No Spartans

By 270 BC, Sparta was effectively destroyed. After the battle of Leuctra in 370 (?) BC, in which Sparta's army was annihalated by that of Thebes, Sparta lost its status as superpower and became a 2nd-rate city-state, with no real power at all. It had exhausted its population of pure Spartans in the Pelloponesian War, and thus had no soldiers, and therefore, no power. If EB is striving for historical accuracy, Sparta should not be a major power (e.g. the Greek faction should not have it as its capital and center) and Spartan Hoplites should be removed from the game.

- Panda

As much as I love those hardcore Spartan bastards, I have to agree with this one. The whole military tradition of Sparta was not what it had been at all at the time of the game. Greece simply was no longer the center of anything, the torch had been passed on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Panda Centurion

By 270 BC, Sparta was effectively destroyed. After the battle of Leuctra in 370 (?) BC, in which Sparta's army was annihalated by that of Thebes, Sparta lost its status as superpower and became a 2nd-rate city-state, with no real power at all. It had exhausted its population of pure Spartans in the Pelloponesian War, and thus had no soldiers, and therefore, no power. If EB is striving for historical accuracy, Sparta should not be a major power (e.g. the Greek faction should not have it as its capital and center) and Spartan Hoplites should be removed from the game.

- Panda

---

You are absolutely right that Sparta was indeed not nearly as powerful as they were in the 5th century and early 4th century, but to say that had no soldiers and no power is incorrect. To specifically answer your claim that by 270 they were destroyed, in 272 there was an invasion of Lakonia by Pyrrhus. Quite odd, to launch an invasion of someone who is destroyed. Even though they were much weaker, Sparta still carried a lot of gravitas. When Pyrrhus was killed at Argos he had been driven back from the town of Sparta by Spartans, Macedonians, and Athenians, and forced to retreat to Argos. They tried a number of times over the next century to revive their military machine, but they were eventually unsuccessful. I would probably agree with you if this game was dated something like 195 BC as the starting point, but it's not. There is some breath left in Sparta, and if their reforms had been successful, they might have seen a more lively revival. It was their successes taking Megalopolis and Argos at the end of the third century that caused others to take yet another interest in beating them back down.

So they aren't strong, they don't control a large area, but they are able to field an army still, keep invaders away still, and gosh-darnit, they're interesting. As long as they only have one province, what's your gripe? On the first move turn Athens into the greek confederation capital. Don't make that one Spartan unit you don't like. It will cost a lot in the game, believe me. It won't be easy to raise an army of them. There's enough reason to keep them in there. An absolutely excellent and cheap book on this is Paul Cartledge and Anthony Spawforth's Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. They are two of the absolutely most important and best respected historians working on ancient sparta now. You will *not* find anyone better. Their thesis? They challenge the conventional misperception of Spartan 'decline' after the loss of her status as a great power on the battlefield in 371. It's well worth it. :book:

From the sounds of it Panda, you don't know much about Spartan History. Sure the city was destroyed many times. It was sacked by the Goths in 400s BC. Does that mean no more good warriors came out from Sparta? No. People remebered their old ways up until the very end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

From the sounds of it Panda, you don't know much about Spartan History. Sure the city was destroyed many times. It was sacked by the Goths in 400s BC. Does that mean no more good warriors came out from Sparta? No. People remebered their old ways up until the very end.

---

What? The Goths aren't even mentioned in written history until about 250AD. Alaric's revolt in the late 4th century AD caused numerous Greek cities to submit to him, but they had been part of the Roman empire for centuries by then, and certainly were not the military superpower they had been in the days of ancient Greece - the kind of military training the ancient Spartans had is only really achieved by gearing your whole society to the production of elite soldiers, which they did. Once they stopped, they lost that edge.

There definately weren't classical Spartan hoplites fighting the goths in the 4th century.

Quote:

---

From the sounds of it Panda, you don't know much about Spartan History. Sure the city was destroyed many times. It was sacked by the Goths in 400s BC. Does that mean no more good warriors came out from Sparta? No. People remebered their old ways up until the very end.

---

Err, what's that about Goths?

