There is no actual historical evidence that the Spartans were militarily superior to anyone else
except winning the pelopenesian war & dominating the greek states for decades. they were just a random city that accidentally won the largest war of classical greek history? you can say their reputation is inflated but they obviously were top of the class in military matters during their (brief) heyday
how fancy you can swing a sword but things like discipline, organization, morale, stamina, courage, etc., training, etc
the sources for the spartans make clear the emphasis for their military program was not in producing people good at 'swinging a sword', but well-drilled and disciplined units. lots of myths are spun about thermopylae but you can't say the spartans there lacked those characteristics.
nor was thermopylae 'proof' of a bad strategy, the greek alliance hadn't set out to defeat the persian army in detail with that small force, it was a delaying action that very likely aided the preparations of the cities to the south and contributed to the final victory--which was not borne solely from Athenian naval victory: they also defeated the persians on land.
i'm with you for the (attested) picture of sparta being a horrific society, but you don't need to create a parallel myth of spartan insignificance to prove that.
Thermopylae was a major victory for the Persians. Again, Thermopylae, whether an attempt to delay or not, was a crushing strategic defeat.Their initial strategy was to hold the pass against the Persians successfully, not to get surrounded and be massacred. Plain and simply strategic disaster. It allowed the Persians to continue down the peninsular. They were barely delayed. There is little to no evidence it actually inspired the Greeks, and it almost certainly in fact demoralized them and inspired the Persians, which when you think about it is not at all surprising. The Athenians had to flee Athens and let it burn. Attica was conquered. In what way did a couple days delay change any of this? The last stand wasn't even what allowed the tactical retreat. The knew from their scouts the night before that the Persians had surrounded them, and the rest then disengaged without the Spartans last stand making a difference. In any case the group was small, and so was not decisive in the future.
At Plateia, the Spartans would even try to get out of the main position in the battle line, offering it to the Athenians, who a generation before had beaten the Persians at Marathon, which also contradicts the idea that at the time they felt themselves militarily superior. They were probably also aware that in this open space their would suffer at the hands of the Persian archers and cavalry.
On the Salamis point: Herodotus directly refutes the point by noting the Athenians tricking them. The Athenians knew that they would have a better chance at Salamis, rather than in open waters which is what the Spartans wanted. The Spartans wanted to retreat to the Isthmus, to repeat Thermopylae essentially.
The Peloponnesian war is a whole other can of worms, because we are talking about a generation later. At the outset, as Thucydides makes clear, the Athenians appeared to have the clear advantage due to their navy and economic superiority. Sparta had no navy and was economically backwards in comparison, with no public treasury. Furthermore, Sparta's citizen population was declining steadily in a trend that would never reverse. The Spartan's used their dominance of the Peloponnese to form militias from other poleis as the bulk of their force against the Athenian alliance, giving them a land army larger than the Athenians. We can call this entire group 'the Spartan forces' if one likes, but that just seems misleading.
In the early stages of the war, they proved how ineffective they were. They had one strategy: marching a larger land army up to Attica and hoping the Athenians would be stupid enough to face them on the open field. They came, they burnt some farms, then they went home when campaigning season was over. At the same time the Athenians easily dominated the seas. The Athenians won at Sphakteria in 425 BC., and lost at Delion in 424 BC and Amphipolis in 422 BC. The Spartan's more effectively sent a force to Thrace to threaten Athenian economic interests. The Peace of Nikias, 421 BC left Athens as well of as at the outset of the war. Sparta had achieved no main war objectives. They were vulnerable in the middle of the war due to their treaty with Argos expiring, who declared war on Sparta soon after. The Spartans at this point were desperate for a treaty.
The Athenians were showing a clear overall superiority in the war, up to this point. The Spartans were simply unable to beat them soundly and achieve any serious objectives. In fact they were begging for a treaty to get their capture men back. They could only beat them once the Athenians stupidly, in their hubris, took on the catastrophic expedition to Sicily, where they lost half their fleet and thousands of their veteran soldiers. The Spartans then allied with the Persians, because the Persians correctly perceived Athens as the bigger geopolitical threat.
