Q-Tip (musician)

Template:1911 talk Template:Histref

• Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic for the true form of the Lacedæmonian government.
  
• Wikinfo:Cretan/Spartan connection FYI. (Deleted by Wikipedians on March 6, 2006.)

SPARTA redirect

i redirected SPARTA to this article. --11gaudrco1 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

dual Kingship

Can we get some sources for this section under the constitution header? There are a bunch of theories in there I have never heard of, and I studied Sparta as a subject for quite a long time.Akaricloud (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch. I did not read any primary sources; I only used the following secondary sources:

• The Spartan System
• Spartan State, including the Model of the Spartan State Graphic
• The Penguin Atlas of World History

If I am wrong, I would like to know it, and would be happy to change the graphic.--Publius97 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rise and Decline

I just read the Rise and decline section and I feel that a mentioning of the battle of Thermopylae which takes up several lines is both irrelevant to that section of the article and also far too emotional. I think it was added by someone who had just watched 300. I think it should be removed, or at least cropped significantly so it just gets a side mentioning.Akaricloud (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. And the use of the word 'sickly' in describing the unfit Spartan infants is a direct lift from Frank Miller that is very tasteless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.elias13 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to criticise // This article needs a MAJOR clean up

Please do not misconstrue what I am about to write, I appreciate the effort that has gone into this article. But it seems to me that the current article is filled to the brim with both irrelevent information and information which is not backed up or is just plain missing. I plan to do a large edit of the entire Spartan article when I get some spare time (and access to my books and references once again) If you look above you will see I already started pointing out individual sections which I see problems with, however I think it is best if I just make a list of all the problems I see with the article and then post them as Durim Durimi did above. I personally have no qualifications on the Spartan topic, and most of what I know came through study with books printed over 10 years ago. A lot of new ideas which contradict what I learned may have surficed, however I don't think its possible that all that much has changed in 10 years. I think as part of the Greek Collectorate this should have top priority to be cleaned up. Akaricloud (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I only have Sparta watchlisted so that I can revert the folks who replace parts or all of the article with "This is Sparta!" periodically. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it is Sparta, hence the title/subject of the article. --NEMT (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right the verity of the section on marriage seems particularly dodgy. The Emuseum source is a "student-run organization with professional oversight". A couple of other resources. [1] [2] [3] either disagree or appear to be from the same source, none cite that source which suggests it's spurious information. Sparta Revisited seems the most cogent and thought out (doesn't make it true I know) - particular in it's disagreement of the oft-quoted Plutarch by noting that Spartan youths would know their "wives" by virtue of having grown-up in close contact with them. If sources such as "Emuseum" are to be believed then there was no incest ... to be completed Pbhj (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a serious cleanup. Apart from the bits which are obviously lifted from Britannia - I assume it's the bits where the style suddenly has a whiff of early 20th century about it - it has one of the most boring and unhelpful introductory paragraphs I have ever read on a topic of such importance. I am no expert on Sparta, but then this article doesn't need revision by an expert on Sparta. It needs revising by a good editor. Even with the few books I have on the topic, I am sure that I can come up with at least a better intro. The intro as it stands belongs in a paragraph about Sparta's geographical location; it gives no sense of the notability of the subject matter, which is the purpose of an intro. And what's with that supposedly helpful diagram illustrating the structure of the Spartan state? Somebody obviously put a lot of work into it, but a diagram is supposed to simplify things. Lexo (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And what's with that supposedly helpful diagram illustrating the structure of the Spartan state? Somebody obviously put a lot of work into it, but a diagram is supposed to simplify things.

Not just simplify, but illustrate as well. My goal was to capture the "constitution" and societal structure all in one diagram, which I believe I've done.--Publius97 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern Sparta

Does Sparta still exist? I couldn't find any mention in the article of whether or not there's still a place called that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.214.2 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's located here: Sparti (municipality). _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

On the infobox, it says that Sparta's rule ended in 371 BC. In the years, after 371 BC, Sparta's rule dominance of the Peloponnesian League and Greece ended as well as its control of Messenia but Sparta's self rule as a city state lasted until 189 BC when it was fully incorperated by the Achaean League. Does anyone object with it being changed? Kyriakos (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Two Corrections

In the Eugenics section a passage describes the infanticide as being carried out more extensively against women. This is true only of non-Spartan polis. In Sparta, the men that were prospective members of the Homioi were subject to infaticide for centuries which contributed to the declining birthrate of males, which weakened the able warrior-population.

