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.
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