In other words, Sparta's victory was due to a singe majorly stupid but lucky strategic error by the Athenians, tactical mistakes of the commander, all indicating hubristic overconfidence due to their superior position, combined with support for Sparta from Persia (the greatest power in that part of the world at that time). But it in no way demonstrates that the Spartans were better at war in any systematic or institutional sense. Once they had won well then of course they could dominate for 30 years. War is the continuation of politics by other means, and how effective you are is based on your general, systematic, institutional capacity to engage in violent, coercive action that will allow you to achieve your political aims. Sparta did get the latter, but by luck, frankly.
the can of worms most relevant to impressions of spartan superiority, because they won. if the Spartans were so disadvantaged in all of these myriad ways you're talking about--and war is so intimately a production of the polictical and social forces of a state as you state--how did they win? how can it be just luck that produces success or failure if who makes the decisions, who fights, who does diplomacy, etc. are the products of the totality of sociopolitical circumstances in a state?
why is the lucky mistake that precipitates spartan victory against all odds ten years(!) before their victorious conclusion of the conflict--with brutal terms levied against their rivals
Calm down. Again, you haven't read what I wrote. Your mixing up different periods. It's a different can of worms because if you want to actually understand Sparta's military you have to understand it in context, historically. Sparta's military changed over time. Again: there is literally no evidence from the time of Thermopylae that the Spartans were militarily superior. The only indication we have is that they were, later, slightly, marginally better at drilling and moving in formation than most other Greeks, but this only came later and did not given them overwhelming superiority in phalanx warfare, and did not make up for their gaping inadequacies in cavalry, light infantry, the navy, and having and economic base to do any of those things. The other Greeks states they competed against were not particularly militarily impressive by historical standards either until the post-Phillip II Macedonian military. Economic organization is a part of warfare. There are many components to military effectiveness and the Spartans only had a minor, marginal, historically unimportant one which doesn't explain their brief dominance over the local weak Hellenic poleis of the Peloponnese. I've spelled this out in my comments above. We were talking about Thermopylae on the one hand. I explained clearly why I think you were wrong. If you want to read serious historical analysis on it then go ahead.
I'm not sure what you're not understanding. You are literally just saying that because they won this war, hence they were superior militarily. What do you think you are even arguing here? This just becomes a kind of tautological trivialism. You're literally just doing vulgar materialism as a form of hand-waving metaphysics. You don't just wave your hand and say 'war and so victory are the product of these forces' and then someone leap to the conclusion that this tells you that Sparta military was greatly significant from a military pov. No one is arguing whether they won. By your logic, if Mount Etna has irrupted and wiped out the Athenians, and the Spartan's had been superstitious (a social factor) and escaped, then they would have been superior. Absurd.
It's been explained clearly and carefully all of the ways in which they were militarily backward and how they won the Peloponnesian war not out of any institutional superiority, but out of luck and Persian intervention. The discussion is about whether Sparta's military reputation and significance was a myth. It very, very largely was. No-one studies any of those aspects of military strategy, tactics, operations, combined arms, or military development. You put words into my mouth and said that I said that Sparta was 'insignificant', which, apart from the vagueness of what you even mean here, if you'd actually read what I wrote, is clearly not the case. Again, the point it just that their military importance and significance has been massively overinflated, overstated, mystically glorified when in fact they were not better at war than anyone else on average. If you're going to put words in my mouth and not respond properly to anything, then frankly, I'm completely justified in responding by making that clear.
You're wrong, and the current group of experts disagree with you. If you want this clarified I recommend you go read serious studies of Sparta released in the last few decades which have revolutionized our understanding of them, above all Stephen Hodkinson.
I have been polite and explained yourself, and you are suddenly getting aggressive like a teenager. If you are going to get angry and show your ignorance because you can't bothered to read what I said, not respond to any points, then disengage and kindly fuck off. You're trying to start an internet argument with some Marxist on the internet (who thought it was just a friendly discussion about history, but more the fool me) about Sparta of all things.
