View Full Version : Koinon Hellenon family traits
I was having an Antiquity class today, and we talked, among other things, about the spartans. Their social structure was that every citizen, upon coming of age, would receive a bit of land to exploit, as well as a few serfs (not the real name, i know, but i dont know it in english) to work that land, because they have to be soldiers all the time. The trick to that was that they had to pay a certain amount to remain citizen, which means that spartans were always needing money.
The fact that they're rich but living the life of a soldier gave birth to their reputation of being frugal, which they were, somewhat. But alongside that, their constant need for money would make them easily corruptible.
All this taken from Xenophon, says my teacher. I'm not sure Xeno outright says they're easily corruptible, but i haven't read it.
In any case, point of that is that made me think of the application of that in the EB game. If i remember correctly, there's a "spartan" trait which says that the char is living a frugal kind of life (said off my memory, haven't played in a while). At first i thought to change that to better chance to bribe (if i remember correctly it makes bribes harder to get) but then i realized, that should only apply to spartans, while the trait in question applies to non spartans imitating the spartan way of life, which they'd imitate without the easy bribe part of course.
So then i had another idea. In the Koinon Hellenon, there's the almost dead first king, and the "sons" of this king each represent a city in the actual league (Sparte, Athens and Rhodes). My idea (i'm pretty sure it's possible, but i'm no expert and wouldn't know how) was to give each of the three a trait that would indicate his holding to a certain city, trait accompanied by a few modifiers that represent how people in this city usually were. For example, spartans could be easy to bribe, but militarily good (which makes a strange double edged situation, come to think of it). I wouldn't know what to give to the other two, exactly, but my guess would be philosophical (or intellectual) and um, easily getting into those decadent traits that had for general theme liberal unions of male and female, for athenians. For Rhodes, i'm guessing they were better traders of the three (though i hear Athens was capital of "banking", huh) but, as they are on an island, their commander would tend to be better commanding fleets than ground troops (meaning simply lesser field commanders)
Not really sure how you'd exactly personnalize the citys, those are examples but others are possible. My idea was just to use traits to further personnalize and distinguish the three cities inside of the league, rather than having a homogene group. The trait could be made to be very likely to be transmitted to sons (like 90% of the time), which would make it so the distinction stays, until the few exceptions that ain't following their old ways or until members of other cities become part of your family (adoption and/or marriage), which would again be close to reality, as i imagine if it had stayed together long enough, a singly political entity such as this would have begun to lose the distinctiveness of each group making it, to gradually become only the Koinon Hellenon.
Excuse the wall of text, i wanted to expose my idea from it's origins. Apologies if this idea came up before, im relatively new here.
A Very Super Market
10-01-2009, 07:21
Ethnicity traits in EB 1 affect the probability of the FM gaining certain other ones. What you're asking for is already implemented in-game, with the difference being that the ethnicity traits give no stat effects on their own. Presumably, that is to keep the trait system more streamlined.
Of course, I have no clue of what the team has planned for II, so I stand aside and await their response.
I was asking for a system that goes slightly beyond this for the KH. Right now within the KH they're all greeks (mind, it's been a while, i might be wrong). But the league would definitely regroup different ways. The city states looked somewhat alike from one another, but they had differences in between each of them, most of them minor, but others like Sparte had a more unique system. I guess what i'm asking for looks a lot like what the barbarians have, with each of their clan having different abilities. But i'd have made it a bit different, in that it's just the original family members and their direct descendants that get the trait.
A Very Super Market
10-01-2009, 16:48
No, there are separate ethnicities. Spartans, Athenians, Rhodians, they're all there.
Phalanx300
10-01-2009, 17:03
Yea the treats already exist in EB.
And for the Spartans, the eldest son would receive the land of his father the later borns either had to get land in another way or the goods otherwise not full citizens. The full Spartans citizens had to pay tribute to the common messes, not in money but in goods, otherwise citizenship was rejected. Currency was forbidden in Sparta (though they later on introduced it). Spartans were one of the less corruptuble Greeks.