This is stated explicitly in the work of Paul Cartledge, a Professor of Greece in Antiquity at Cambridge and world renowned expert on Sparta. It is stated most accessibly in a PBS documentary, 'The Spartans', for which he was the historical consultant.

Also, the program of infanticide was not as discriminating as the article suggests. There were in fact significant exceptions especially in the case of royalty. One only has to look at Lysander (who's mother was a Hellot), and Agesilaus III (Who was believed to be deformed from birth). The importance of Spartan Eugenics might better be described as a propaganda tool or the purity of linneage the Spartans thought themselves as having.

Just thought I should annotate in case nobody had caught it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.elias13 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow hold on fellas.What has been written in the article? Spartan infants were not thrown anywhere, if they were weak they were placed in "εκθέτες" "αποθετας" depository and exposed to the elements like all Greeks did and the children were taken usually by others and raised as "θρεπτοί".Kaiadas was for criminals with miasma only and infants were merely placed in ekthetes.Megistias (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope nobody has actually used such a specific word as 'throw' when talking about infanticide unless they have some substantial evidence. Documentaries that sensationalize Spartan history imply that unsuitable Spartan males were tossed into the Apothetae. But I suppose Frank Miller, without their help, has rewritten history for many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.elias13 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Question - the English word used here is "apothetae", which is apparently transliterated from the Greek "αποθετας" ... but that says "apothetas". What's with that? Petitphoque (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the way we pluralise greek borrowed words, I'm not sure if it's proper greek however but that's how we do it - compare with typothatae in dictionary where it's called a latinised plural. Pbhj (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle's Criticism of Sparta

In the current article's Criticism section, there is the following statement attributed to Aristotle: "It is the standards of civilized men not of beasts that must be kept in mind, for it is good men not beasts who are capable of real courage. Those like the Spartans who concentrate on the one and ignore the other in their education turn men into machines and in devoting themselves to one single aspect of city's life, end up making them inferior even in that." The quote is footnoted as coming from W. Forrest's A History of Sparta 950-192 B.C. I am wondering if it is supposed to be a quote from Aristotle, or rather just Forrest's paraphrase of something in Aristotle. Also, I wonder whether it'd be better to find the original passage in Aristotle and cite it instead of Forrest. The passages that I've found in Aristotle that come closest to the quote are Politics VII.15.1334a36 and VIII.4.1338b9. Any thoughts? Isokrates (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New lead paragraph - suggestions, anyone?

I have been thinking about what this article needs. Right now it is not only too long and too derivative, it is also swamped with trivia and badly organised. The lead paragraph needs to tell the reader something about why Sparta is still famous. I am working my way through a stack of books on the subject but in the meantime, I want to invite suggestions for a totally new lead paragraph, as the current one is actually about the geography of Sparta and is almost no use at all.

Here is a rough outline for a suggested lead para, and I invite suggestions as to appropriate dates and improvements of phrasing. References are not a problem, there are any number of books which will testify to the continuing fascination of Sparta, but let's fix that later. Right now, let's get a good lead paragraph up and then consider how to use the considerable amount of good material that has already been accumulated. Here is my suggestion - I have left WP: CITATION templates in place so that we can insert appropriate references later:

'The city of Sparta [include cyrillic spelling here] was a city-state in ancient Greece, situated in the southern part of the Peloponnese. Between the years ( ) and ( ) it was the dominant political and military power in the region, and as such played a major role in the defence against the Persian invasion of Greece. Later, it was the principal enemy of Athens during the Peloponnesian War. By the year ( ) Sparta's heyday as a major power was over, but the so-called Spartan myth continues to exert a major influence on Western culture.' Lexo (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have used a revised and properly sourced version of this para as the new lead para. I think the article now begins more in the manner of an encyclopedia article. I've tried to sketch out the importance of the subject matter in a non-controversial way, and suggest the scope of the article. I'm not totally sure why there is a separate article on the History of Sparta, especially when you consider that the history is gone into in some detail in this article. I welcome criticisms. Lexo (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Plan for major rewrite

I have been reviewing this article and also looking at some of the major articles it links to, such as Ancient Greece and Classical Athens, and I have been thinking about how it can be usefully restructured and rewritten.