You seem to have misread my point about individual fighting. I am not suggesting the Spartans though you could Jedi your way through war. They were very aware that the opposite is the case and so are known to have banned wrestling competitions and such, as distractions from proper military training. I was simply pointing out the invalidity of the idea that they were individually superior super soldiers - a part of the myth - and that this would have been irrelevant anyhow.
You seem to have misunderstood my other point. We are not talking about whether they could effectively wage war in their social context. Obviously they could. So could everyone else. They were notable in the group. We are discussing a myth which has long permeated throughout Western culture of the Spartans as this Herculean race of warriors unparalleled in the arts of war, whereas there is no evidence for this.
During the Archaic period they showed no superiority whatsoever. Their power increased during this period, but this is almost certainly simply due to the fact that they were more populous, having more citizens than the neighboring poleis. They were one of the largest cities in ancient Greece. No sources tell thus anything about any peculiar form of military excellence compared to any other group of people. Ancient stories from the time in fact tell of Argos, not Sparta, as were the best warriors were from. In a later battle with the Argives in 550BC they would come out equally badly. Nor do the Spartan poems/songs we have from this time suggest their eminence. The end point of this period includes Thermopylae. Herodotus was born a few years before the battle. He gushes about them, because he lived in a climate of their propaganda. But he does not actually produce any evidence in his descriptions of the battle that show any kind of actual superiority. Operationally, they fight like everyone else. All they did was try take advantage of terrain, like every other army in history with two neurons to rub together. Again, it was, tactically, a crushing defeat. We know the accounts are propagandized because the Spartans did not make up the majority of the fighters there, thought they led it, yet we almost only hear about them, including in the generation after the battle. It is only after Thermopylae that they build up their legendary reputation. They surrendered at the battle of Sphakteria (425 BC).
It is only after Thermopylae and the Persian war that the Spartan develop some very limited tactics that give them some edge, perhaps, but this was balanced by many other factors. Their basic institutions remained like those of the other Hellenes. They were never militarized from birth to be supersoldiers. No source ever tells us or demonstrates their individual superiority as warriors or generals. The had no proper light infantry, and their cavalry was worthless (see Xenophon, Hellenika 6.4.10-11). They were regularly soundly defeated when battles relied on these other factors. The only edge they had was in their phalanx tactics. They were disciplined with decent officers, communications, commands and manoever, physically fit and effective at formation drill, which other states didn't do and was significant. This allowed them to win pitched hoplite battles, until the defeats by Thebes at Tegyra, Leuktra and Second Mantineia, but this is a basic form of warfare and speaks rather to how unsophicated archaic and classical greek warfare was. But their only significance was in the Greek Pelopponese, and was they faced militaries with far more sophicated militaries they didn't stand a chance.
For a brief period of time - and only after Thermopylae - they were better at a a very limited form of pitched hoplite warfare due to their emphasis on training and discipline. But they showed no significant advances in any other areas. Actually, precisely their overeliance on this form of warfare, due to their social class structure (which didn't really allow for light infantry and effective cavalry), lead to their military abilities being very limited and falling behind other powers. While their superiority amongst local Greek states in this sense was clear, it was overall marginal in my opinion when we include other factors like military diversity, strategy, and economic power. The dominance at this specific form of warfare lasted, say, 150 years. Their actual political domination of Greece far less time, say 30 years.
man i do not need to haggle over the particular meanings you had in your head, your comment was at best unclear or simply incorrect, judging by how much you've backpedaled the original points here---sometimes you can just take and L and admit it,
but don't talk down to me like i don't know how to read, i know what "no actual historical evidence that the Spartans were militarily superior to anyone else" means, and nothing you wrote previously or subsequently supports it. it's a damn tired shtick to act like anyone who disputes what you say just doesn't 'get it'
What meanings in my head? What? You are the one who has given a totally arbitrary definition of military superiority of 'just winning lol', when that not what anyone else means when they are talking about the quality of a military. It's not haggling over what is in my head. I'm not talking down to you. I was actually trying to be chill and discuss a historical question in detail, and you're getting annoyed by the detail, because you think it's condescending? Like sorry if you think that they you need to grow up. This is how these discussions work. If you say something which someone thinks is wrong and they cite extensive evidence and sources, then it's not on them if that annoys you. This is called clarification and explanation. If you think there is backpedaling then yeh, you've misread. What do you want? People not to tell you you've misread when you have? Does everyone just get to decide what everyone else means in their heads? If you're not down to do any of that then don't post an aggressive, sassy comment about a minor academic question where you show you don't actually know what you're talking about. Either respond properly with arguments and evidence and respectfully, instead of making up detached-from-reality accusations, or don't respond in the first place.
