Misunderstood Moments in History - The Spartan Myth

Misunderstood Moments in History. The Spartan Myth. A huge thanks to our sponsors, The Great Courses Plus, for making this video possible. The Spartans. A group practically worshipped by popular culture and military institutions for producing the ultimate warrior. Badass super soldiers trained from childhood with unmatched strength, discipline, and courage, battling against tyranny and oppression. Yet this narrative is a vast millennia-long distortion of the truth built up by propaganda, biased sources, and politicization. Today, we will unmask the truth behind the Spartan Myth. Let us first begin by confronting the elephant in the room, the story that everyone knows, the last stand of bold Leonidas and his 300 against an army of a million Persians. This is the heart of the Spartan legend, a scene immortalized in painting, poem, song, book, comic, and film, each retelling, further embellishing an alternate history. However, the very foundations of the myth are challenged when we learn that the battle was never intended as a suicide mission. That there were 20 times more allied Greeks than Spartiates at the start of the fight, and almost four times as many allied Greeks there at the end. That the last stand was an anomaly in Spartan history. That 50 years later, they would be fighting fellow Greeks while being paid by the Persians. That the Spartans were not bred for war. That their oppressive society was built on the back of slavery. That for much of their history, they were admired for their political rather than military achievements. That their image over the years has been cherry-picked and twisted to fit countless narratives. This is the confused mess in which we find ourselves. It is only recently that scholars have been able to turn a critical eye on much of what we think we know about the Spartans. Armed with these findings, we will now rewind the clock back before the emergence of the myth and rebuild our understanding of Sparta from the ground up. The Rise of Sparta Sparta had originally been settled around the 10th century BCE in the Eurotas Valley of Laconia in the southeast Peloponnese. Its early development was rather typical, and it bore the hallmarks of many other Greek cities. During the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, Sparta expanded regionally, conquering the neighboring people of Mycenae and Laconia to rule one of the largest territories in Greece. These subject populations became a vast underclass of helots, ruled over by a leisured Spartan elite. The resulting dynamics of this social structure would mark a turning point in Spartan history and drive its long-term evolution. Many are quick to trace back their perceived military dominance to this moment. However, no contemporary sources from this period mention Sparta as having an abnormally martial culture or unique military institutions. Instead, it appears that their rise to power was gradual and can more readily be attributed to a strength in numbers than strength at arms. In fact, ancient stories seem to claim that it was Argos, which was famed for its warriors, while Sparta was known for its women. During the 7th century BCE, many Greek city-states started to consolidate their internal order and formalize their laws. In Sparta, these were retroactively attributed to the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus. Primarily, these included the establishment of a Council of Elders, which Plutarch credits with bringing stability to a government which had previously oscillated between the extremes of anarchy and dictatorship. Egalitarian-focused land reforms were also implemented alongside new institutions for communal eating and schooling. While these are often pointed out as being uniquely Spartan, they were in fact features present to varying degrees in other Greek cities. In the 6th century BCE, Sparta switched its approach. They no longer took foreign territory outright, turning conquered people into helots. Instead, they expanded by forcing other states into a system of unequal alliances we call the Peloponnesian League. Its members had to swear to follow wherever the Spartans led. Yet the contemporary evidence still does not depict them as unstoppable killing machines. Tellingly, at the legendary Battle of Champions in 545 BCE, Sparta and Argos are supposed to have matched their best 300 hoplites in a fight that would leave two Argives and one Spartan left standing. It would appear that this was no one-sided affair. Thermopylae By the time of the 5th century BCE, the Spartans had solidified their position as one of the primary leaders of Helas. This presented them with a unique opportunity to achieve greatness with the outbreak of the Greco-Persian Wars. While the Spartans played a minor role in the first war, they would take supreme command of the anti-Persian forces in the larger invasion ten years later. But as Greece was overrun, the coalition worried that the Spartans would elect to sacrifice the northern cities and instead defend their home base to the south. As a show of commitment, the Spartans decided to make a stand at Thermopylae. Contrary to popular belief, this was not a heroic suicide mission