In 400 BC, the Spartans had just beaten off the Persian invasion. This was the height of the Spartan civilization, however, the game doesn't start for another 130 years! Before the Pelloponesian Wars, Sparta had to deal with a helot revolt, which robbed it of its slave population, effectively crippling its economy. After that, war broke out with Athens, and this depleted the stock of pure Spartan warriors (the Spartans only allowed pure Spartans to undergo military training), by the end of the Pelloponesian war (which the Spartans won by grace of a sea-battle), the Spartan military machine was crippled, the Spartan economy was crippled, and Sparta was surrounded by enemies. The deathblow came when Thebes annihalated the last "pure Spartans" at Leuctra. After this, Sparta was no more; it might have still existed, and might have been a tourist attraction, but it had no soldiers and was effectively dead.

Quote:

---

You are absolutely right that Sparta was indeed not nearly as powerful as they were in the 5th century and early 4th century, but to say that had no soldiers and no power is incorrect. To specifically answer your claim that by 270 they were destroyed, in 272 there was an invasion of Lakonia by Pyrrhus. Quite odd, to launch an invasion of someone who is destroyed. Even though they were much weaker, Sparta still carried a lot of gravitas. When Pyrrhus was killed at Argos he had been driven back from the town of Sparta by Spartans, Macedonians, and Athenians, and forced to retreat to Argos. They tried a number of times over the next century to revive their military machine, but they were eventually unsuccessful. I would probably agree with you if this game was dated something like 195 BC as the starting point, but it's not. There is some breath left in Sparta, and if their reforms had been successful, they might have seen a more lively revival. It was their successes taking Megalopolis and Argos at the end of the third century that caused others to take yet another interest in beating them back down.

So they aren't strong, they don't control a large area, but they are able to field an army still, keep invaders away still, and gosh-darnit, they're interesting. As long as they only have one province, what's your gripe? On the first move turn Athens into the greek confederation capital. Don't make that one Spartan unit you don't like. It will cost a lot in the game, believe me. It won't be easy to raise an army of them. There's enough reason to keep them in there. An absolutely excellent and cheap book on this is Paul Cartledge and Anthony Spawforth's Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. They are two of the absolutely most important and best respected historians working on ancient sparta now. You will *not* find anyone better. Their thesis? They challenge the conventional misperception of Spartan 'decline' after the loss of her status as a great power on the battlefield in 371. It's well worth it.

---

I quote from your post "Spartans, Macedonians, and Athenians"; this proves my point that the Spartans had almost no pure Spartan soldiers. They had to hire the soldiers of other city-states to fight their battles for them. I never said that by 270 they were destroyed, i said that the were "effectively destroyed", meaning that they had little or no power anymore.

- Panda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Panda Centurion

I quote from your post "Spartans, Macedonians, and Athenians"; this proves my point that the Spartans had almost no pure Spartan soldiers. They had to hire the soldiers of other city-states to fight their battles for them. I never said that by 270 they were destroyed, i said that the were "effectively destroyed", meaning that they had little or no power anymore.
- Panda

---

Ah. So nice and neat, eh? Why have any greek cities at all at this point then, as *all* of their power would have been "effectively destroyed" under your absolute guidelines? As I said, you can make Athens the capital. Past that, what's your problem with it then? One unit? The spartan hoplites? I've already stated that they would not be easy to create and maintain, UNLESS you decide to play as the greeks and you start being more successful.

Think about this for a second: why play as any faction other than Rome if you are insisting that the *course* of the game take a purely historical route? We are interested in making sure the *start* of the game is very accurate and historical, not the course you, as a player, take. If you do play as the greeks and you start becoming successful, do you not think that a real and successful greek state would not have started to revive and make more important units such as the spartiates? Of course they would. Can the weakened greek states start fielding spartan units in battles immediately at the start of the game? Of course not. They are too weak. But if they get stronger, who would you be to say they couldn't have spartiates? There is no possible way you can argue against that.

A historical unit, that is barely hanging on at the start of the game, if wielded by a faction (which had originally had that unit) who becomes more successful as the game goes on, by all rights should be included and be able to be created, though at a high cost to that faction.