You final comment is literal nonsense. I've explained exhaustively how they were not systematically or institutionally superior. All the current experts in these field think you're wrong. I'm not just saying that if someone disagrees with me then they 'dont get it'. Where did I say that?Again, just read what I wrote. It says or implies that no-where. I'm saying that specifically you didn't correctly understand some points (which is fine, happens to everyone), made clear why and then gave extensive argument for why I think your position on the academic issue was wrong. Your opinion happens to contradict the current collective expert opinion that has upended the field in the last few decades.
So, frankly, I don't know what L's your chatting about, and honestly you're just making obvious arrogance and the fact that you don't know what you talking about.
Kindly don't respond to me again. Don't want to waste the oxygen.
Iirc Spartan dominance only lasted around 200 years. I will give them credit for resisting Christianity the longest of any pagan group in the Roman empire though. But early Christianity before Roman adoption was actually kinda based, so points reduced again.
Thebes is cooler anyways, gay lovers kill protofascists is a nice story
more like 30 years, lol. they weren't very dominant even on the morea peninsula until the persian war, but rose in prominence through that war & the following peloponnesian war.
thing is that the persian wars & the peloponnesian wars weren't small or short conflicts, so the victors can't be seen as nobodies even if the accomplishment didn't secure them a political legacy
There was a decent amount of hold outs all across Greece well past Roman adoption. It took a lot longer for Christianity to become the dominant and then only religion in the empire, and most converts were after Constantine made it legal(but not dominant) but before it was enforced.
except winning the pelopenesian war & dominating the greek states for decades. they were just a random city that accidentally won the largest war of classical greek history? you can say their reputation is inflated but they obviously were top of the class in military matters during their (brief) heyday
the sources for the spartans make clear the emphasis for their military program was not in producing people good at 'swinging a sword', but well-drilled and disciplined units. lots of myths are spun about thermopylae but you can't say the spartans there lacked those characteristics.
nor was thermopylae 'proof' of a bad strategy, the greek alliance hadn't set out to defeat the persian army in detail with that small force, it was a delaying action that very likely aided the preparations of the cities to the south and contributed to the final victory--which was not borne solely from Athenian naval victory: they also defeated the persians on land.
i'm with you for the (attested) picture of sparta being a horrific society, but you don't need to create a parallel myth of spartan insignificance to prove that.
Thermopylae was a major victory for the Persians. Again, Thermopylae, whether an attempt to delay or not, was a crushing strategic defeat.Their initial strategy was to hold the pass against the Persians successfully, not to get surrounded and be massacred. Plain and simply strategic disaster. It allowed the Persians to continue down the peninsular. They were barely delayed. There is little to no evidence it actually inspired the Greeks, and it almost certainly in fact demoralized them and inspired the Persians, which when you think about it is not at all surprising. The Athenians had to flee Athens and let it burn. Attica was conquered. In what way did a couple days delay change any of this? The last stand wasn't even what allowed the tactical retreat. The knew from their scouts the night before that the Persians had surrounded them, and the rest then disengaged without the Spartans last stand making a difference. In any case the group was small, and so was not decisive in the future.
At Plateia, the Spartans would even try to get out of the main position in the battle line, offering it to the Athenians, who a generation before had beaten the Persians at Marathon, which also contradicts the idea that at the time they felt themselves militarily superior. They were probably also aware that in this open space their would suffer at the hands of the Persian archers and cavalry.
