Talk:Sparta/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hitler Introduction

I'm not quite sure why the Hitler citation is made in the introductory paragraphs. This is an article about Sparta, Not Hitler's view of Sparta. In reading this article for the first time, this citation feels completely out of place, and may well be POV. I'd recommend it be moved down farther into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmathies (talk • contribs) 23:38:29, August 18, 2007 (UTC).

i agree with that , there is no relation hitler with sparta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpios92 (talk • contribs) 22:53:16, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Is it indeed necessary to include it at all; there are many individuals, amongst them some prominent political thinkers (Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rosseau to name but a few) who have expressed views on Sparta. 172.201.94.86 19:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparta still around?

at the top is says Sparta was a city but then there are many parts that talk about modern Sparta. so does it still exist?

YES IT DOES! Please add more info and images- read below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.99.210 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Misc

'I think that (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.

Headline text

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)


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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alright, I was hoping it wouldn't have to come to this, but seriously, this is Madness. This is blasphemy.

This is SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah seriously we have to remove those. --Arad 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

There's a grammar error in the 1st paragraph of History section, where the sentence concludes:

... Greek tribes coming from Epirus and Macedonia, submitting or displacing the older Achaean Greek inhabitants.

This tells us that the invaders "submitted the older inhabitants" - Erh, to whom? For what purpose? Or the invaders themselves submitted? I think the author meant "dominating the older inhabitants", or something on that order. Iohannkn 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

On this note, someone has changed the account to claim Spartan men 'were required to serve in the army until age thirty,' which is nonsense. The distinction is one entirely founded on the demarcation between when a Spartan possesses the right to leave a barracks or the right to be seen at the market, as Xenophon alleges. The very idea of a 'reserve' would have been alien to the Spartans, except perhaps those age classes 18-20 and 55-60. The remaining classes were not a 'reserve,' but simply an inactive army. Apologies for the absence of a user name.

Well not really an inactive army OR a reserve- more of a part of the force that never was really there, only a bit of it that could be called up and only had the role of defending the bags. But this may well have gone up to 65 in very rare cases such as the persian wars when the city was in crisisSamrsharma 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Calm down and specify exactly what the problem is instead. It's not the article is completely devoid of references.
I removed the statement about young Spartans sent out in the krypteia with a knife, but I also removed a fact-tag which seemed completely arbitrary. It seemed to be demanding a citation for the claim that Sparta was one of the major military players in Ancient Greece, which is clearly ridiculous.
Peter Isotalo 08:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-"It's not the article is completely devoid of references." - Agreed. This article, as it stands, is cited much better than many.
-"specify exactly what the problem is" - I did add a couple of {{Fact}} tags when I first posted this.
-More:
  • Section "Constitution": Not a cite in the section
  • Section "State organization": Not a cite in the section
  • "Foreign policy": Nope
  • Intro to section "Society": No cites
  • "Society: Military life": Many assertions without cites.
  • Rest of article: Etc, etc.
Sparta is interesting to a lot of people and was in many ways very unlike modern society. There is nothing at all unreasonable in my requesting that editors cite their assertions. "Any user should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia is attributable a reliable published source." WP:Attribution#Wikipedia_articles_must_be_based_on_reliable_sources. Nothing odd or personal about it.
It's much easier to include the cites when the content is originally added to the article, than to go back later and try to "prove" or "disprove" something that somebody else added a week, a month, or a year ago.
Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few minor edits but I have yet to learn how to add the cites. So far it always comes out as a meaningless jumble and peeps have been good enough to add them for me. Check "Spartan Culture" above for one I asked to be added a long time ago that hasn't been yet lol. Wayne 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This site should be deleted and created one more time...

--Azglahal 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Hi everybody I'm historian and I can only say that this site is full off ... someone should do something about it. There is so many new facts on site that I'm starting to belive that someone have discovered new manuscript about Sparta and it's Law system...

