Ya, but Spartans viewed the Helots as an enemy do to their large numbers in Sparta. Kinda like how Americans viewed hippies in the 60s. They treated them like an enemy from within and you never wanna train your enemy.TheRightToArmBears said:
Poll: The Spartan ratio
- Thread starter warhammerfrog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Are you questioning my statement, or the verifiable historical fact that Sparta lost most of its wars? Because they did.SckizoBoy said:
Now, my statement may have been misleading. The reason for the ratio wasn't ineffectiveness, but because they fought a LOT. If you'd like a particular example, Sparta tried to conquer Athens a huge number of times. They failed in every attempt. They did some major damage, but ultimately lost. It was an aggressive city-state with aggressive expansion policies, and always attempted to bite off more than it could chew. So, despite their prowess in battle, they were ultimately the losers more often.
Yeah, it was the statement... but it wasn't a really a case of Sparta being crap in war (religion, tradition, messed up hierarchy, stupid ephors can pretty much explain that), it's more a case of being awesome in battle (still a debatable point to be fair).8-Bit_Jack said:
Spartiates were soldiers first and rarely (if ever) diplomats (the Thirty(?) Tyrants come to mind). Despite their system of government being completely crap (oligarchy never works in such a stratified society), it wasn't the point of discussion here. However, the reasons they lost wars (never won any without a lot of help) are many, but the reason they lost battles are fewer: arrogance about their own prowess (always on the right, never anywhere else, but for some reason at Thermopylae, they allowed someone else to fight to their right, can't remember who); lack of appreciation of other military units (peltasts/psiloi/any missile troop); and the ideal that any Spartiate can become a leader (conflicting orders from ouragoi (ouragodes? sorry, didn't do Greek) or lokhagoi could really fuck up their battle-plans).
But even as a general fighting force I reckon that they were good, but overrated, largely because they won during a period that's not particularly well-recorded (600-500BC, considered somewhat primitive anyway) and tailed off towards 300BC quite badly (with the occasional victory such as Mantinea and Nemea). Case in point: the Battle of the Three Hundred Heroes (300 Argives vs 300 Spartans), you'd think Spartans would win hands down... no, three survivors: two Argives; and one Spartan. Both sides claim victory... yeesh
EDIT: round two, Argos vs Sparta... after this bust up, they had a full hoplite slog-match, Sparta did win that hands down, my bad
By anecdotal evidence, a single Spartan warrior was just as vulnerable as any other on the battlefield. While their personal skill at arms was considerable, it was only when formed into the famed phalanx that this was of any note as in such a formation strength, endurance and discipline more than personal skill were of paramount importance. Because each warrior within the ranks was of superior quality on the battlefield, creating a breach in the phalanx was far more difficult.
Keep in mind that, in order to break a phalanx, one's options were limited. They could assault to the front (and only with another phalanx was this sensible) and hope that sheer weight in men would cause the opponent to tire (and thus weaken the formation allowing kills to be readily made which leads to a disruption of the phalanx), but this was only a suitable tactic if one had significantly more men. One could attempt to flank the formation as the phalanx must maneuver as a cohesive unit (making it difficult to effectively turn to face a sudden threat) but when placed against similar units armies simply tended to rotate around one another as they closed. Cavalry was still in its infancy at the height of Spartan power and often the concept of skirmishing infantry was lost on the ancient world. The last option is to simply fire various missile weapons against them but thanks to heavy armor and significant shielding, such a tactic would be costly (arrow making in the ancient days was not an easy task, especially in Greece where suitable trees were hard to come by) and worse still it was considered cowardly and dishonorable.
The Spartans could be beaten as they indeed were. The strength of the phalanx was also it's greatest weakness. But it was only when new armies brought new ways to fight that the weakness was fully exploited. The Roman legion was notable not because of a singular strength but rather that their armaments and tactics were well suited to a far more dynamic battle. An enemy that is both free to maneuver and willing to do so was all it would take to route a Spartan army.
Keep in mind that, in order to break a phalanx, one's options were limited. They could assault to the front (and only with another phalanx was this sensible) and hope that sheer weight in men would cause the opponent to tire (and thus weaken the formation allowing kills to be readily made which leads to a disruption of the phalanx), but this was only a suitable tactic if one had significantly more men. One could attempt to flank the formation as the phalanx must maneuver as a cohesive unit (making it difficult to effectively turn to face a sudden threat) but when placed against similar units armies simply tended to rotate around one another as they closed. Cavalry was still in its infancy at the height of Spartan power and often the concept of skirmishing infantry was lost on the ancient world. The last option is to simply fire various missile weapons against them but thanks to heavy armor and significant shielding, such a tactic would be costly (arrow making in the ancient days was not an easy task, especially in Greece where suitable trees were hard to come by) and worse still it was considered cowardly and dishonorable.
The Spartans could be beaten as they indeed were. The strength of the phalanx was also it's greatest weakness. But it was only when new armies brought new ways to fight that the weakness was fully exploited. The Roman legion was notable not because of a singular strength but rather that their armaments and tactics were well suited to a far more dynamic battle. An enemy that is both free to maneuver and willing to do so was all it would take to route a Spartan army.