On the Salamis point: Herodotus directly refutes the point by noting the Athenians tricking them. The Athenians knew that they would have a better chance at Salamis, rather than in open waters which is what the Spartans wanted. The Spartans wanted to retreat to the Isthmus, to repeat Thermopylae essentially.
The Peloponnesian war is a whole other can of worms, because we are talking about a generation later. At the outset, as Thucydides makes clear, the Athenians appeared to have the clear advantage due to their navy and economic superiority. Sparta had no navy and was economically backwards in comparison, with no public treasury. Furthermore, Sparta's citizen population was declining steadily in a trend that would never reverse. The Spartan's used their dominance of the Peloponnese to form militias from other poleis as the bulk of their force against the Athenian alliance, giving them a land army larger than the Athenians. We can call this entire group 'the Spartan forces' if one likes, but that just seems misleading.
In the early stages of the war, they proved how ineffective they were. They had one strategy: marching a larger land army up to Attica and hoping the Athenians would be stupid enough to face them on the open field. They came, they burnt some farms, then they went home when campaigning season was over. At the same time the Athenians easily dominated the seas. The Athenians won at Sphakteria in 425 BC., and lost at Delion in 424 BC and Amphipolis in 422 BC. The Spartan's more effectively sent a force to Thrace to threaten Athenian economic interests. The Peace of Nikias, 421 BC left Athens as well of as at the outset of the war. Sparta had achieved no main war objectives. They were vulnerable in the middle of the war due to their treaty with Argos expiring, who declared war on Sparta soon after. The Spartans at this point were desperate for a treaty.
The Athenians were showing a clear overall superiority in the war, up to this point. The Spartans were simply unable to beat them soundly and achieve any serious objectives. In fact they were begging for a treaty to get their capture men back. They could only beat them once the Athenians stupidly, in their hubris, took on the catastrophic expedition to Sicily, where they lost half their fleet and thousands of their veteran soldiers. The Spartans then allied with the Persians, because the Persians correctly perceived Athens as the bigger geopolitical threat.
In other words, Sparta's victory was due to a singe majorly stupid but lucky strategic error by the Athenians, tactical mistakes of the commander, all indicating hubristic overconfidence due to their superior position, combined with support for Sparta from Persia (the greatest power in that part of the world at that time). But it in no way demonstrates that the Spartans were better at war in any systematic or institutional sense. Once they had won well then of course they could dominate for 30 years. War is the continuation of politics by other means, and how effective you are is based on your general, systematic, institutional capacity to engage in violent, coercive action that will allow you to achieve your political aims. Sparta did get the latter, but by luck, frankly.
the can of worms most relevant to impressions of spartan superiority, because they won. if the Spartans were so disadvantaged in all of these myriad ways you're talking about--and war is so intimately a production of the polictical and social forces of a state as you state--how did they win? how can it be just luck that produces success or failure if who makes the decisions, who fights, who does diplomacy, etc. are the products of the totality of sociopolitical circumstances in a state?
why is the lucky mistake that precipitates spartan victory against all odds ten years(!) before their victorious conclusion of the conflict--with brutal terms levied against their rivals
Calm down. Again, you haven't read what I wrote. Your mixing up different periods. It's a different can of worms because if you want to actually understand Sparta's military you have to understand it in context, historically. Sparta's military changed over time. Again: there is literally no evidence from the time of Thermopylae that the Spartans were militarily superior. The only indication we have is that they were, later, slightly, marginally better at drilling and moving in formation than most other Greeks, but this only came later and did not given them overwhelming superiority in phalanx warfare, and did not make up for their gaping inadequacies in cavalry, light infantry, the navy, and having and economic base to do any of those things. The other Greeks states they competed against were not particularly militarily impressive by historical standards either until the post-Phillip II Macedonian military. Economic organization is a part of warfare. There are many components to military effectiveness and the Spartans only had a minor, marginal, historically unimportant one which doesn't explain their brief dominance over the local weak Hellenic poleis of the Peloponnese. I've spelled this out in my comments above. We were talking about Thermopylae on the one hand. I explained clearly why I think you were wrong. If you want to read serious historical analysis on it then go ahead.