Your userpage says you study informatics and telecoms. Miskin 10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding Achaean League

I was touching up the Aratus entry and from there I tried drawing on the Achaean League entry for reference, but it is sparse, so I tried to beef it up with a list of the member cities. My question is whether Sparta ever joined the Achaean League (or perhaps merely allied with them), and if so, in what year. (I drew on a numismatics site for the list of member cities.) The Jackal God 20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

merge?

At present, this article is on the state of Sparta=Lacedaemon in general, while Lacedaemon is a stub. It should either be merged here, or this article should be only on the city itself (archaeology), and the extensive material on the state etc. should be moved to merged Lacedaemon. dab (𒁳) 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the merge because Lacedaemon was orinally a hero in Greek mythology, and not the name of a region per se. Also strictly speaking, Lacedaemon/Laconia and Sparta are not the same thing. Sparta was to Laconia what Troy was to Ilion, and what Athens was to Attica, though much of the above were often used interchangeably. I think the best thing to do would be to improve the article on Lacedaemon. In addition, I don't agree with the splitting of the "Sparti municipality", on the grounds of wikipedia's naming conventions. The city of Sparta is known in English as Sparta, both the ancient and modern town, so I don't see why we have to coin it a different name. It would have made more sense to have Sparta (ancient) and Sparta (modern) but the article on modern Sparta is small enough to fit inside a section, so there's no need to complicate things. Britannica too has always followed the practice of keeping it in the same article [9]. Athens as well has one article for the ancient and modern history of the city eventhough there's much more to say. I guess it's ok to keep them in the same article as long as history of X is linked. What were your motives for the split? Miskin 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
We could make Lacedaemon on the hero on it's on Lacedaemon page and put how Lacedaemon relates to Sparta on the Sparta page. Gunnerdevil4 04:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that Sparta does have a continuous history, though under the interchangeable names of Lacedaemon and Laconia (in Byzantium it was officially called Lacedaemonia). This article has the flaw of focusing only in one century of the city's history. Maybe it would have been best to balance it out by adding information on late antiquity and medieval sparta, but I'm afraid that would make this article identical to History of Sparta. Miskin 14:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

the hero is irrelevant, and should be treated apart from the kingdom anyway. I realize "Sparta was to Laconia what Troy was to Ilion": My point is that this article is more about Lacedaemon than about Sparta proper. It seems obvious that modern Sparta should be treated separately. Whether the article on the modern town should reside at Sparta (municipality) or at Sparti (municipality) I leave to your discretion. The modern town is clearly a different entity, named after the ancient city in 1834. of course either should be mentioned in the other article, but it won't do that people trying to look up the postal code or current mayor of Sparti find themselves stranded in a giant article on ancient Lacedaemon. dab (𒁳) 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that if we are to follow this logic then we'd have to have a separate article for all Laconian cities named Sparta-Lakedaemon, which were all situated in different parts of the valley of Evrotas. Mycenaean Sparta was situated some 27km away from Dorian Sparta, yet there was never an account for two different cities, we only know this from archaeology. Dorian Sparta itself was hardly a city in the way the Greeks perceived it, it was composed by a set of villages-settlements and was organised in a tribal society (info missing from the article), and most importantly, it lacked the fortification which normally set the boundaries of a city. Its boundaries were largely the valley of Evrotas. Roman and Byzantine Sparta was called Lakedaemon and was located somewhere in the Laconian plain too, probably the centre of the Dorian settlements (needs to be verified). This medieval Sparta was the second city of Laconia after Monemvasia and Mystras. Mystras is frequently called Medieval Sparta too. The settlement of modern Sparta that was rebuilt by the Greek King was the one of Byzantine Lacedaemon. The city's name and basic location never changed. Otto I rebuilt Sparta as much as he did with Athens, he urbanised them, created roads etc, he did not refound some lost ancient cities from scratch. The city of Sparta has been always been present in history because of the constant existence of important, nearby Laconian cities such as Monemvasia, Mystras and Mani, let alone the fertility of the Evrotas valley. This is why Britannica doesn't have two articles. What makes admittendly classical Lacedaemon so different is the fact that it was an independent city-state, and for that reason it may be worthy of a separate article. This is however the case with most Greek cities, yet none of the articles follow this practice. I would suggest to keep everything in the articles Sparta and History of Sparta and consider a split when one of them becomes too long. At the moment the article is quite small an incomplete, focusing solely on classical Sparta. Alternatively we could have Sparta focusing on the classical and modern town, and add the rest of the details in History of Sparta (as it is done in Athens and most ancient cities of significant background). I understand that ancient Sparta, as a distict political and cultural entity could have its own article, yet this has not been practiced so far in similar articles. Miskin 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess we could do that. Note that we are conflating two unrelated issues here:
  • separate treatment of the modern and the ancient city.
  • separate treatment of the city as settlement and the kingdom (Lacedaemon).
most of this article (Rise and decline, Constitution, State organization, Foreign policy, Society) is actually about the state, not the city (settlement) proper. If we export all this to Lacedaemon, we might then argue about how to discuss the ancient vs. the modern settlement. dab (𒁳) 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sparta between Sparta and History of Sparta. Ancient Rome (the city) doesn' have it's own page, neither does Ancient Athens. They both just discuss the majority of the history of the city (both ancient and modern) in "History of ______". El Greco (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should merge them-there's a spartan army page that has the same argument and these would make it massive They should definatley be 2 articles there is no need to merge they are fine by themselvesJwmorris92 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More Pictures