Azathoth
10-02-2009, 00:36
Spartans were one of the less corruptuble Greeks.
By 272 BC, not so much.
I think I've said this before, but I would like to see more ethnicites for the KH. Would one for each town with more than 100 occupants be asking too much? :beam:
IIRC Spartans got a nasty reputation (especially after the Peloponesian War) as cruel corrupt dudes when the got outside the strict moral confines of the Fatherland.
Pausanius and Gylippus are examples of corn-fed proto-facists got greedy once they slipped the traces, despite the good example of Lysander and Cleomenes (with the help of Gorgo).
antisocialmunky
10-02-2009, 04:23
I bet alot of the people who were going "Athens is being tyrannical and oppressing the Greeks" must have contracted terminal hubris after supporting Sparta in the Peloponessian war.
Just curious: I always heard that many Spartans suffered from adjustment issues back at home due to the culture shock they received from the ideas they were exposed to out on campaign. Does anyone have a source?
...Just curious: I always heard that many Spartans suffered from adjustment issues back at home due to the culture shock they received from the ideas they were exposed to out on campaign. Does anyone have a source?
Not exaclty the same, but the Spartans were worried about the Helots being exposed to outside ideas from the Athenians: (the equote is from halfway down the page when the helots rebel at Ithome in the 460's IIRC)
The Lacedaemonians, meanwhile, finding the war against the rebels in Ithome likely to last, invoked the aid of their allies, and especially of the Athenians, who came in some force under the command of Cimon. The reason for this pressing summons lay in their reputed skill in siege operations; a long siege had taught the Lacedaemonians their own deficiency in this art, else they would have taken the place by assault. The first open quarrel between the Lacedaemonians and Athenians arose out of this expedition. The Lacedaemonians, when assault failed to take the place, apprehensive of the enterprising and revolutionary character of the Athenians, and further looking upon them as of alien extraction, began to fear that, if they remained, they might be tempted by the besieged in Ithome to attempt some political changes. They accordingly dismissed them alone of the allies, without declaring their suspicions, but merely saying that they had now no need of them.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/thucydides/crawley/chapter4.html
well there are Corintheans, Spartans, Athenians, Rhodians and Kretans (and those omnipresent client ruler Pontians :D )imho that's ok.
Spartans may have been corruptable by 272 still the extra trait "spartan" (as opposed to "Spartiates") should apply to everyone in the same way thus increacing bribe resistance.
IIRC Spartans got a nasty reputation (especially after the Peloponesian War) as cruel corrupt dudes when the got outside the strict moral confines of the Fatherland.
Pausanius and Gylippus are examples of corn-fed proto-facists got greedy once they slipped the traces, despite the good example of Lysander and Cleomenes (with the help of Gorgo).
I am sceptical about this because strongly-hierarchical (not to mention totalitarian) states and organizations often have a lot of corruption at the higher levels. They lack the means to expose such corruption (junior members are not allowed to criticise their superiors), and find it hard to get rid of highly-placed individuals which do turn out to be corrupt. As such, I think Sparta did suffer from corruption before the Peloponnesian war, but it only became visible once they interacted heavily with the outside world.
Phalanx300
10-02-2009, 16:26
At EB's time frame there probably was some corruption yet I doubt that seeing some were still true to Lycurgus that they would be as corrupt as some other Greeks, but Sparta at her glorytime from 700 till 450 BC would hardly know any corruption.
Sparta wasn't a dictatorship, it often fought against states with Tyrants and put an Olycharcy in play, if only to get rid of what might be a future problem.
The other greeks did not need money quite as much, so they wouldn't be much corrupt. In Athens, at some point, they even paid the people that came to the assembly to vote on things.
Money allowed positions which required money, such as being responsible for the navy (that one cost a lot of money). It was somewhat an indicative to your social status, but since you had a role in state affairs even if you weren't rich. Otherwise you just needed what was required to live, basically. But money wasn't as important for your social status as it was for Sparte.
