Ancient Greece

[Derfasciti]

Hey all,

Currently I am reading a book about the Ancient Spartans in Greece. I have always been fascinated with ancient Greece, specifically these seemingly perfect military machines.

However, I know very little about basic ancient Greek history. I know that Sparta and Athens were the U.S. vs U.S.S.R. of the day constantly at eachother's throats. But other than that I know very little about how it's history moved from it's humble beginnings until the Peloponesian War.

So, I first ask that some of you may enlighten me on all that I should know about Greece's and Sparta's history so I can properly understand what I'm reading. (this book focuses on 480-360 B.C.) I hope this can turn into a very nice discussion. I personally find the Spartans VERY interesting and I think many of us, disregarding our own personal historical specialties, can appreciate all that has happened in Greece.

Thanks for any help guys.

BTW, what happened to the org the past couple of days?

[conon394]

know that Sparta and Athens were the U.S. vs U.S.S.R. of the day constantly at each other's throats.

You cite a common and somewhat misleading analogy in your post. Because Sparta was a totalitarian hermit state there is a something of a tendency in modern histories to cast it in the cold war shoes of the USSR. A more accurate view is however to recognize the perverseness of aristocracy and oligarchy in the Greek work; thus Athens fit the role of scary revolutionary ‘red menace’ state much better than Sparta; the great defender of aristocrats and traditionalism everywhere.

If you meant your order of Sparta/Athens:US/USSR to suggest the same understanding, sorry for restating what you already noticed.

[Derfasciti]

You cite a common and somewhat misleading analogy in your post. Because Sparta was a totalitarian hermit state there is a something of a tendency in modern histories to cast it in the cold war shoes of the USSR. A more accurate view is however to recognize the perverseness of aristocracy and oligarchy in the Greek work; thus Athens fit the role of scary revolutionary ‘red menace’ state much better than Sparta; the great defender of aristocrats and traditionalism everywhere.

If you meant your order of Sparta/Athens:US/USSR to suggest the same understanding, sorry for restating what you already noticed.


Heh, I thought someone would think I cast Sparta as the U.S.S.R. And maybe even subconscously I did, but that was not my intention at all. My intention was simply to describe a cold war feeling for that period. I wasn't necessarilly subjecting either greek powers to the label of the modern day superpowers.


Either way, you do make a good argument about Athens' being more of a "red menace" and Sparta's defense of traditionalism. I never really looked that deep into my own analogy(or is it metaphor?)

[Kraxis]

I think he meant it as "two great and powerful opponents". Rather than draw a direct connection.

Perhaps using Pakistan and India would be more fitting, but we can find a lot of non-fitting problems there too.
It is basically impossible to compare the relations of two state with two other states, AND at the same time compare the states' internal workings.

[Orb]

I'm a fan of the Syracusans myself.
I've learnt everything I know about that period from Thucidides (latinised) and Xenophon.

[rotorgun]

Here is a good link to start with that does a fair job of explaining the basic history of ancient Greece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece

There are lots of decent external lnks and references throughout the article. Basically the origin of Ancient Greece is somewhere between 2400 and 1700 BC with the Dorian invasion of the area from the Balkans. This group of people developed a loose tribal society known as trhe Myceneans of Homeric fame. After the great upheavals starting around 1100 BC, known as the Dark ages, which lasted until around 800 BC, the first written histories of Ancient Greece began to appear.

I hope this will be a help to our discussion. I am certainly no expert in Ancient History, but will be glad to engage in such an exchange of knowledge with those more versed in the subject. Most of my studies have concentrated on the military aspects of the Ancient World. I have read something of the social and political aspects of Grecian life then, but am sadly lacking in anything substantial. I am in the process of reading Polyibius and Tacitus, which have an abundance of material about Greece. I am also reading the Anabasis of Xenophon, and have read his treatise on horsemanship and the proper art of cavalry generalship. I highly recommend that we all review what we know of the subject and then begin the discussion in earnest.

