Are Spartans Gods?

As I have posted elsewhere, just want opinions. Why are Spartans so overrated?
The Spartans (Lacedaemonian), are revered in history mainly (in my opinion) because of the battle of Thermopylae
,
If you look at the Spartan history, they won about as many as they lost, and that was against comparable Phalanx based civs.
Look at Argos, the battle of six hundred. Where 300 Spartans went against 300 Argives to decide the fate of Kynouria in an ORGANISED battle. The Spartans lost that one.
Look at the battles with Tegea that the Spartans were losing disastrously until they used spywork to steal the bones of Orestes which demoralised the enemy. No feat of warcraft there.
The list could go on, but I'm just wondering why they are revered the way they are now. They were a very hardship oriented society. Obviously Lykurgos had a major impact on the Spartans but they were not gods as they are portrayed in the game.

Heres a decent look at the Spartans' history.
http://www.sikyon.com/sparta/history_eg.html
Althoug if you trawl the web, there's plenty more.

Has this been to the Monastery? It would probably receive a more in-depth discussion there.

I was just wondering in the "game" sense why they are an elite unit.
I'd like to have peoples opinions rather than a history class. They are portrayed as Hellenic gods in the game, but they were no more special than Lesbian/Corinthian/Argive/Tegean hoplites. But RTW portrays them as Phalanx gods.
I think RTR did a fine job by giving us Corinthian, Spartan, Athenian hoplites as elites with slight differences. More realistic as there was not much between them in real life.

Ok, I see where you're going. CA is based on common myths. And Spartans are commonly thought of as the best trained soldiers of the ancient world. I think that's why they're elite.

The Spartans were easily the most organised and disciplined force for a period of around 364 years, at around the 735 BC to 371 BC when they were defeated at Leuktra and their helot slaves freed, destroying their Eutopia. The Argive example you showed was fought out by normal Spartiates. The elite, best Spartiates didn't fight on foot: they were the 300 Hippeis (cavalry) who guarded the king. Orestes' bones worked both ways: it boosted the Tegeans' morale, so the Spartans took that away from them. I've read down to past halfway, I'm yet to see another Spartan defeat.. apart from Thermopylae.

A lot of what we know from this periods comes from Greek writers, and those either greatly admired the Spartans (and their strict ethos) or greatly feared them. I am not quite certain that they were the most trained and disciplined forces of the ancient world, though. Sure, they were the best of the Greeks, but then Greek city states initially relied almost exclusively on part-time soldiers. You'll notice that as other Greek armies also become more professional the Spartans suddenly start looking a lot less invulnerable. Though, as Tiberius says, economical factors were also to blame for their downfall.

Also, their powerful and reckless king Agesilaus caused an unnecessary war. In that war they got overwhelmed by the very deep Corinthian phalanx, so that the Corinthians moved to the left less, and therefore had an advantage. Before the war, the non-Spartiates were already discontent, staging a revolt against the upper class.

Ludens: they were definitely the most trained forces ever. Personally, apart from the Spartans, I have never heard of people who were taken from their mothers and trained to be perfect soldiers once they could have a conversation (around six/seven). Even before taken to training, they would have nurses which taught them the Spartan virtues of bravery and taught them not to be afraid of the dark. They trained until they were sixty, and fought at the age of 19 (uncertain) to sixty. Nobody else trained their whole lives to be soldiers... (well, the Spartan women trained their whole lives to be fitter and produce fitter babies. That's spartan logic for you)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Ludens: they were definitely the most trained forces ever. Personally, apart from the Spartans, I have never heard of people who were taken from their mothers and trained to be perfect soldiers once they could have a conversation (around six/seven).

---

Janissaries were taken away from their parents and villages at a very early age to be trained as elite soldiers. Mongols had to serve in the military from 16 (I think) to 70. They would have trained in horse riding and archery pretty much their whole life. Roman legionaries weren't exactly wimps either, they marched more miles a day, in full armour, than some people would have travelled by horse, and then set up camp and baked their own bread.