As for Sparte being tyrannic, well, not quite tyrannic, but more so than some, including Athens. They did have an assembly of citizens, but that assembly didn't have any powers. The power was in the hands of some council (the name escapes me atm) of, i think it was 24 people, and two kings. Not quite as tyrannical as a simple tyrant, but far from being as democratic as most other cities.
Phalanx300
10-02-2009, 17:46
The other greeks did not need money quite as much, so they wouldn't be much corrupt. In Athens, at some point, they even paid the people that came to the assembly to vote on things.
Money allowed positions which required money, such as being responsible for the navy (that one cost a lot of money). It was somewhat an indicative to your social status, but since you had a role in state affairs even if you weren't rich. Otherwise you just needed what was required to live, basically. But money wasn't as important for your social status as it was for Sparte.
As for Sparte being tyrannic, well, not quite tyrannic, but more so than some, including Athens. They did have an assembly of citizens, but that assembly didn't have any powers. The power was in the hands of some council (the name escapes me atm) of, i think it was 24 people, and two kings. Not quite as tyrannical as a simple tyrant, but far from being as democratic as most other cities.
As I said before, Spartans didn't need money, they needed goods to pay for the assembly. He had to basicly pay his lunch money every day. Currency was even forbidded by the laws of Lycurgus.
Sparta consisted of 5 ephors, they were chosen each year and no re-election.
2 Kings, generals, going by the bloodlines.
Gerousia, made laws, consisted of 28 men over 60 also elected and the two kings.
And the Apella, of which all Spartans were a part of. They basicly decided to go to war or not and such mayor decisions. It had been known to detrown a Spartan king so I wouldn't say powerless.
And as I said, can it be called Tyranic when the "Tyrans" are elected?
-Praetor-
10-02-2009, 18:47
And as I said, can it be called Tyranic when the "Tyrans" are elected?
Of course, Hitler being a good example. There are two type of legitimacy to govern: origin legitimacy and exercise legitimacy. You must have both to be a legitimate government.
In this case, the spartan government can't be called tyrannical when such tyranny is institutionalized and respected for ages and ages.
Nabis, on the other hand, was definitively tyrannical.
Phalanx300
10-02-2009, 19:32
Of course, Hitler being a good example. There are two type of legitimacy to govern: origin legitimacy and exercise legitimacy. You must have both to be a legitimate government.
In this case, the spartan government can't be called tyrannical when such tyranny is institutionalized and respected for ages and ages.
Nabis, on the other hand, was definitively tyrannical.
What we do currently: Vote people into the government who make the decisions they want. Gerousia still lives. :clown:
I am sceptical about this because strongly-hierarchical (not to mention totalitarian) states and organizations often have a lot of corruption at the higher levels. They lack the means to expose such corruption (junior members are not allowed to criticise their superiors), and find it hard to get rid of highly-placed individuals which do turn out to be corrupt. As such, I think Sparta did suffer from corruption before the Peloponnesian war, but it only became visible once they interacted heavily with the outside world.
Of course their were good and bad Spartans from the word go, but they weren't always so noticable. Maybe they evolved a system a bit like the Romans "Polybian compromise"?
While the Spartans were fighting for their lives vs Argos, Tegea and Messena the Polis all pulled together and took pains to keep their noses clean. The ephors acted in a tribune-like way as a restraint on the kings and the gerousia, and the outside threat kept individual greed in check.
Once they knocked off Athens and got their hands on some gold all the corruption surfaced quickly, at least in the eyes of their fellow Greeks. Certainly the social consequences of 30 years of warfare (wealth concentrated in the hands of widows and fewer and fewer Spartiates enjoying higher material standards) altered peoples attitudes to wealth and corruption (as mentioned above).
At EB's time frame there probably was some corruption yet I doubt that seeing some were still true to Lycurgus that they would be as corrupt as some other Greeks, but Sparta at her glorytime from 700 till 450 BC would hardly know any corruption.
Sparta wasn't a dictatorship, it often fought against states with Tyrants and put an Olycharcy in play, if only to get rid of what might be a future problem.