Obviously topics like 'Sparta' and 'Classical Athens' are huge subjects, and a single article cannot hope and should not be expected to give all the facts on the places in question. An article specifically about Sparta, as opposed to one about the modern Sparti, can only hope to be a reasonably comprehensive overview of the major topics, with links to articles about specific sub-topics - the history of classical Sparta, the subsequent histories of Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, the politics of Sparta, the organisation of the Spartan army, the position of the Helots and Perioeci, the battles of Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, etc. To name but one topic, 'women in Sparta' is a massive and complex subject in itself; I have an entire book on it, which I admit I haven't read yet.

We can't possibly hope to explain all this stuff in a single article; rather, this article should be (as it were) the extended introduction to a notional 'book' about Sparta, consisting of this article plus all the other WP articles on the subject. Right now, the article is suffering from knowledgeable people wanting to put down everything they know about their particular specialised subject in individual subsections of the article, often without reference to sources, or at any rate contemporary and authoritative sources.

I want to propose an overall redesign for the article's structure. We need this article to provide everything that the casual reader could want to know, without burying the reader in too much detail, but also whet his/her appetite for further exploration in the articles on specific topics. So here's a rough draft structure - the titles are only guides to the subject of each section, not suggestions for section titles:

1. Intro - overview of the overview, including a note on nomenclature (incorporating and cleaning up the current bit about Lacedaemonia). 2. Geography of Sparta 3. Prehistoric Sparta: early settlements, Sparta in Homer 4. Consolidation of Sparta: Great Rhetra, conquest of surrounding territory, rise of Sparta to military dominance 5. Sparta in Greco-Persian Wars: Spartan leadership of Hellenic League, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea 6. Sparta in Peloponnesian War 7. Decline of Spartan manpower, battle of Leuctra 8. Hellenistic Sparta 9. Roman Sparta 10. Sparta during and since the Ottoman Empire 11. Women in Sparta 12. Historical/cultural significance of Sparta 13. External links 14. Notes

Each of the sub-sections should contain a link to a separate article on the subject.

Our guiding principle must to be to keep the article free of excess detail. The historical record on Sparta being as gappy and as problematic as it is, it needs to be stressed how one-sided and unreliable records are, but at the moment the article really is swamped by the well-meaning efforts of its contributors. There's some great stuff here and a lot of it must and shall be preserved. But as a whole, it is baggy and shapeless and I, who am fascinated by the subject, find it almost impossible to read. We can do better.

I invite suggestions about my plan, as I am sure it can be improved upon. But I would like us to work out in advance what we are going to do before we do it. I have no interest in telling people what to do, but I believe that a major rewrite of the article will only be useful if it is done with a certain amount of organisation, and if nobody else wants to be the annoying person then I volunteer. Lexo (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

...And you have my keyboard. Well sir, I have been watching this article for a while now, but did not want to tackle it by myself. I agree with everything that you have said and I would be willing to collaborate. The only problem being: I know very little about Sparta. But that's never been a problem for me in the past; what I do have is intrest in the topic, which I've always found more useful than prior knowledge. I think it's an excellent to go through the article and discuss what should be done before we do it. Now with an article this size, I hope that we can attract more people to work with us, but I am eager to learn and willing to type. Blackngold29 23:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up. This article should focus on the history of Sparta as a city-state, village, municipality or whatever it has been throughout its 3500 years of existence. Right now the article focuses solely on the classical/dorian history of the city, which is wrong and belongs to a separate article called History of Classical Sparta or something. So yeah, this is a great idea and a great plan. I'm glad to see that this article finally attracts attention from serious editors who care about making actual contributions and improvements, rather than simply removing or changing around other people's edits in order to make them compatible to their own personal POV. Miskin (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Miskin for his encouragement. I am conscious that I am not yet up to speed on the subject, and am still working my way through all the research, and since I have a full-time job (which is entering its busiest season of the year) it's taking a while. But I am sticking to my plan, and I hope that we can get this article into a better shape before Christmas. In the meantime, one job that I am not looking forward to but which has to be done is the creation of a proper References section, and the conversion of the current references into properly formatted citations. This will clean up the look of the article, and will provide a template for future contributors. Any editor who wants to do that will earn my undying gratitude. Lexo (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to recommend that some clean-up the famous persons section. I believe that Mattius Pimpius or Suckius Mycawkius were not Spartans, as neither figure was known for his wit, let alone the possession of one that might be described as Laconic.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "boardman" :
  • "The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World" p. 141, John Boardman, Jasper Griffin, Oswyn Murray
  • The effects of the war were to establish Persia's ability to interfere successfully in Greek politics and to affirm Sparta's hegemonic position in the Greek political system.<ref>Fine, ''The Ancient Greeks'', 556-9