This story needs more pictures. It looks kind of blank... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.201.218 (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

State organisation typo

It calls Spartan citizens Damos first, and then Demos - so which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by It Is Me Here (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Removal of Messenian War date as 631

This figure must be removed, unless of course the person who assigned it would like to contact every historian in the world and announce that they have finally solved the great debate as to when the second Messenian war is. I believe that no original research is allowed, but even if this is not, PLEASE cite the source so as to enlighten the whole historical community. In short, this date needs to be removed and changed to one cognizant of historical opinion, which never fails to date it by decades and, always, as 'Circa.' This has perhaps been a little ranting, but was necessary to show how utterly flawed this date is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.40.26.169 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Hey, SimonP

Cicero called Sparta: respublica Lacedaemoniorum. Rep. II. 23, Cicero, as quoted in The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Müller, 2nd ed. rev. 1839. pg 190.

  • "At the same time, however, Lacedæmonia was a republic." Rahe, Paul A., Republics; Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1992. pg 169.
  • "Sparta was neither a monarchy or democracy...The most subtle of the ancient authors described it as a mixed regime...In order to secure the consent of the governed, Sparta ensured the participation of every element of the citizen population in the administration of the city". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 152.
  • "Lacedæmonia was, in fact, a mixed regime—an uneasy compromise between competing principles...". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 170.

Hey SimonP, Paul A. Rahe, who wrote a THREE VOLUME study, "Republics, Ancient and Modern". How about them pickles?

And NOW: *"The Spartan Republic", W. Lindsay Wheeler, Sparta, Journal of Ancient Spartan and Greek History, May 5, 2007.

Now De Republica Anglorum; the Manner of Government or Policie of the Realme of England, Sir Thomas Smyth, 1583. (England is described under Queen Elizabeth I as a republic, the term "mixed" does appear in it. Sir Smyth states that all commonwealths are of mixed character.)

So that is Cicero, Paul A. Rahe, and Sir Thomas Smyth who all call governments with kings republics!!!! How strange SimonP. WHEELER 02:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have composed a list of all the times Sparta was called a Republic. People have been calling Sparta a republic throughout history. The Founding Fathers of America, who entered school with stringent classical requirements, knew Latin and Greek. They read Plato, Aristotle and Polybius. Here is a partial list: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/List_of_sources_identifying_Sparta_as_a_republic. As you notice, there are four references, on the internet, from four different websites, past the year 2000 that call Sparta a Republic. Sparta is a republic. Known as such.WHEELER 12:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Adrianople?

Can anyone actually give something written about this: "Supposedly, following the disaster that befell the Roman Imperial Army at the Battle of Adrianople (AD 378), a Spartan phalanx met and defeated a force of raiding Visigoths in battle. There is, however, no genuine evidence of this occurring." It seems very unlikely that such a thing occured.