I'm not sure what you're not understanding. You are literally just saying that because they won this war, hence they were superior militarily. What do you think you are even arguing here? This just becomes a kind of tautological trivialism. You're literally just doing vulgar materialism as a form of hand-waving metaphysics. You don't just wave your hand and say 'war and so victory are the product of these forces' and then someone leap to the conclusion that this tells you that Sparta military was greatly significant from a military pov. No one is arguing whether they won. By your logic, if Mount Etna has irrupted and wiped out the Athenians, and the Spartan's had been superstitious (a social factor) and escaped, then they would have been superior. Absurd.
It's been explained clearly and carefully all of the ways in which they were militarily backward and how they won the Peloponnesian war not out of any institutional superiority, but out of luck and Persian intervention. The discussion is about whether Sparta's military reputation and significance was a myth. It very, very largely was. No-one studies any of those aspects of military strategy, tactics, operations, combined arms, or military development. You put words into my mouth and said that I said that Sparta was 'insignificant', which, apart from the vagueness of what you even mean here, if you'd actually read what I wrote, is clearly not the case. Again, the point it just that their military importance and significance has been massively overinflated, overstated, mystically glorified when in fact they were not better at war than anyone else on average. If you're going to put words in my mouth and not respond properly to anything, then frankly, I'm completely justified in responding by making that clear.
You're wrong, and the current group of experts disagree with you. If you want this clarified I recommend you go read serious studies of Sparta released in the last few decades which have revolutionized our understanding of them, above all Stephen Hodkinson.
I have been polite and explained yourself, and you are suddenly getting aggressive like a teenager. If you are going to get angry and show your ignorance because you can't bothered to read what I said, not respond to any points, then disengage and kindly fuck off. You're trying to start an internet argument with some Marxist on the internet (who thought it was just a friendly discussion about history, but more the fool me) about Sparta of all things.
deleted by creator
love hasn't acted like that in this thread specifically, but in the comments below things did get a bit heated tbf
deleted by creator
You seem to have misread my point about individual fighting. I am not suggesting the Spartans though you could Jedi your way through war. They were very aware that the opposite is the case and so are known to have banned wrestling competitions and such, as distractions from proper military training. I was simply pointing out the invalidity of the idea that they were individually superior super soldiers - a part of the myth - and that this would have been irrelevant anyhow.
You seem to have misunderstood my other point. We are not talking about whether they could effectively wage war in their social context. Obviously they could. So could everyone else. They were notable in the group. We are discussing a myth which has long permeated throughout Western culture of the Spartans as this Herculean race of warriors unparalleled in the arts of war, whereas there is no evidence for this.
During the Archaic period they showed no superiority whatsoever. Their power increased during this period, but this is almost certainly simply due to the fact that they were more populous, having more citizens than the neighboring poleis. They were one of the largest cities in ancient Greece. No sources tell thus anything about any peculiar form of military excellence compared to any other group of people. Ancient stories from the time in fact tell of Argos, not Sparta, as were the best warriors were from. In a later battle with the Argives in 550BC they would come out equally badly. Nor do the Spartan poems/songs we have from this time suggest their eminence. The end point of this period includes Thermopylae. Herodotus was born a few years before the battle. He gushes about them, because he lived in a climate of their propaganda. But he does not actually produce any evidence in his descriptions of the battle that show any kind of actual superiority. Operationally, they fight like everyone else. All they did was try take advantage of terrain, like every other army in history with two neurons to rub together. Again, it was, tactically, a crushing defeat. We know the accounts are propagandized because the Spartans did not make up the majority of the fighters there, thought they led it, yet we almost only hear about them, including in the generation after the battle. It is only after Thermopylae that they build up their legendary reputation. They surrendered at the battle of Sphakteria (425 BC).