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Some highly debateable conclusions unreliably extrapolated from sources

The following lines appear in the article:

There were women, such as Arachidamia and Chelidonis, who led troops into battle. Arachidamia (should this not be Archidamia) of Sparta was famous for leading female troops and fighting against Pyrrhus during the siege of Sparta in the third century BC.[30] Princess Chelidonis also led female warriors.[31] Hydna was an athlete and swimmer who destroyed the Persian navy in battle.[32] The first woman to win the Ancient Greek Olympic Games was a Spartan, Cynisca[32].

I here enclose the relevent paragraph from Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus:

"When night had come, the Lacedaemonians at first took counsel to send their women off to Crete, but the women were opposed to this; and Archidamia came with a sword in her hand to the senators and upbraided them in behalf of the women for thinking it meet that they should live after Sparta had perished. 3 Next, it was decided to run a trench parallel with the camp of the enemy, and at either end of it to set their waggons, sinking them to the wheel-hubs in the ground, in order that, thus firmly planted, they might impede the advance of the elephants. When they began to carry out this project, there came to them the women and maidens, some of them in their robes, with tunics girt close, and others in their tunics only, to help the elderly men in the work. 4 The men who were going to do the fighting the women ordered to keep quiet, and assuming their share of the task they completed with their own hands a third of the trench. •The width of the trench was six cubits, its depth four, and its length eight hundred feet, according to Phylarchus; according to Hieronymus, less than this. 5 When day came and the enemy were putting themselves in motion, these women handed the young men their armour, put the trench in their charge, and told them to guard and defend it, assured that it was sweet to conquer before the eyes of their fatherland, and glorious to die in the arms of their mothers and wives, after a fall that was worthy of Sparta. As for Chilonis, she withdrew from the rest, and kept a halter about her neck, that she might not come into the power of Cleonymus if the city were taken."

'Led female warriors' seems a rather impossible conclusion to be drawn from this by Salmondson. Doubtless they assisted in the war effort, but this perspective is very far outside mainstream history and should be deleted without more authoritative sourcing.

'A swimmer who destroyed the Persian navy' Pausanias 10.19.1: "father and daughter completed its destruction by dragging away under the sea the anchors and any other security the triremes had." Again hardly justifiable of this remark or that of the page of Hydna herself. (In addition, what does Scyllis have to do with Sparta?)

'The first woman to win the Olympics...' Doubtless recorded as a victor, but this suggests that she personally participated. As the Hellenica/Agesilaus of Xenophon make clear, this was in her capacity as financier of the chariot team.

I would suggest that the final remark is clarified and that the others are deleted or made more in line with actual historical opinion both of the sources and modern scholarship. Or someone demonstrates a source text or less biased historian that accords with these historical liberties. 82.4.243.152 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenophon's Hellenica is not a totally reliable source. I believe that the consensus of opinion is that while Cynisca undoubtedly did not race her own team, she more than probably trained them. It wasn't like Spartan women couldn't ride horses. It's true that the sentence is not clear enough, though. Lexo (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please sign posts in future, btw. Lexo (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for all of the bias inherent in Xenophon, there is no challenge explicit or otherwise to the well-founded view of Cynisca as financier/breeder of the 'fast-footed horses,' as opposed to training or racing them personally, in other literary accounts or modern scholarship. Doubtless, the possibility is there, but since all other Greek entrants, to my knowledge, acted in the same capacity, Cynisca would be an even more exceptional figure than she already is seen as if she acted as anything other than financier. It might be helpful for this article to note just how exceptional Cynisca was at all, even in being the sponsor, and that this was still very much a triumph by Greek standards and that many victories were as such. Also, it may be prudent to note that this appears to have begun a trend of wealthy Spartan women financing winning teams. 82.4.243.152 (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted a purely speculative line from the "decline and fall" section of the article, which stated that a Macedonian invasion of Sparta "would have resulted in a massive casualties and a pyrrhic victory" for the invaders. This might have been the case in an invasion, but the wording is far to definitive for an event which, after all, dd not happen. My edit modified the language to a more balanced statement that an invasion "would have risked potentially high losses," which is more defensible, historically. My edit has been reverted, but I'm putting it back in. I feel the new version is far more consistent with what we want in an encyclopedic article. If anyone wishes to argue the merits of this change, please give arguments on this talk page. Louiebb (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