Is there any way to make the Spartan unit be "decent" at the beginning and then can be upgraded or slowly the traits of the unit increase until it is better than most other units? I mean at the time the game starts the Spartans probably weren't the epitome of soldierly - but I doubt it would take that long of being drilled like the old days to pick up where their forefathers left off... the good strong blood was still around at that time, just not harnessed properly.

The game should not take a purely historical route, i never wanted it to, i just want the game to start with historical accuracy. The game goes anywhere from 270 BC onwards, but before the game starts, events are real history, and therefore should be accurate. My point still stands, Spartans should nto be included because the Spartan warrior population was depleted and never rose again, there was no way it could; therefore, i propose that Spartans are removed from the game.

PS: Athens had little power as well at this point. Most of the archetypal Greek cities were either destroyed, crippled, or just in decline.

- Panda

The Spartans never fielded a large army, even in their heyday. Between the 7th and the beginning of the 5th centuries the army strength was between 9000-8000 men. Around the beginning of the 4th century it was around 4000 men, only about 1000 of whom were Spartiates. The bulk of the army serving with the Spartans was made up of Lacedaemonian allies and mercenaries, even during the days of Spartan dominance. The Spartiates were, essentially, a tiny elite force. This tradition continued c. 270 BC. Remember that even after Macedonia took Sparta, she won independence around the late 3rd century. She was not completely finished, and her warrior elite should exist. There is much supporting evidence for this.

I wouldn't mind changing the location of the Allied Hellenes capital to another, more important city, but Sparta will exist in our mod, as will her warrior elite.

Quote:

---

The Spartans never fielded a large army, even in their heyday. Between the 7th and the beginning of the 5th centuries the army strength was between 9000-8000 men. Around the beginning of the 4th century it was around 4000 men, only about 1000 of whom were Spartiates. The bulk of the army serving with the Spartans was made up of Lacedaemonian allies and mercenaries, even during the days of Spartan dominance. The Spartiates were, essentially, a tiny elite force. This tradition continued c. 270 BC. Remember that even after Macedonia took Sparta, she won independence around the late 3rd century. She was not completely finished, and her warrior elite should exist. There is much supporting evidence for this.

---

Very well..

I admit that my point of getting rid of the Spartan unit was a little weak, i apologize about that. I never opted to get rid of the actual city of Sparta, my main point was just that it should not be the center of the Greek faction. Currently, i have to deal with all of my Greek family members having names ending with "of Sparta"; it makes me shudder. :furious3:

Cleomenes III, in 222 B.C. was actually still able to put in the field an army in the balpark of 20000 foot, including the elite phalanx, and 650 horse against the Macedons and its allies, even though he was defeated, by a much larger force (and his brother´s incompetence).

Some years Earlier, Cleomenes had efectively institued the "Old Ways" back in Sparta. He restored the old constitution set up by Lycurgus, dimished the power of the aristocrats and went back to the traditional dual kingship the supreme power, along with his brother. He extended citizenship, redistributed land, and restored military training for boys as early as the age of seven. He then launched military campaigns that brought the Peloponnesus back into Spartan control.

By the way, the spartans at this point were armed in the Macedonic fashion, which is, arguably a cheaper way of arming and maintaining a large heavy infantry force. In the meantime, its allies still used traditional hoplites.

Check, for example, Polybius as a source on this matter.... :book:

Hope that was helpful. :bow:

There is plenty of evidence to suggest Sparta was still a player in the time periods right before RTW's start date of 270 BCE. And was respected for it's military prowess well after the games start date.

When the Italians formed the Bruttian League to bring pressure on the Greek cities in southern Italy. The Greek colony of Tarentum appealed to Sparta for aid (circa 343 BCE).

King Archidamus of Sparta responded with a military expidition. Although he was killed in battle with the Lucanians, the Spartan response to assist Tarentum showed Sparta was still looked to by others in the Greek world well after it's defeat in 370 BCE by the Thebans.

Sparta again went to Tarentum's aid around 302 BCE, still actively supporting it's and other Greek interests.