I didn't write Sparta was a dictatorship, merely that it was strongly hierarchical, and possibly totalitarian (which, by the standards of the day, it was). Furthermore, if there were only some true to the code of Lycurgus, I think corruption would have been a problem.
Of course their were good and bad Spartans from the word go, but they weren't always so noticable. Maybe they evolved a system a bit like the Romans "Polybian compromise"?
No doubt, but what do you mean with the Polybian compromise?
While the Spartans were fighting for their lives vs Argos, Tegea and Messena the Polis all pulled together and took pains to keep their noses clean. The ephors acted in a tribune-like way as a restraint on the kings and the gerousia, and the outside threat kept individual greed in check.
Once they knocked off Athens and got their hands on some gold all the corruption surfaced quickly, at least in the eyes of their fellow Greeks. Certainly the social consequences of 30 years of warfare (wealth concentrated in the hands of widows and fewer and fewer Spartiates enjoying higher material standards) altered peoples attitudes to wealth and corruption (as mentioned above).
You are right that the absence of a direct threat and the achievement of hegemony would have opened the way to more corruption, but it was already surfacing before Athens was defeated. Pericles dealt with a Spartan army by the simple expedient of bribery. IIRC the Gerousia had sent an advisor to keep an eye on the king and prevent such attempts, but Pericles bribed him too. The fact that the Gerousia had anticipated bribery suggests that it was a common problem for them.
This is of course speculation because we don't have much evidence of corruption before Sparta started to interact with Athens. However, I think this was because their closed and rigid system hindered the exposure of corruption rather than because there was none.
I didn't write Sparta was a dictatorship, merely that it was strongly hierarchical, and possibly totalitarian (which, by the standards of the day, it was). Furthermore, if there were only some true to the code of Lycurgus, I think corruption would have been a problem.
Totalitarian is such a modern term and really applies to comprehensive modern politcal systems, but I guess Sparta was as close as an ancient society could get to it. At the same time they were admired for their Isonomia (equal laws) by which they meant all the citizens were treated more or less equally: a distinction no doubt lost on the helots and at times the Kings who were hedged about with laws rules and suspicious ephors.
No doubt, but what do you mean with the Polybian compromise?
I believe Polybius explained Roman success in its rise to power over Greece and Carthage in terms of the willingness of different groups within their society putting aside class interest in pursuit of victory.
It is a truism (not neccesarily true, but commonly accepted) that Rome became more corrupt after the fall of Carthage: perhaps Spartan's perceived corruption follows a similar model?
I suggest a parallel with Sparta: they may have had an enduring constitution but the way it functioned (and how many people obeyed or subverted it) would have changed over time.
You are right that the absence of a direct threat and the achievement of hegemony would have opened the way to more corruption, but it was already surfacing before Athens was defeated. Pericles dealt with a Spartan army by the simple expedient of bribery. IIRC the Gerousia had sent an advisor to keep an eye on the king and prevent such attempts, but Pericles bribed him too. The fact that the Gerousia had anticipated bribery suggests that it was a common problem for them.
Yes we have to rely on non-Spartan accounts for our information (damn Lacadaemonians, why were they so laconic?) so we don't see a lot of "at home with the Eurypontids". My guess is they were only human and were as corrupt as circumstances would allow. Their self styled plainspeaking was as much about being rude as it was about being honest to my mind: veryu military and bluff, but it doesn't make them moral.
This is of course speculation because we don't have much evidence of corruption before Sparta started to interact with Athens. However, I think this was because their closed and rigid system hindered the exposure of corruption rather than because there was none.
I quite agree. Of course the more cheese, the more rats: Sparta was rolling in cheese by the end of the Peoloponessian war thanks to Cyrus the Younger's subsidies and all that loot.
I believe Polybius explained Roman success in its rise to power over Greece and Carthage in terms of the willingness of different groups within their society putting aside class interest in pursuit of victory.
It is a truism (not neccesarily true, but commonly accepted) that Rome became more corrupt after the fall of Carthage: perhaps Spartan's perceived corruption follows a similar model?