This is the Visigothic invasion of the 270's. I'll get back to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree Lacademnon and Sparta should be bounded together

Lacademnon should be redirected to Sparta and in main article it should be said that Sparta was called in ancient times Lacademnon as a state, Sparta was only capital of the state. I know that in our history everything has changed and things that once have been clear like air are not so clear anymore, but still we should remember corect version of History. Wikipedia is a place for truth not 300 movie witch is almost a total fake. Azglahal 11:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about not because...

...the two are entirely different societies. It may be the same geographical place, but the society are worlds apart. I think that all the information about ancient history Sparta be taken out and put into the Lacedaemon section, and only modern history be included. Briefly mention Lacedaemon in the history section with a link to the Lacedaemon article. Maybe even give it a short description under a ancient history section, but KEEP IT BRIEF, with the link. The article jumps around way to much, and is very confusing to a first time reader. 153.24.70.34 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite necessary...

Although they are two different societies, it is still a necessary classification because of the region. while it may not be RELEVANT, it is still needing to be mentioned, maybe even mentioned to the point where the article distinguishes the two, that way people are not confused.

Big daddy89 (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ancient and modern

Ancient Sparta and modern Sparti should be clearly separated, since there is no historical continuity between the two. Thus the opening statement that "Sparta is a city in southern Greece" is false - Sparta was a city, it is now an archeological site near the modern town of Sparti. I propose making this change, and removing the text at the end about modern Sparti. Intelligent Mr Toad 09:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is quite common across Europe for cities to have ancient ruins of previous settlements with the same name near them. The ancient and the modern settlement are usually regarded as the same. FilipeS 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well they're not. Sparti is a new town, founded in the 19th century, some distance from the ruins of Sparta. It is simply wrong to say that "Sparta is a city in southern Greece." Sparta no longer exists except as an archaeological site. The same is not true of Athens or Rome. Intelligent Mr Toad 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for claiming that they are not regarded as the same city? FilipeS 20:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't comment on how they are regarded. I commented on whether they are or are not the same city. Ancient Sparta was abandoned in Byzantine times and the site has been uninhabited since. I have been there and I can assure you that there are centuries-old olive trees growing where the temples of the Lacedaemonians stood. Modern Sparti was founded in the 19th century on a different site. This is incidentally a poor article overall, which should be rewritten from scratch. Intelligent Mr Toad 08:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What is a city, though? It's subjective. Many cities have been rebuilt away from where they were originally throughout history. FilipeS 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't say there is continuity between the two when the site was uninhabited for at least 500 years, probably nearer 1,000 years. The question here is: is the statement "Sparta is a city in southern Greece" true or false? If it is true, then that city is the modern city of Sparti, and this article should be about that city, and a separate article devoted to Ancient Sparta. If it is false, then it should be changed to "Sparta was a city in southern Greece," and a separate article devoted to Sparti. Intelligent Mr Toad 01:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Question!

Within this article there are two mentions of the krypteia, which give quite different accounts of the nature of this rather mysterious concept... perhaps someone can clear this up?