Cordially,

[Derfasciti]

thanks for the quote rotorgun

As for my current knowledge on the subject, it is pretty lacking. I know a little bit about the Peloponesian war (Have it by Thucydides but have yet to read it since it seems like it is cut short and he might be pretty biased) and I know virtually nothing of Alexander the Great and what part he played, if any in Greek history. Other than some basic understanding of it's history, culture, and mythology I know virtually nothing.

My main interest, as before stated, is probably Sparta and it's political/military history. But i'm also very interested in Sparta's culture. For some reason or another, I feel the need to have a basic history of ancient Greece as a whole so I have an idea of what a particular person is talking about.

[conon394]

Perhaps using Pakistan and India would be more fitting, but we can find a lot of non-fitting problems there too.
It is basically impossible to compare the relations of two state with two other states, AND at the same time compare the states' internal workings.

True but I think the cold war analogy is particularly apt, just not with Athens = USA or the West; the cold war analogy captures the fact that there was both an ideological conflict and a great power conflict.

In particular I think people often fail to consider that the vast majority of the literary evidence (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Aristotle, Plato, etc) is written by and for one side of the ideological schism, since aside from a few fragments the opposing side largely ignored the negative critique of democracy. In effect, its rather like viewing the cold war through only texts produced by the USSR.

[Kraxis]

Xenophon is a rather Spartophile...

Anyway, my argument was that I saw the comparison as "two superpowers engaged in a cold war" rather than "democracy, freedom and all good against the evil empire".
I drew the comparison as the political situation OF the Cold War rather than the political ideologies themselves. I hope I have been clear enough.

[rotorgun]

In many ways, the war between Sparta and Athens had some parallels with the struggle between the United State and the Soviet Union, with the exception that the Peloponnesian War was much more of a "hot" war with periods of cold hostility, than it was a cold war. The emergence of Athens as a "superpower" after the Persian Wars is comparable to the emergence of the United States as a leading world power after WWII. The Athenian navy had achieved dominance, much as did the United States' navy did. Although the Athenians had no strategic weapons such as atomic bombs, their navy assumed this importance then. The nation that could dominate the seas, could dominate trade, and thereby have the most political influence. Unfortunately for Athens, this tempted them on a path of imperialism (Not unlike what I believe is happening to the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union today, but that is another subject).

Just as the Soviets, threatened by the dominate position of the west after the end of the WWII, the Spartans and their allies began to feel threatened by Athens. The Athenians formed an alliance with her allies, known as the Delian League, which could be likened unto NATO. The Spartans replied in kind, by forming the Peloponnesian League, which we could think of as the Warsaw Pact.

Interstingly though, prior to this, war had actually broke out between the antagonists in 458 BC over the sucession of some of the Greek States from the Delian League. This has some parallels with Civil War of the United States as Sparta, based on a slaveholding economy, felt that the democratic notions of the Athenians would threaten her control over Helots, and her political institution of Oligarchy. After period of cold war, known as the Thirty Years Peace, hostilities began anew when Athens intervened in a dispute between Corinth and Corcyra, and then argued with one another over control of Potidaea. Sparta, accused of intruige by the Athens in this matter, declared war. The fight was on.

[Derfasciti]

I know this is probably impossible to know, but I'll ask anyhow: is there an estimated casualty list for the Peloponesian War?

Also, how big were the armies then?

[Avicenna]

Thousands. As in tens of thousands = big battle if it's something like the Greeks VS Greeks, as that would take many states' participation to pull up. Of course, if it's the Greeks VS Persians at a few 10,000s, it's just the norm.

[RabidGibbon]

Originally posted by Derfasciti

Have it by Thucydides but have yet to read it since it seems like it is cut short and he might be pretty biased

Your Right in stating that Thucydides history is cut short. It ends mid sentance 7 (?) years from the Peloponnesian wars end. However, as for bias (And I admit, that I assume from your post saying you like Spartans that you fear it has a pro-Athenian basis), its worth remebering that whilst it was written by an Athenian General, he was an Athenian General who was sent into exile during the war, and who was probably an Oligarch.

ie: If the Democratic government of Athens fell (As it did) he might well be one of those who would take over the government of the state. It is possible to read Thucydides History as an attack on the Democratic government of Athens.