Don't forget that the spartans hardly ever fought any serious wars whilst a legion, a horde, or a jannnissary corps would reguraly be involved in a war/raid/defense.

Quote:

---

Even before taken to training, they would have nurses which taught them the Spartan virtues of bravery and taught them not to be afraid of the dark. They trained until they were sixty, and fought at the age of 19 (uncertain) to sixty. Nobody else trained their whole lives to be soldiers... (well, the Spartan women trained their whole lives to be fitter and produce fitter babies. That's spartan logic for you)

---

Don't forget that greek writers didn't exactly tend to be objective about their subjects. They liked to overstate things. But yes, the Spartans were pretty tough guys, but I wouldn't put them above the Roman legions, the janisaries or the steppe hordes in terms of training and experience.

Well, the Spartans are basically trained from the age of five or six. They are excellent soldiers.

Only question I would have, is if they're more of bodygaurd units then real hand-to-hand units.:book:

Quote:

---

Ludens: they were definitely the most trained forces ever. Personally, apart from the Spartans, I have never heard of people who were taken from their mothers and trained to be perfect soldiers once they could have a conversation (around six/seven).

---

Doc_Bean already mentioned Janissaries and Mongols, I would like to add the Mamelukes and... well, you might as well throw in all Steppe people who spend their life in the saddle with their bow near their hand.

Also, the lenght of a training does not necessary equal quality. Yes, so Spartan youths were left on their own for a couple of years to terrorize the Helots, but is this the same as training for warfare? No doubt they spend a lot of time in the gymnasium and on the drilling field, but personally I think that Ceasar's legions after his campaign would be just as fit and disciplined, if not more, than the Spartans. You are right that their "come home with your shield or on it"-ethos goes a long way to producing fearsome soldiers, but since they did rout on several occasions so one might wonder whether this was any more effective than the traditional pride and cameradie of an "ordinary" elite unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Well, the Spartans are basically trained from the age of five or six. They are excellent soldiers.

Only question I would have, is if they're more of bodygaurd units then real hand-to-hand units.:book:

---

No, they weren't bodyguards. They were combat troops. Also, Greek generals tended to be pretty hands-on when it came to leadership (probably because hoplite battles don't need that much command & control anyway) so any bodyguard would also be a combat unit.

The spartans didnt fight as phalanx. maybe after macedonian rule. but definitly not before that

You cant say that they werent some of the best trained and displined soldiers for there time because they lost battles and these battles werent always due to the way they thought but through the commander and genreal that commanded them through the battle .All men will lose battles its a fact there is no ultimate fighting force maybe in RTW they are maybe a bit over rated but they are one of or the Best soldiers of the ancient world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunobelinus

You cant say that they werent some of the best trained and displined soldiers for there time because they lost battles and these battles werent always due to the way they thought but through the commander and genreal that commanded them through the battle .

---

I think you have missed the point. Nobody is denying the Spartans weren't very good soldiers, people are only arguing against the popular conception of the Spartans as the ultimate soldiers.

i was stating that there very good and not missing the point i was saying that they are very good and the best ofr there time but not ultimate very close to being but not actually.

But, Spartans aren't that good in-game, are they? (Concerning the main point of this whole thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

But, Spartans aren't that good in-game, are they? (Concerning the main point of this whole thread)

---

Yeah, this discussion is turning into a debate about the real Spartans. Maybe a move or new topic should be opened in the Monestary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

But, Spartans aren't that good in-game, are they? (Concerning the main point of this whole thread)

---

They are as long as you don't put them against spear (pike) units and keep their flanks protected.

They're cerntainly a lot better than the other hoplite units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

But, Spartans aren't that good in-game, are they? (Concerning the main point of this whole thread)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Yeah, this discussion is turning into a debate about the real Spartans. Maybe a move or new topic should be opened in the Monestary.