by Leonidas and the brave 300. Rather, it was the deployment of a small, mixed group of 7,000 hoplites to hold the pass while the rest of the levies were raised for an anticipated showdown with the main Persian army. However, Xerxes arrived sooner than the Greeks expected, sending the allied commanders into a panic. Herodotus tells us that many wished to retreat, but that it was the Phocaeans and Locrians, not the Spartans, who insisted on holding the line. Ultimately, Leonidas elected to stay, but sent requests for immediate reinforcements. There is no evidence he intended to fight to the death for glory's sake. Over the next two days, the Greek army took turns holding the pass at Thermopylae while the navy defended the Straits of Artemisium. The encounter at sea was beginning to favor the Persians, and the land force was similarly threatened when an encircling goat path was revealed to the invaders. It is at this point that the majority of the Greek force abandoned the position. A small contingent composed of the surviving 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, and 400 Thebans remained. We will never know exactly what compelled Leonidas to stay. Regardless of the intent, however, the last stand at Thermopylae would become one of the most effective feats of propaganda in history. Becoming Legend Despite the Greeks failing all their objectives, the final decision to go down fighting allowed the Battle of Thermopylae to take on an enormous symbolic significance. This was a fact seized upon by the Spartans. Because it was their king who ultimately gave the order to stand, they could claim credit for the sacrifice, despite the Spartiates representing only a fifth of those who stayed behind. Thanks to carefully organized commemorations of the battle at home and at Thermopylae, the Spartans were able to take complete control of the ensuing narrative. It is telling that Herodotus, who writes of the fight almost two generations later, boasts that he had memorized the names of the 300 Spartans rather than any of the other participants. This bias in our primary source colorizes his retelling of the battle by projecting backwards from a point in time when the Spartan myth had already begun to take root. It is an incredible testament to the enduring nature of this story that it takes precedent in history over the far more significant encounters at Salamis and Plataea, which ultimately led to the expulsion of the Persians. Suddenly, the Spartans were elevated as heroes while the other participants were eclipsed and forgotten. The ensuing propaganda inflated their military reputation, which they eagerly exploited. What better way to stave off internal and external threats than to shield oneself in an aura of invincibility? The development of the Spartan myth was a result of their ensuing efforts to realize their legend. With this understanding, we can now finally turn our attention to see if they were ever able to live up to the hype. Bread for War One of the most enduring concepts to come out of the Spartan myth is the idea that the Spartiates were raised from birth to become the world's finest warriors. This is wrong. In order to qualify this objection, let us look at the early years of a Spartan's life. One of the first claims of Spartan superiority is the practice of eugenics, whereby newborns were inspected and thrown off a cliff if deemed unfit. This story comes from Plutarch and is largely regarded as myth. That being said, infanticide is indeed believed to have occurred in the form of child abandonment, though this practice of exposure also took place across much of the Mediterranean, including amongst the Romans and other Greeks. Upon surviving birth, the first few years of childhood are accepted to have been typical of most Greeks, even by our ancient sources. At the age of seven, however, youths would be enrolled in the compulsory Spartan training program known as the agogae. Yet far from being a military academy for producing good soldiers, their upbringing was more focused on producing good citizens. Athleticism, obedience, and competition were certainly fostered, but these were never directly tied to battlefield skills. There is no evidence in their schooling of any weapons proficiency training at all. Rather, they would be taught to exercise, dance, and recite poetry under the direction of their elders while tutors educated them on reading and writing. In its early form, this education would be rather similar to that of other Greek cities, though with the noted emphasis on austerity. Over time, it did eventually become more severe in order to reflect how the Spartans wanted to be seen. Many of the harsher elements of the agogae would only be introduced long after Thermopylae. It seems that as Sparta's reputation waned, the rigors of schooling increased as a way to sustain their identity. This differentiation generated prestige which drew the attention of many aristocratic families from other cities who sought to enroll their sons. By the time of the Roman conquests, Sparta was but a pale shadow of its former self. Nonetheless, its hard education became something of an antique theme park that drew visitors wishing to experience a glorious past that had