Sparta is a republic

Here is a good reference: "Continuous service was considered the only public pursuit, and therefore the only proper activity for a citizen of the Spartan republic; all men shared in politics in that they all were devoted to the public defense."
"Around the seventh or sixth centuries B.C.E. two Greek cities, Sparta and Athens, seem to have developed the first republican political orders. Although these two regimes differed remarkably from modern republics, such as the United States, and were strikingly different from one another,..."
From: International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998'. Page Number: 1964.
My question is 1998 "modern scholarship". Is this "encyclopaedia" "modern scholarship"? Is Sparta a republic by the standards of this "encyclopadia"? Or is it a crank case? the author is a nutjob? sparta is still NOT a republic? Does the Consensus accept "Jay M. Shafritz" or will they find some adjective in order to denigrate and then deny Sparta on the list of republics?WHEELER 03:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the word "republic" to describe Sparta is an anachronism. It's a Latin word that didn't come into existence until the time of the Roman republic. FilipeS 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr FilipeS, the above encyclopaedia says it is "authoritative and definitive"? And who are who? Mr. FilipeS, Did you know that the Romans copied and directly borrowed from the Doric Greeks? So if their government came from the Doric Greeks and the Romans labelled that form of government a 'republic', and what are your credentials? What is YOUR evidence that it is an anachronism? What proof? Or is that your opinion? Is "opinion" the standard at Wikipedia? How about you read this link http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/List_of_sources_identifying_Sparta_as_a_republic and notice how many people have used the word republic with Sparta! The list is long! How many websites past 2000 still use that word? I found four! not to mention tons of MODERN scholarship that says so. So who are you? and what scholarly journal, book says that? or is that just your opinion? Please place the evidence here Mr. Filipe. I did my research and if you look at the link provided I DID MY homework! So please, do YOUR homework and if you can't find any evidence---then, maybe, it is the TRuth that Sparta is a Republic! It was the Doric Greeks that created this form of government and it is unbelievable the people here that deny this honor to Sparta and deny her patrimony!!!WHEELER 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the reason to define an oligarchy such as Sparta as a "republic" is political, but you're right. If a source proclaims itself as "authoritative", who am I do doubt their God-given authority? FilipeS 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cicero called Sparta a republic. You know more than Cicero, fluent in Greek and Latin, proficient in Political science both Greek and Roman? You know more? To the charge of Oligarchy, Dicaearchus of Messana, schooled under Aristotle, intensively studied the Spartan Republic and labeled his treatise; the Tripoliticus. Did Dicaerchus label his treatise "Oligarchia"? NO. This man visited Sparta, studied their constitution and labelled it the "Tripoliticus". What does that tell you? Maybe it is NOT an oligarchy!?!? What is a republic? Mixed government. So what does the word "Tripoliticus" convey? That it was mixed! How hard is this!WHEELER 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As you no doubt know full well, in modern usage "republics" are assumed to be democratic -- which Sparta most definitely wasn't. They are often also assumed to not be monarchic, which Sparta was. I stand by my statement that describing ancient Sparta as a republic today is a misleading anachronism. Unless, of course, the ambiguity of the term "republic" be explicitly mentioned in the article... FilipeS 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, the Classical Latin res publica is not synonymous with the modern word republic, which is used in opposition to hereditary monarchies like UK or Denmark. Such monarchies may be democratic, and on the other hand, a republic is not necessarily democratic at all. If we keep to these definitions, Sparta was a monarchy or better: dyarchy, since it was formally ruled by two hereditary leaders. But it was not an absolute one, but rather a constitutional one, given that the power of the two kings were ordered by the constitution, the famous Rhetra.
As to the other question, if Sparta was a democracy, it depends on one's expectations. There was a government (the ephors) that was elected by and from the people, even though the details are uncertain. The legislative power was divided, it seems, between two chambers, the Apella (all male citizens) and the Gerusia (the noble citizens, what ever that might be). On the other hand, this democracy was limited to a certain class of the population, the Spartiats, whereas the Perioikoi had reduced power and the Helots no power at all - not to speek of the women... However, by these modern standards, Athens would perhaps not be considered a democracy, either Enkyklios 08:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aries

Can someone atleast mention that Sparta's patron god is Aries/Mars?

Add historical citation of sources

The article could be improved adding citations at the historical references, there is a certain lack of these in some parragraphs. Some inline citations could benefit from becoming footnotes references instead, cleaning the cluter and allowing bettr flow of the article Heltzen 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

was a city?

Since when was Sparta destroyed?

It was abandoned in the miidle ages when Mystras was built and was onnly re populated when King Otto rebuilt it in 1834. Kyriakos 03:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous People

I belive the mentioning of Angelos Basinas is out of place in this context and that the reference should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.190.19 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Undo latest change please

It's stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.250.53 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

saying it doesn't exist anymore is an insult.

At least rename it to Sparta (ancient). --Leladax 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Little note

Sorry, I know this isn't terribly relevant to the article as a whole, but after reading one part* I felt compelled to comment; Sparta might not be visually impressive, but the idea is that they loved the place so much that they defended it. They didn't need meters thick walls or anything like that. Sparta was all about the people, not the place.

