratic systems." to something like, "it was composed of elements from monarchical, oligarchical, and democratic systems."?

A whole (such as the Spartan government) comprises its parts and is composed of them. The word both, implies a number of two things, yet three are listed.

I can't make this change on my own because the article is locked down in the wake of the movie 300. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.158.184 (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] military

Whoever wrote this was absurd. I just finished my history assignment on spartan military and like any sane man i came to wikkipedia to get a broad overview. For example men in Sparta were expected to serve in the army till 65???, i have several reliable sources including thucydides and plutarch that claim 60. I wasnt able to edit the military section because i have to sign up? but im not a wikkipedia genius and i dont know the ins and outs.

However if you want someone to update the military section i will be more than happy to, to ensure future students like myself come upon some usefull and true information! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.185.161.206 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

What exactly is absurd? To claim an active reserve until the age of 65 instead of 60? Miskin 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen this article: Spartan Army. It is totally encyclopedic. I have tagged it but I really don't know yet what we should do with it. Maybe it could be improved.--Yannismarou 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cites!!

Folks, we always need to cite our claims / facts. This article has many uncited and/or controversial claims which need cites. See WP:Attribution and WP:WEASEL. -- Writtenonsand 11:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/Talk%7ESparta_ee06.html"