never been true. Super Soldiers Having analyzed their youth, we will now follow the Spartans into adulthood and see what kinds of soldiers they became. This transition began around the age of 20 when students graduated from the agogae and joined the Spartan army. For the next 10 years, their lives would be centered around one of several communal messes. Entry into these groups required the consent of all its members, and failure to gain approval by the age of 30 meant that an individual would be denied full citizenship. Based solely on the Spartan myth, we might expect that these 10 years were spent as professional soldiers mastering the art of war. Once again, however, our popular expectations are confounded. Spartans were not professionals in the modern sense, and they did not form a standing army. They were not paid and controlled by the state, they did not make their living off soldiery, and they were not always under arms. Much like other Greeks, Spartan Hoplites were a militia force that served as a civic duty. The main difference was that while most other Greek troops returned to a life of labor, Spartans returned to a life of profiting off the labor of others. They were landed elites overseeing a vast underclass that worked almost every aspect of their economy. This rich man's life was the envy of many Greeks. But if the Spartans had all this free time, surely it must have been spent training to be the best of the best. While it is true that they did dedicate time to hard exercise and enforced moderation, this was not explicitly militaristic. Neither Plutarch nor Xenophon make mention of martial arts, weapons training, mock combat, or group training exercises that are the bedrock of today's boot camps. When not called upon by the state, they went about their duties as estate holders. They sang and danced, they drank together, they rode horses and raced chariot teams, they hunted, they played games, they slept around. At the Olympics, the Spartans were not particularly notable winners outside of the most upper class event, the chariot race. In the end, this leaves us with an understanding that the Spartans were something of a cross between a militia and a landed aristocracy. The evidence suggests that qualitatively they had the potential to produce top-tier Greek warriors, but they were by no means unmatched in this capacity. Craftsmen of War While individual Spartan soldiers may not have been particularly formidable, Spartans working together were much more impressive. Among the Greeks, they were the only ones to develop a command structure that went down to the platoon level with their own officers. This chain of command offered more tactical options than just charging at whatever was in front of them. Spartan forces could maneuver on the battlefield swiftly following orders and wheeling or changing face as the situation demanded. This was done while marching to the sound of flutes. Such disciplined control also allowed them to advance into battle while walking, which proved psychologically intimidating to untrained enemies. On campaign, the Spartans enforced their command structure and drill formations upon allied forces, raising the overall combat efficiency of coalition armies. They were able to win several major battles as a result of this unique ability. The Spartans extended their organization to other aspects of their military as well. This included assigning specific officers to take care of supplies and detaching specialist troops for the task of guarding the camp or scouting ahead of the marching column. Such was their reputed expertise that when allies asked them for help, they were known to send a single advisor rather than an army. Though as we shall see later, this may have had other causes. However, the main drawback of Sparta's specialization was that it was only applied to a single aspect of the army, the hoplite phalanx. They failed to develop competent light infantry or cavalry, which led to an inability to fuel well-rounded forces without the support of allies. In the long run, this stagnation would be their Achilles heel. Performance in Battle Now that we have discussed the Spartans on the individual and unit level, we can assess how they performed overall on the battlefield. The most striking measure of their success is the fact that they were undefeated in pitched battles for over a century and a half. This is thoroughly impressive. However, as always, we will dig beneath the surface of such claims. It must be stated that during this time, they did suffer losses in smaller battles, skirmishes, ambushes, sieges, and naval engagements. These were more numerous during this period as pitched battles were actually relatively rare. When we compare Sparta's overall performance against those of their peers, statistics seem to indicate they performed only marginally better than other leading city-states such as Athens and Corinth. It should also be pointed out that Sparta never again fought to the death as at Thermopylae. Despite the popular notion of the invincible and aggressive Spartans, the evidence seems to bear out that they were actually far more reluctant fighters than other powers. For instance, during the 5th century BCE, it was the Athenians