Also the Spartan Mercenary Xanthippus assisted Carthage in organizing it's army, which lead to Romes failed African campaign circa 255 BCE (First Punic War). It's clear that the phalanx tactics he tought the Carthagenians was effective. Even if their social structure had changed, Sparta was still able to use centuries of training techniques and combat experience to it's advantage.

Also, Tarentums apeal to Sparta on several occasions for assistance against the Italians (Romans) lends some creedance to the fact that it is the capital for the Greek Cities in the game.

Some thoughts to chew on.

Subatai

What I also meant with my post, besides proving that sparta still could muster a large military force, was that the "Old Ways" could be in fact revived, to a certain extent, in as little time as a single generation.

Perhaps they wouldn´t be the ultra-elite of its earlier days, but still it was regarded as an elite over other troops fielded by Sparta.

Hey you guys, if you're gonna still have Sparta could you make it's force smaller and more powerful. I did this myself but I wouldn't want to bother again. Well I changed the Spartan unit from 40 to 12 to correspnd to 24(which is historically correct). Also I added more armor since the spartans had some of the best armor out there and I also added more defensive skills and changed the spear function to spear, short_pike because Spartans used short spears.

I hope you guys implement this. It's gonna be kewl.

Actually, the Spartans at this point in history were armed in the macedonian way as were most of the other polis including their lakemadonian allies.

Edit: Except for elite corps.

ok, I was bitching on the original spartan skin in another thread and someone showed me a picture of teh spartan helmet of this period. so if there were no spartans, there wouldn't be a spartan helmet...
if I'm wrong, please still keep em in the game, and make em look cool. those dudes rock, ultmiate soldiers nothing else.
btw didn't they fight aslmost naked, not even shoes?

oh boy.

Well, we were considering making what we affectionately term the "BP Spartans." They would be fully armed and armored except for the crotch area, where there would be no protection and their floppy bits would be exposed.

YAY! :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: ~:cheers: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

:bow: for you if you make my wishes come true. Please do?

C´mon khelvan...say it with me....P-E-N-I-S. ~;)


BTW, mind answearing my post at the news thread 25/02?

as far as I read, the EB hoplites will all have short_pike's.
So we will have spartans in game?:D

btw, that would be really disturbing: fully armed soldiers, completely packed up to the neck to protect everything. but open the zipper and hang out their P-E-N-I-S ( see sarcasm, I can do it!) to show it too the world.
IMO either make em completely nacked( maybe loincloth, but NO armor) with lots of shield, def skill and HP.
or make me completely armoured without package hanging out., it is pretty dumb to armor everything up but shwo your dick, shouldn't atke too much time for teh enemy too see where the shoudl be aiming at.

You realize, of course, I only said that because the whole notion of Greeks running around fully armored with their weiners dangling (penises? penii?) out and about is absurd. But then again, that whole nudity thread degenerated into absurdity. I was providing some satire just as BP (I hope, I pray) was satiring the nudity issue claiming that the Greeks would have been fully armed and armored but had their sausages exposed.

ok. great.

how about overhead stabbing? number? HP? looks? corinthian Helmet?

EDIT: indeed, the whole nudity-issue is insane, do what you guys ( as EB) wanna do, and don;'t give a shit what other people think. no big deal if 20 people dont downlaod it, their loss. with all teh great work I see your doing I couldn't care less if you do one or two thigns I don't agree on. ( wich I don't)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

ok. great.

how about overhead stabbing? number? HP? looks? corinthian Helmet?

---

... Penis? ~;)

:dizzy2: No more penises!

take all the thoughts you have about penises and stuff in a dark room out back.
or call teh gay-sexline and order a big gay ~:grouphug:

sorry, jumped into my mind

Its Penii! LOL ~D

ok, now I´m sorry I posted that message... ~D

did somebody say "penis"?

On this thread? Nah....

yes they did or not

Penii?
if it was penus, it would be peni.
penis, sounds like multiple, dativus and ablativus.

did 2 years latin and ancient greek. hated it.

:help:

sleep in the bed you made sarcasm.

I repent!

I think we should thank the gods the Spartans didn't have any al women hoplitons.

Not because of a sexist tendency, but because of the conversation it would spawn.

why? it WOULD be a gift from god. they don't have penises, so that's one arguement less.