'Constitution' diagram

The diagram is very illustrative, but could it perhaps it's simplification of the lochoi should be amended in light of scholarly controversy on the matter (Anderson, Cartledge, Lazenby). Not that it needs to be removed, but perhaps edited. 82.4.243.152 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Publius97 about the diagram. While I think it's accurate, I have suggested it be moved to a separate article on the Spartan Constitution, because I don't think it really makes things simpler for anyone who doesn't already know anything about Spartan society. Lexo (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair call, it is such a nice diagram that it would be a shame to change it.82.4.243.152 (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lexo did reach out to me, which I very much appreciate. I am new to this, so I will defer to you guys on both Sparta and History of Sparta. I was thinking about it, and while I appreciate the compliments, the diagram being good doesn't in and of itself justify keeping it in, if it doesn't fit. It probably makes sense as part of a more detailed "Constitution of Sparta."--Publius97 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Publius97's graciousness. I am trying to find ways to simplify and clarify the article, and I really think that a brief verbal description of the Spartan constitution would be more useful in this particular article. There is a lot of stuff the article has to cover, and on some topics - such as the history of Sparta after the rise of the Romans and its later history under the Ottoman Empire - it is almost silent. We have a load of good information, too much for a general overview, which is what this article has to be if we want to stop it from becoming bloated. Lexo (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Error in the first line of article!

The city of Sparta (Doric Σπάρτα; Attic Σπάρτη Spartē) was a city-state in ancient Greece, located on the Peloponnesus peninsula.

=========================

Article states that: The city of Sparta (Doric Σπάρτα; Attic Σπάρτη Spartē) was a city-state in ancient Egypt

This is false. Should be present-day Greece and/or on ancient Peloponesus peninsula, Greece.

Apologies if I did this incorrectly, but it was more glaring and misinforming than the usual punctuation, grammar, and layout changes I normally correct.

Remember--PIE: Perception Is Everything (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Error in the first line of article!

The city of Sparta (Doric Σπάρτα; Attic Σπάρτη Spartē) was a city-state in ancient Greece, located on the Peloponnesus peninsula.

=========================

Article states that: The city of Sparta (Doric Σπάρτα; Attic Σπάρτη Spartē) was a city-state in ancient Egypt

This is false. Should be present-day Greece and/or on ancient Peloponesus peninsula, Greece.

Apologies if I did this incorrectly, but it was more glaring and misinforming than the usual punctuation, grammar, and layout changes I normally correct.

Remember--PIE: Perception Is Everything (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting it, although it would have been even more helpful if you'd corrected it yourself (a look at the article history shows that it was just vandalism). Lexo (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro

The intro features a line which I'm guessing was placed there by someone with an understandable anti-Sparta bias: "The majority of inhabitants of Sparta were helots who, every autumn during the Crypteia, could be killed by a Spartan citizen without fear of blood or guilt." This is not strictly true, in more ways than one. Sparta was the place where the Spartans themselves came from. The helots came from various places, mostly Messenia, which was itself part of Lakonia, the name given to the region under direct Spartan control. The Crypteia itself is murky and our sources are not always very helpful, but the reference here implies that it was some sort of killing festival which all Spartans celebrated in the autumn. In fact it seems to have been a kind of juvenile death squad, made up of young Spartan men as part of the later stages of the Agoge. All Spartans did not take part in the Crypteia. (The women definitely didn't.) In view of the inaccurate nature of this sentence, I'm going to cut it until its author can either phrase it better or find a better place for it than the intro. Sparta is an unusually legend-encrusted subject and it would be better if people writing articles about it referred to the extensive recent research on Sparta, rather than relying entirely on ancient sources which are, in this case, notoriously partisan and inconsistent. Lexo (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)