who initiated more battles than any other Greek state. Our sources reinforce this notion by pointing out that the Spartans were notoriously cautious when it came to committing their forces. This can be attributed to two major factors, the threat of internal revolt and rapidly declining population numbers. The danger of an uprising was always a looming threat for the Spartans. This was a result of their hierarchical social structure whereby they had set themselves up as a ruling elite over an underclass that greatly outnumbered them. These helots were suppressed through fear and intimidation. If however the Spartans appeared weak, the tables might turn. For instance, an earthquake in 464 BCE sparked a major revolt that deeply traumatized the Spartans. Throughout their history, Sparta had to negotiate internal oppression and exploitation which made them careful not to shift too many men away from home. A shrinking Spartiate population further exacerbated these problems. This was largely the result of Sparta's strict control over who could become a full citizen. It seems that land fragmentation resulting from equal inheritance laws combined with the consolidation of plots by the wealthy severely limited the ability of individuals to maintain the cost of citizenship. At its height in the late 6th century BCE, Sparta boasted 8,000 citizens but within two centuries that had dropped to 1,000. By comparison we should note that Athens at its height had around 60,000 male citizens. In order to compensate for such differences, the Spartans relied increasingly on others to do the fighting for them. This would include diluting their own ranks with non-Spartiates or taking command of allies and mercenaries by dispatching small officer groups. It was only when Spartan interests were directly threatened or the reputation of Sparta itself was at stake that their army would march out in full force. At all other times, the Spartan myth was their best defense. The Spartan Myth As we have seen, Thermopylae was the spotlight that gave Sparta its moment of fame. This proved to be a golden opportunity and to their credit the Spartans were able to put on a great show. A well-rehearsed tough guy act was enough to convince their audience and win an empire. In the end however, they were a strong man that couldn't take a punch when it finally came. This is best evidenced by the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BCE when Thebes defeated the Spartans killing 400 Spartiates, a third of their citizens' body and shattering their image. The Spartans were unable to recover from this blow and fell into a terminal decline. Nonetheless, once off the stage, stories of their performance grew with each retelling, only to be recorded by Greek and Roman authors. This was then passed on to scribes and scholars down the years, ultimately culminating in the modern evolution of the Spartan myth with which we started this episode. I hope that by the end of this video, we have been able to effectively use the latest historical findings of the past decade to set the record straight. But the story doesn't have to end here. If you are interested in finding out more about the Spartans and the fascinating world of Ancient Greece, you can do so through our sponsor, The Great Courses Plus. They offer subscription-based on-demand lecture videos put together by top professors from renowned universities and specialists from places like the National Geographic and the Smithsonian. You get unlimited access to a huge library of over 8,000 videos which cover topics from history to science, math, and literature, with new content being added every month. Their selection on Ancient History has me particularly excited. At the moment, I am completing a series on the Ancient Greeks that has taken me from the collapse of the Bronze Age, to the emergence of powerful city-states, to their confrontation with the Persians, and finally, their destructively climactic infighting during the Peloponnesian War. I can genuinely say it's enthralling. I love the accessibility of the material and how it infuses the historical narrative with more recent archaeological findings and academic thought which add nuance to the material. This is made better by the fact that the app I installed on my phone allows me to swap from video to audio mode so I can listen to the series as a podcast. Right now, The Great Courses Plus is offering a 30-day free trial which you can start by clicking the link in the description below or visiting thegreatcoursesplus.com slash Invicta. I highly recommend that you take a look at what they have to offer and dive into the material you are most interested in. A huge thanks is owed to our supporters on Patreon and the many talented researchers, writers, and artists who made this video possible. In particular, I want to credit Dr. Roel Koenigendijk from the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London who helped provide the most up-to-date historical research for the script. If you found this topic interesting, check out these related videos about our fascinating past. Be sure to like and subscribe for more history, and check out our description for ways to support the channel. Thanks for watching!