  • Referring to the mention that tourists would find it visually unimpressive.

NemFX 03:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Roofing Materials Equal Civilization?

"Settlements were scattered and mirrored the dwellings used during Greece's 'Dark Age' (1150–700 BC) which means that they were mostly thatched houses." That's a new one on me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.208.14 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Source and Article conflict?

Source: Sparta Reconsidered: The History, Beliefs, and Culture of Sparta states that Sparta has the first democracy, from 50 to 200 years before Solon in Athens. The article here says that it is an absolute monarchy. Any clarification on that? 68.45.201.243 00:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry to double edit, but to my knowledge ancient Sparta government did of course, resemble a democracy in some ways; the kings are advised, there is a citizen body, there is a council of elders... etc. 68.45.201.243 00:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

First Spartan

Hi, am I confused or is it true that Ares (or some other god) created the first spartan in full body armour? Please help me I want to remember what it was, but I can't find anything on the net. Mallerd 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Ares Mallerd 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Helots: 90% of the population

The articles says that "Others in the state were the perioeci, who can be described as civilians, and helots who were the state owned serfs that made up 90 percent of the population." Was the 90% ratio something fixed throughout the history of Sparta or was it the ratio at a specific point in time?

ICE77 -- 84.223.76.132 18:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no exact time line of Helot history of how many, but it is generally assumed by historians and alike that the 90% ratio is a fine basis and was most likely around that for the duration of Sparta. No source at the moment, sorry.Cleotheo (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Art or Architechture?

Hi- I'm doing a report on ancient Sparta-Athens and I needed to find stuff on Spartan Art and Architechture. I looked here and in some books and found nothing on these subjects. I googled and found this website: http://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Art.html which talks about this stuff. Since I'm not an expert or anything, could someone who is an expert or researcher add these subjects in the Sparta article? The stuff I found was neat and I think it should be shared. Please write any comments on ths here. Thanks.

Cites!! (Again)

In April of 2007 I noted that this article needed many additional cites. ( Talk:Sparta#Cites.21.21 ). There has been considerable improvement, but much work remains to be done.

  • Section "Constitution": Still not a cite in the section
  • Section "State organization": Still not a cite in the section
  • "Foreign policy": Still not a cite in the section
  • "The Spartan world": Not a cite in the section
  • "Society": Not a cite in the section (including an uncited direct quote)
  • "Military life": I see three cites. Needs more. My previous comment for this section was "Many assertions without cites." Has this section been improved at all?
  • "Archaeology": Not a cite in the section
  • Rest of article: Has many cites. Great! However, if there is anything else that doesn't have a cite and needs one, then we need to add it.

- Why am I concerned about this? Because WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence is one of Wikipedia's core policies. It is not optional. -- Writtenonsand 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Spartans may not have thrown babies away

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071210/lf_afp/greecehistoryarchaeologychildren_071210182228;_ylt=As3p6q3wmWeRdd0Yrpb7_ptFeQoB --Vidkun (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was the city left?

Barcovelero (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Babies were NOT thrown away...

What happened was that babies were left in the wild to fend for themselves, in a rather brutish manner, but the whole '300' portrayal of the physical cleansing of the society is the way they did things, it was in a bold manner, yes, but they were left in the wilderness.

Big daddy89 (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rise and decline

This section of the article doesn't have much on 'decline' - Having read it I'm no clearer on how this great city-state ceased to be and why the city itself no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.251.131 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Several issues

Crypteia: It seems that different sections (military life, culture) vary on what this was about:

Between leaving the agoge and joining the syssitia a select few young men were arranged into groups, and were sent off into the countryside with nothing, and were expected to survive on wits and cunning. ... This was called the crypteia, secret (ritual). This was very probably, in origin, an old initiation rite, a preparation for their later career as elite soldiers. Other sources claim that the crypteia (or krypteia) was an "adolescent death squad" made up of the most promising young Spartans. Their job was to roam the countryside killing helots at night in order to instill fear in the slave population and prevent rebellion.

Then, below:

"Spartan men were required to marry at age 20 after completing the crypteia.