Thanks for explaining. Yes, I agree with most of what you say. Although I doubt that the lack of sources from Sparta is because of their laconic-ness. I think there is a dearth of sources for practically all Greek poleis, apart from Athens.
Phalanx300
10-08-2009, 18:47
Furthermore, if there were only some true to the code of Lycurgus, I think corruption would have been a problem.
Why? Thats basicly betraying the state, I doubt a Spartan with his education and way of life would do that more eager then your average Greek. :inquisitive:
Of course some could be corrupted but the Agoge effectively negates such a thing from being as common as some people here claim.
Sparta was rolling in cheese by the end of the Peoloponessian war thanks to Cyrus the Younger's subsidies and all that loot.
That's not exactly the story i heard in my antiquity class. Apparently Sparte came out considerably weakened from this war. Notably, their lands have been raided, and the citizens of Sparte depended on the productivity of those lands to remain citizens, which sparked something of a crisis.
Whatever the causes of their weakness, allies turned their own way and conquered territories rebelled, including Athens, and Sparte could do nothing about it. Thebes had a short "proeminent" period before Philippos II installed his makedonian hegemony on Greece.
That's not exactly the story i heard in my antiquity class. Apparently Sparte came out considerably weakened from this war. Notably, their lands have been raided, and the citizens of Sparte depended on the productivity of those lands to remain citizens, which sparked something of a crisis.
Whatever the causes of their weakness, allies turned their own way and conquered territories rebelled, including Athens, and Sparte could do nothing about it. Thebes had a short "proeminent" period before Philippos II installed his makedonian hegemony on Greece.
Oh no doubt Sparta ws exhausted by a long intense war vs Athens.
Their inflexible system that made them mighty in stand-up fights also left them without the skills for seige operations ("duh, Long Walls? whadawedonow?) or naval operations. It also meant they were crap at diplomacy, ruling other people without regularly murdering them, and other civilised pursuits.
Sparta did manage to linger on as a tough polis in the Peloponessos, so their system did not fail altogether under external pressure (until swept away by the Roman tide, like everybody), but it was unable to cope with victory. Like ol' Abe said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power".
Of course I think they conducted themselves better than the radical Athenian democracy did eg the Melian business.
Why? Thats basicly betraying the state, I doubt a Spartan with his education and way of life would do that more eager then your average Greek. :inquisitive:
Of course some could be corrupted but the Agoge effectively negates such a thing from being as common as some people here claim.
Except that the code of Lycurgus didn't prevent the bribery of a Spartan king and another high official when the agoge was in place. And by EB's time, the agoge had gone. I think there are several more examples of corruption amongst prominent, but I can't look them up here. Didn't Cleomenes bribe the oracle of Delphi to have Demaratus dethroned?
Phalanx300
10-09-2009, 18:03
Except that the code of Lycurgus didn't prevent the bribery of a Spartan king and another high official when the agoge was in place. And by EB's time, the agoge had gone. I think there are several more examples of corruption amongst prominent, but I can't look them up here. Didn't Cleomenes bribe the oracle of Delphi to have Demaratus dethroned?
At which time, from 700 till 450 BC when the laws were still fully applied or afterwards when it gradually declined and slowly got softer?
The same Cleomenes who cut himself apart and was demented and burned down a holy area?
At which time, from 700 till 450 BC when the laws were still fully applied or afterwards when it gradually declined and slowly got softer?
The one who accepted bribes from Pericles would be around 450 BC (it probably is the Gylippus that Cyclops mentioned). However, the image of the Spartans as morally-upright people (by their own standards) that became corrupted when they left their homeland is too neat, if you ask me. If they were truly incorruptible, they would not have been tempted anywhere.
Anyway, EB starts two centuries after the Spartans started to get softer by your reckoning.
The same Cleomenes who cut himself apart and was demented and burned down a holy area?
The very same.