It is only after Thermopylae and the Persian war that the Spartan develop some very limited tactics that give them some edge, perhaps, but this was balanced by many other factors. Their basic institutions remained like those of the other Hellenes. They were never militarized from birth to be supersoldiers. No source ever tells us or demonstrates their individual superiority as warriors or generals. The had no proper light infantry, and their cavalry was worthless (see Xenophon, Hellenika 6.4.10-11). They were regularly soundly defeated when battles relied on these other factors. The only edge they had was in their phalanx tactics. They were disciplined with decent officers, communications, commands and manoever, physically fit and effective at formation drill, which other states didn't do and was significant. This allowed them to win pitched hoplite battles, until the defeats by Thebes at Tegyra, Leuktra and Second Mantineia, but this is a basic form of warfare and speaks rather to how unsophicated archaic and classical greek warfare was. But their only significance was in the Greek Pelopponese, and was they faced militaries with far more sophicated militaries they didn't stand a chance.
For a brief period of time - and only after Thermopylae - they were better at a a very limited form of pitched hoplite warfare due to their emphasis on training and discipline. But they showed no significant advances in any other areas. Actually, precisely their overeliance on this form of warfare, due to their social class structure (which didn't really allow for light infantry and effective cavalry), lead to their military abilities being very limited and falling behind other powers. While their superiority amongst local Greek states in this sense was clear, it was overall marginal in my opinion when we include other factors like military diversity, strategy, and economic power. The dominance at this specific form of warfare lasted, say, 150 years. Their actual political domination of Greece far less time, say 30 years.
deleted by creator
man i do not need to haggle over the particular meanings you had in your head, your comment was at best unclear or simply incorrect, judging by how much you've backpedaled the original points here---sometimes you can just take and L and admit it,
but don't talk down to me like i don't know how to read, i know what "no actual historical evidence that the Spartans were militarily superior to anyone else" means, and nothing you wrote previously or subsequently supports it. it's a damn tired shtick to act like anyone who disputes what you say just doesn't 'get it'
What meanings in my head? What? You are the one who has given a totally arbitrary definition of military superiority of 'just winning lol', when that not what anyone else means when they are talking about the quality of a military. It's not haggling over what is in my head. I'm not talking down to you. I was actually trying to be chill and discuss a historical question in detail, and you're getting annoyed by the detail, because you think it's condescending? Like sorry if you think that they you need to grow up. This is how these discussions work. If you say something which someone thinks is wrong and they cite extensive evidence and sources, then it's not on them if that annoys you. This is called clarification and explanation. If you think there is backpedaling then yeh, you've misread. What do you want? People not to tell you you've misread when you have? Does everyone just get to decide what everyone else means in their heads? If you're not down to do any of that then don't post an aggressive, sassy comment about a minor academic question where you show you don't actually know what you're talking about. Either respond properly with arguments and evidence and respectfully, instead of making up detached-from-reality accusations, or don't respond in the first place.
You final comment is literal nonsense. I've explained exhaustively how they were not systematically or institutionally superior. All the current experts in these field think you're wrong. I'm not just saying that if someone disagrees with me then they 'dont get it'. Where did I say that?Again, just read what I wrote. It says or implies that no-where. I'm saying that specifically you didn't correctly understand some points (which is fine, happens to everyone), made clear why and then gave extensive argument for why I think your position on the academic issue was wrong. Your opinion happens to contradict the current collective expert opinion that has upended the field in the last few decades.
So, frankly, I don't know what L's your chatting about, and honestly you're just making obvious arrogance and the fact that you don't know what you talking about.
Kindly don't respond to me again. Don't want to waste the oxygen.
Iirc Spartan dominance only lasted around 200 years. I will give them credit for resisting Christianity the longest of any pagan group in the Roman empire though. But early Christianity before Roman adoption was actually kinda based, so points reduced again.
Thebes is cooler anyways, gay lovers kill protofascists is a nice story
more like 30 years, lol. they weren't very dominant even on the morea peninsula until the persian war, but rose in prominence through that war & the following peloponnesian war.
thing is that the persian wars & the peloponnesian wars weren't small or short conflicts, so the victors can't be seen as nobodies even if the accomplishment didn't secure them a political legacy
There was a decent amount of hold outs all across Greece well past Roman adoption. It took a lot longer for Christianity to become the dominant and then only religion in the empire, and most converts were after Constantine made it legal(but not dominant) but before it was enforced.