So the "History of the Peloponnesian War" might not be as biased towards imperial Athens as you think it would be. And even if it is, their are so few other sources on that area of history that almost anything you read is going to be heavily based on Thucydides, so you might as well start at the beginning.

Anyway the Sequel, Xenophon's, History of my Times, which does write about the last years of the war is definetely spartophile, as Kraxis has mentioned. However its more obvious bias makes it less valuable, and I understand that some documents discovered in Eygpt (Written by someone only known as the Onychromous(Sp?) Historian) present strong counter points to both his and to a lesser extent Thucydides views.)

Cheers.

[Kraxis]

Ahh... Thucydides is indeed taking a potshot at democracy, but he is still fiercely in love with the city and its history. So when he has to pick a side, he picks his home.
One could also argue that he is less Athenophile than he is Spartophobe.

[Red Peasant]

I know this is probably impossible to know, but I'll ask anyhow: is there an estimated casualty list for the Peloponesian War?

Also, how big were the armies then?

The most recent guy to crunch the numbers, and base his ideas on the war's destructiveness in this respect is Victor Davis Hansen in his work, 'A War Like No Other'. It's not bad but it does rely a little too heavily on the reliability of the numbers in the sources (i.e. Thucydides), which is problematic in military reporting from any era, but especially so for the ancient world. Also, this reliance on numerical evidence sidelines the moral and ethical implications of war, which most would consider the real heart of Thucydides' exposition on the subject. However, I would recommend reading Hansen because he has some good insights.

[Derfasciti]

I did worry over whose side he was biased on, but just if he was biased. It does seem a real shame that so many if not all acounts of all Ancient Greece is so biased.

That book I was reading about the Spartans seems to have been a little to in-depth and presumptuous about the reader's knowledge on the subject then I liked. So I'll have to wait until I can find a decent Greek History at the Library.

Speaking of which I found The Peloponnesian War (Hardcover)
by Donald Kagan
http://www.amazon.com/Peloponnesian-War-Donald-Kagan/dp/0670032115/sr=8-1/qid=1160007367/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5649684-1513752?ie=UTF8&s=books
at my library. Has anyone read it? Does it give a good account of the history of Greece before that?

[Red Peasant]

Also, I wouldn't worry about any bias in Thouc because he is basically one of the least partizan historians who ever lived (that is, towards external powers, although his partiality in Athenian domestic politics shines through) even though you can tell that he loved his city. He is still one the finest historians who ever lived, bar none. Read him.
A good edition is the Norton Critical Edition which also has a series of excellent essays on the book in an appendix. Enjoy.

[Atilius]

Speaking of which I found The Peloponnesian War (Hardcover)
by Donald Kagan
http://www.amazon.com/Peloponnesian-War-Donald-Kagan/dp/0670032115/sr=8-1/qid=1160007367/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5649684-1513752?ie=UTF8&s=books
at my library. Has anyone read it?

It's very good. He mounts a defence of the radical democratic regime that controlled Athens for most of the period. If you're feeling ambitious, you might tackle the 4-volume work it's adapted from.


Does it give a good account of the history of Greece before that?Not really, he has a chapter on the interval between the Persian Wars and the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, but this is no more than Thucydides offers.


Also, how big were the armies then?
According to Thucydides, at the beginning of the war (2.13.6) Athens had 13,000 hoplites. Another 16,000 men (young, old, and metics) provided garrisons, including that of Athens. There were also 1200 cavalry, 1600 archers, and 300 triremes fit for service.

However, the plague early in the war (3.87.3) carried off 4400 men of the hoplite class and 300 horsemen. This would have left 8600 hoplites. This seems to tally with the 7000 Athenian hoplites present at Delium (4.93-94) in 424 BC. They faced 7000 Boeotian hoplites, 10,000 light armed troops, 1000 cavalry, and 500 peltasts. (This likely constituted nearly all the troops the Boeotians were able to muster.) Demosthenes commanded an additional 400 Athenian hoplites at this time.