Phalanx300
10-10-2009, 23:11
The one who accepted bribes from Pericles would be around 450 BC (it probably is the Gylippus that Cyclops mentioned). However, the image of the Spartans as morally-upright people (by their own standards) that became corrupted when they left their homeland is too neat, if you ask me. If they were truly incorruptible, they would not have been tempted anywhere.
Anyway, EB starts two centuries after the Spartans started to get softer by your reckoning.
Not mine reckoning but Stefanos said that time from about 700BC till about 450BC when Sparta went downhill. Bit weird seeing that Sparta became hegemon when it was all going downhill.
So you think that the Spartans with their education would be more corruptable then the other Greeks? If anything it would have a reversed effect.
The very same.
I don't think you can take a demented king for the thinking of a whole state.
Not mine reckoning but Stefanos said that time from about 700BC till about 450BC when Sparta went downhill. Bit weird seeing that Sparta became hegemon when it was all going downhill.
It's fairly typical, actually. Moralists of every nation that achieved hegemony would claim things went downhill from that point. And to an extent it's true: once there is no-one to tell you off, there is less reason for unscrupulous individuals to play by the rules. On the other hand this does assume that these individuals are unscrupulous to start with: just because they were kept in line by the law does not make them moral. The same applies to Sparta: if there was less corruption before 450 BC, this would not have been the result of strong individual morality, but rather because of Lycurgus' system made corruption difficult.
So you think that the Spartans with their education would be more corruptable then the other Greeks? If anything it would have a reversed effect.
Given the absence of information, I can't categorically state that Spartans were more corrupt than other Greeks. However, I do know that strongly-hierarchical states often suffer from high-level corruption. There are number of reasons for this, not the least because it's actively discouraged that junior officials criticise or investigate their superiors, thus making it hard to expose corruption. There are ways to deal with this problem, though, and perhaps the Code of Lycurgus was able to restrain the greed of the Spartans. However, following the argument above, this does not mean that Spartans were less corruptible, merely that they had less opportunity to do so while still in their homeland.
I don't think you can take a demented king for the thinking of a whole state.
True. However, it may tell something about how effective the Spartan system was at forcing a powerful individual to play by the rules ~;) .
Phalanx300
10-14-2009, 14:47
It's fairly typical, actually. Moralists of every nation that achieved hegemony would claim things went downhill from that point. And to an extent it's true: once there is no-one to tell you off, there is less reason for unscrupulous individuals to play by the rules. On the other hand this does assume that these individuals are unscrupulous to start with: just because they were kept in line by the law does not make them moral. The same applies to Sparta: if there was less corruption before 450 BC, this would not have been the result of strong individual morality, but rather because of Lycurgus' system made corruption difficult.
I'd rather think the latter made the first happen. When the latter became less and less like currently in EB and afterwards then the first becomes less as well.
Given the absence of information, I can't categorically state that Spartans were more corrupt than other Greeks. However, I do know that strongly-hierarchical states often suffer from high-level corruption. There are number of reasons for this, not the least because it's actively discouraged that junior officials criticise or investigate their superiors, thus making it hard to expose corruption. There are ways to deal with this problem, though, and perhaps the Code of Lycurgus was able to restrain the greed of the Spartans. However, following the argument above, this does not mean that Spartans were less corruptible, merely that they had less opportunity to do so while still in their homeland.
No currency allowed, need to pay in goods, you'd be shamed to have gold or silver. How exactly does anyone willingly living like that be corrupt?
As Xenophon said, earlier the Spartans tried to be worthy of ruling unlike later times.
True. However, it may tell something about how effective the Spartan system was at forcing a powerful individual to play by the rules ~;) .
Seeing that Gorgo his daughter(a child) could talk with Political meetings might say how clear it way as well. :smash:
I'd rather think the latter made the first happen. When the latter became less and less like currently in EB and afterwards then the first becomes less as well.
I am sorry, but what do you mean with the first and the latter?
No currency allowed, need to pay in goods, you'd be shamed to have gold or silver. How exactly does anyone willingly living like that be corrupt?