---

The initial poster was arguing against the common misconception of the historical Spartans as supersoldiers. Yes, perhaps this should have been in the monastery, but I think that most of the history buffs are already aware of this.

wasnt sparta probally the cradle of democracy or even the first one. ??

and yes i speak in regards to there own citizens and descion making.

I think this should be moved to monatestry could someone move it or open a new post if nesscessary.

the spartans are not that great...nut they have 2 hitpoints so they can defeat whole armies in streetfights...but i can also do that with militia hoplites....but spartans than barely suffer casualties

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

The spartans didnt fight as phalanx. maybe after macedonian rule. but definitly not before that

---

They did. They had very advanced phalanx tactics which were drilled into them in training. The 300 Spartans under Leonidas at Thermopylae fought as a phalanx. How else did you think they held out for so long?

yer i thought that how could a unit not in phalanx hold out so long .I know spartans did not always fight in phalanx but i think they did for most of the time they were used.

Personally I’d say yes, weren’t they trained from birth to be solders and nothing else, so if they weren’t, they were the next best thing.

The stranger: they wouldn't have had hoplite reforms if they didn't have hoplites would they? There have been depictions of Greeks in phalanx long before the Macedonians under Philip II conquered Greece, and even then that wouldn't affect the Spartans: Lacedaimon wasn't considered valuable enough for the effort required to subdue it, so it was left alone and didn't fight for or against the Macedonians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The initial poster was arguing against the common misconception of the historical Spartans as supersoldiers. Yes, perhaps this should have been in the monastery, but I think that most of the history buffs are already aware of this.

---

I was arguing that Spartans were not that much superior to other phalanx based units as the game insinuates. Hence why the superstats compared to other phalanx units? I'm not arguing that they are or are not the best soldiers in the game, just that they are far and away the best phalanx units in the game unless facing missiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimmy

wasnt sparta probally the cradle of democracy or even the first one. ??

and yes i speak in regards to there own citizens and descion making.

---

Nope, not a democracy at all really. I'd personally say fascist oligarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

I was arguing that Spartans were not that much superior to other phalanx based units as the game insinuates. Hence why the superstats compared to other phalanx units? I'm not arguing that they are or are not the best soldiers in the game, just that they are far and away the best phalanx units in the game unless facing missiles.

---

My mistake. I assumed that this was not a game-related discussion since you only talked about historical events.

Incidentally, the Spartans had a democracy. Sort of. Any adult male citizen (which did not include the Helots, despite them forming the majority of most Spartan armies) could vote at the assembly. Voting was done by shouting loudly: the side that made the most noise won the vote. The Spartans aren't generally credited with being the first, though. Athens gets that honour. Personally, I think societies in which every person's vote counts are as old as humanity, so calling Athens the cradle of democracy is wrong. Athens should be credited with developing the first formal democracy.

The Spartan system was a mix of Oligarchy, Dual-Monarchy (2 kings), Democracy and Aristocracy. All citizens could vote, but the only citizens were the aristocracy, Spartiates, and all citizens were male. There were kings, but gradually evolved to be nothing more than figureheads. The oligarch part is the Ephors, the small group of five that held true power and could even arrest a king. Anything the assembly voted for could be rejected by the Gerousia, council of elders. In turn, what they approved of could be rejected by the Ephors. So, the ephors ran Sparta and it wasn't a true democracy. Athens was. Sparta did introduce the concept of citizenship though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The Spartan system was a mix of Oligarchy, Dual-Monarchy (2 kings), Democracy and Aristocracy. All citizens could vote, but the only citizens were the aristocracy, Spartiates, and all citizens were male. There were kings, but gradually evolved to be nothing more than figureheads. The oligarch part is the Ephors, the small group of five that held true power and could even arrest a king. Anything the assembly voted for could be rejected by the Gerousia, council of elders. In turn, what they approved of could be rejected by the Ephors. So, the ephors ran Sparta and it wasn't a true democracy. Athens was. Sparta did introduce the concept of citizenship though.

---

I stand corrected.
:bow:

This is great! Someone will figure it out!