The bulk of Athenian manpower was devoted to the navy. Manning the 155 triremes that fought at Arginusae would have required almost 30,000 rowers and crew, and 1550 hoplite marines.

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

I would second Red Peasant's assertion of Thucycides' relative objectivity. His father appears to have been a Thracian and he spent many years in the Peloponnese during his exile, so he was able to see the war from a variety of perspectives.

If you're interested in the story of the Peloponnesian War, Hanson's A War Like No Other isn't what you're after. I liked it, but its approach is to tell what the war was like, not what happened. If you want to know what it was like to pull an oar on the lowest bank of a trireme (no lavatory on board) this is your source.

[Red Peasant]

If you're interested in the story of the Peloponnesian War, Hanson's A War Like No Other isn't what you're after. I liked it, but its approach is to tell what the war was like, not what happened. If you want to know what it was like to pull an oar on the lowest bank of a trireme (no lavatory on board) this is your source.

Agreed, he's definitely in what you might call the 'Keegan School' of military history.

[rotorgun]

Isn't it also true that the Spartans could only field something like 10,000 hoplites due to their need to have enough of a garrison to keep the Helot's in line?

I think the largest loss of Athenian soldiers had to have been during the unsuccessful invasion of Sicily and the siege of Syracuse. Their were about 40,000 total involved and very few, maybe 5000 or less ever made it home.
It was the hieght of Athenian arrogance to try such a thing, but the rewards could have been great if they could have pulled it off.

[Red Peasant]

Isn't it also true that the Spartans could only field something like 10,000 hoplites due to their need to have enough of a garrison to keep the Helot's in line?


In the Persian Wars they had some 8,000 Spartiates (Hdt) of which 5,000 were at Plataea, and these numbers were apparently reduced to about 1,000 by the time of Leuctra in 371 if one believes Xenophon.

The problem is that people become fixated on the hoi homoioi, but the Spartans were putting other troops through the agoge long before this: so-called 'inferiors' (e.g. Lysander), 'foster-brothers', and the nothoi ('Bastards'). They were also training Perioikoi and even Laconian Helots to very high standards in the later period. After all, the Spartiates were willing to trust these troops by fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with them by this time, performing the Spartan battle drills for which they were famous. In 371 the Spartans were just completely out-generalled by Epaminondas, simple.

[rotorgun]

Thank you Red Peasant for the informative answer. I had quite forgotten that they trained some men from the other classes of their society. I still don't think that they could put much more than around 10,000 in the field, even with the Perioikoi, Nothoi, and Helots included. The large garrisons required to keep their system going must have limited the sizes of their expeditionary forces.

I just picked up a new book from the library today, The Peloponnesian War, by Donald Kagan. It looks promising from what I've read in the introduction. It is a recent work, published in 2003, and I think should shed some new light on this terrible war. He is a very well written author on this subject and has written several scholarly works about ancient Greece. I'm looking forward to it very much.

Cordially,

[Kraxis]

Also the Spartiate population declined not just (if at all) from attrition but the convoluted inheritance rules and the economical situation (bigger farms getting more and more land, while smaller getting less and less).
To the point that a lot of former Spartiates had been reduced to a Spartiate status without the voting rights. These were called Hypomeiones (or was that the released Helots?).

And of course the released Helots were also obligated to fight for the state.
However the Hypomeiones and the Spartiates were the ones who formed the core. And it is believed the Spartiates were the officers of the larger Hypomeione corps at Leuktra and later, while they only formed a single unit themselves, the famed Hippeis around the king.
That would also explain the general fear of the Spartans long after their decline. For isntance Sparta won it's greatest victory after the defeat at Leuktra. The so-called "Tearless Battle" against the Arcadian League in 368BC supposedly had no Spartan losses while the Arcadian army got wiped out more or less. Obviously the Arcadians fled before contact, or else the Spartans were even better than everybody expects (and who can believe that?).
So there must have been a considerable amount of Spartiate quality troops at the battle, or else the Sparta-haters the Arcadians had become would not have feared them to such an extent.