Maybe because he didn't do it willingly? After all, luxury was not allowed by law. Anyway, although currency was abolished, there still were differences in wealth. Thirdly, greed is not the only reason for corruption: ambition often plays a role as well. And the Spartan system did not try to curb ambition.
Seeing that Gorgo his daughter(a child) could talk with Political meetings might say how clear it way as well.
Again, I must ask for clarification. The fact that his daughter persuaded him not to accept a bribe says what?
Phalanx300
10-14-2009, 21:45
I am sorry, but what do you mean with the first and the latter?
Morality and Lycurgus's system.
Maybe because he didn't do it willingly? After all, luxury was not allowed by law. Anyway, although currency was abolished, there still were differences in wealth. Thirdly, greed is not the only reason for corruption: ambition often plays a role as well. And the Spartan system did not try to curb ambition.
If he didn't he could just move away and be an general or advisor in another state and lead a rich live. If he could make it that far at least. :skull:
Who says they didn't do it willingly? The choice to live so came from the Spartans themselves when they were convinced by Lycurgus.
Spartans sure had ambition, in honour, have large amounts of money only damages your honour.
Again, I must ask for clarification. The fact that his daughter persuaded him not to accept a bribe says what?
That at Politics even an child could advice the king, try to find anything like that in another state. :inquisitive:
From your post you keep going by modern day standards and try to fit them into Sparta as in wealth and the like. Sparta just is alien compared with pretty much all we know so modern day standards don't really fit in there.
From your post you keep going by modern day standards and try to fit them into Sparta as in wealth and the like. Sparta just is alien compared with pretty much all we know so modern day standards don't really fit in there.
Possibly. But you are not free from modern preconceptions either when you state:
Spartans sure had ambition, in honour, have large amounts of money only damages your honour.
This equates money to wealth. However, in classical Greece wealth was measured in land as well as money. Although the Spartans were not allowed to posses money or valuable metals, they did own land. In fact, their social standing was determined by the amount of agricultural produce they contributed to the communal messes. The kings came from two of the wealthiest families. So yes, wealth (if not money) did matter to the Spartans.
The reason why I draw parallels between Sparta and modern states is because humans have not changed significantly over the last millennia. Societies have grown more complex, technology has marched on, values have changed, but human nature is still the same. Now, if I interpret your position correctly, you state that the Spartan education (the agoge?) was able to change human nature and turn every child into a selfless and incorruptible defender of the state. However, I believe that not even the agoge could change human nature, and it merely turned them into disciplined, bloody-minded parochialists. Perhaps, at this point, we should simply agree to disagree.
No currency allowed, need to pay in goods, you'd be shamed to have gold or silver. How exactly does anyone willingly living like that be corrupt?
I'm just gonna kick in here (because the rest honestly mostly goes beyond my knowledge) to say that corruption does not naturally involve either precious metals or coin. That is more of a modern concept, that is, it's mostly what's used these days.
I've just very recently (for my medieval class) read a document written in about 798 AD, a complaint from a missus dominicus to the state concerning the fact that people came to him, not to ask for justice (pretty much his role), but to bribe him. In any case, he mentions a lot of different bribes, and yes precious metals and coins are mentioned, but that is just a fraction of what was used. Most bribes consisted of other goods, such as... well i don't have the document with me right now, but off the top of my head, i can remember horses, donkeys (pretty much any kind of herd animals, truth be told), and, amusingly enough, one offer of an ancient greek vase. There were others.
My point is, even in a much later society, in which the usage of coin is deeply rooted, they still widely used a ton of other goods to bribe. Now, in an earlier society where coin was forbidden, they'd just naturally use whatever has value. There being no coin is a non factor in there being (or not) corruption.
On a side note, if the missus guy interests you, he was truly complaining that people didn't care about justice, that'd they all just cared about buying whatever it is they were after. Amusingly enough, our missus (Theodulf and i'm not going to hazard myself into translating his title) admits to having accepted a few, because, so he says, the tradition of gifting is deeply rooted. So by politeness he accepted the good foods presented to him. :laugh4:
EDIT
next person to come here is gonna be the thousandth.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.