One indicates that this was a program for a select few; the other that it was standard. Which was it?


The abandonment of children:

Could be at least add that this purportedly happened? I'm not sure that there is any firm evidence that this occurred.


"With it, or on it":

Was this customary of Spartan women in general... or should we indicate that this was one of Plutarch's recorded "famous sayings"?


Lesser Citizens:

What was the actual term?


Spartan Marriage:

"Not highly ritualized"? That's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Isn't the process of symbolically abducting someone and altering their appearance ritualistic in its own way? In fact, the word "ritualized" is used in the very next sentence! The two not meeting one another except to procreate? That's a bit direct, isn't it? Both Plutarch and Xenophon allude to the system being geared toward limiting sexual interaction as a means of ensuring better progeny (by building up their longing for one another and such), but the flip side of those statements points to a bond and feelings that went beyond simply wanting to pump out babies. Furthermore, the shaving and dressing was part of the wedding night itself--not a repeat occurrence.


Women competing in the Olympics:

At the very least, a mention of Cynisca winning an Olympic prize in the four-horse chariot event is needed.

Although the source does not come to mind right now, I know for a fact there were several graffiti and textual references in relation to Cynisca and the Olympics. Akaricloud (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty:

It should be noted that the points of view that indicate sexual relations between adults and adolescents come almost exclusively from individuals who either--

a) did not live in Sparta, or

b) were not contemporaries of Sparta during the Classical Greek era.

I think it's rather telling that the one individual who purportedly wrote from an eyewitnesses' perspective belonged to a social stratum (Athenian aristocrat) that would have accepted pederasty but nonetheless described a situation in which sexual relations between adults and adolescents were qualified in harsh terms--as akin to parents sexually indulging in their own children.

That's not to say, of course, that all Spartans were chaste, obedient to the Lycurgan principles, or necessarily heterosexual. See, for example, Lysander, Agesilaos, etc.

Anyways, should I make these changes... or does someone more invested in this page wish to address this?

Phoebus Americanos (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article seems to be the constant target of infantile, 14-year old vandals who, apparently, take great delight in constantly defacing it, deleting parts of it, or introducing nonsense into it. How about semi-protecting the article so that massive amounts of juvenile vandalism doesn't constantly have to be removed by legitimate editors? 83.140.239.143 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting translation of the word Sparta in albanian.

First i want to make clear that this is a discussion and we speak our minds here. Now however my claims contradikt with greek nationalism it is still my right to speak my mind. So dont remove my thoughts as many nationalists have done before.

And before you accuse me of making this up i must ask you to pick up an Albanian - English lexicon to confirm my claims.

The "Greek" tribe and the ancestors of Spartans, Dorians and their king Dorus, have an interesting meaning in the albanian language. Doros or Doroc is a common surname in Albania, held by familys that have won blood feuds, the name also reveals a family of skilled warriors. It may also be an evolution of the albanian word Dorushëm wich means patient, may also mean duro wich means to endure (spartans were indeed known for endurance)

Dorus or i Dorës (vocally identical) literally translated "of the hand", meaning skilled with handling a sword. This sheds more light of spartans ancestorage being skilled warriors.

The Ancestor king of Dorians, Aegimi(us)(Latinised)[os][Hellenised] whos name literally translates into "sunrise" in Albanian. It is also a name that is still used by Albanians and as of my knowledge only by Albanians.

The Albanian word for sword Shpata means sword in Albanian. Sparta may also be an evolusion of the albanian word for swordsman, shpatar. Sparta may also refer to the albanian word spata wich means "didnt have", this sheds further light of the naked warriors not having clothes and living with very few acomodations. Just to make an argument against my own claim, we may have been ispired by spartans and named "sword" and "didnt have" in their honour. Wichever you chose to belive it is undoubtable that albanians are deeply rooted in the balkans. And Greek nationalists will have a very tough time to accept the language as a factor deciding the origin of this people. And as for the Greek meaning of Sparta, no one wants to translate the word Sparta in greek but my request only gets erased, wich is very childish. --Durim Durimi (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.