|
|
Classical Greece from the Culture of the Polis
to the End of Independence
|
8TH-3RD CENTURY B.C.
|
|
|
The Military State of Sparta
|
Sparta, the most powerful
state on the Peloponnesus, was significantly more traditional
than other city-states. Its public life was characterized by
austerity and martial order, and the state boasted a formidable
military force.
|
Alongside Athens,
1, 2
Sparta played a dominant role among the city-states of Greece.
|

1 The landscape of
ancient Sparta
|

2 The Agora of
Sparta, artist's reconstruction
|
|
Due to the conflict between the
two powers, which emerged in the fifth century B.C., comparisons
of their political structures and lifestyles have often been
drawn that do not do justice to their dissimilar development and
background. Sparta's expansion in order to solve its demographic
problems began around 720 B.C. when the Spartans occupied
Laconia and invaded Messenia. The Messenians rebelled between
660 and 640, which led to the city's subjugation, giving Sparta
control over the whole of the Peloponnesus. The conquered
peoples became helots, or serfs. Individual tribes of helots
were able to gain their freedom through bravery in war, however,
and later even acquired the right to Spartan citizenship.
Sparta's social order rested on the upholding of traditional
tribal customs such as the petitioning of the gods, communal
meals, and the raising of boys from the age of seven by the
state rather than the family. The Spartans were famed for their
discipline, the austerity of their lives and their obedience to
authority. The consequences, however, were that Sparta remained
socially and economically backward, for example, not even
minting a coinage. By the sixth century B.C. the rule of the
aristocracy had been abolished and replaced by a society of
equals (Homoioi) composed of all able men.
They ate their 3 meals—for
example, the notorious Spartan "black soup"— communally.

3 Spartan communal
meal
Fifteen men comprised an eating community and undertook the
training of their adolescents (ephebi). Until the age of
30, the men lived with their military unit and underwent
continuous training. This led to the sidelining of marriage and
family life and encouraged homosexual relationships. As the men
were frequently absent due to war or military training, the
women of Sparta led a more liberated life than women in other
cities. Aristotle even spoke of an "unbridled regiment of women"
in Sparta.
Sparta's political goal was military effectiveness and readiness
for battle against outside enemies as well as against possible
revolts of the helots.
Through physical and weapons 4,
6 training, young Spartans
were disciplined to fight, kill, and die for the good of Sparta.
This archetypal character—readiness for battle and fearlessness
in the face of death—is history's image of Sparta.
|

4 Gymnastic
exercises of Spartan youths
|

6 Youths wrestling,
marble relief, ca. 500 B.C.
|
|
|
|
Translated from Herodotus'
History:
Inscription on
Graves of Spartans
Killed Defending the
Pass of Thermopylae
"Go, stranger, and tell the
Spartans that we lie here
in obedience to their laws."
|
|
|

Ephebe with pole and sling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Herodotus
Greek historian
born 484 bc?, Halicarnassus, Asia Minor [now Bodrum,
Tur.]?
died 430–420
Main
Greek author of the first great narrative history
produced in the ancient world, the History of the
Greco-Persian Wars.
It is believed that Herodotus was born at Halicarnassus,
a Greek city in southwest Asia Minor that was then under
Persian rule. The precise dates of his birth and death
are alike uncertain. He is thought to have resided in
Athens and to have met Sophocles and then to have left
for Thurii, a new colony in southern Italy sponsored by
Athens. The latest event alluded to in his History
belongs to 430, but how soon after or where he died is
not known. There is good reason to believe that he was
in Athens, or at least in central Greece, during the
early years of the Peloponnesian War, from 431, and that
his work was published and known there before 425.
Herodotus was a wide
traveler. His longer wandering covered a large part of
the Persian Empire: he went to Egypt, at least as far
south as Elephantine (Aswān), and he also visited Libya,
Syria, Babylonia, Susa in Elam, Lydia, and Phrygia. He
journeyed up the Hellespont to Byzantium, went to Thrace
and Macedonia, and traveled northward to beyond the
Danube and to Scythia eastward along the northern shores
of the Black Sea as far as the Don River and some way
inland. These travels would have taken many years.
Structure and scope
of the History
Herodotus’ subject in his History is the wars
between Greece and Persia (499–479 bc) and their
preliminaries. As it has survived, the History is
divided into nine books (the division is not Herodotus’
own): Books I–V describe the background to the
Greco-Persian Wars; Books VI–IX contain the history of
the wars, culminating in an account of the Persian king
Xerxes’ invasion of Greece (Book VII) and the great
Greek victories at Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale in
480–479 bc There are two parts in the History, one being
the systematic narrative of the war of 480–479 with its
preliminaries from 499 onward (including the Ionic
revolt and the Battle of Marathon in Book VI), the other
being the story of the growth and organization of the
Persian Empire and a description of its geography,
social structure, and history.
There has been much
debate among modern scholars whether Herodotus from the
first had this arrangement in mind or had begun with a
scheme for only one part, either a description of Persia
or a history of the war, and if so, with which. One
likely opinion is that Herodotus began with a plan for
the history of the war and that later he decided on a
description of the Persian Empire itself. For a man like
Herodotus was bound to ask himself what the Persian-led
invasion force meant. Herodotus was deeply impressed not
only by the great size of the Persian Empire but also by
the varied and polyglot nature of its army, which was
yet united in a single command, in complete contrast to
the Greek forces with their political divisions and
disputatious commanders, although the Greeks shared a
common language, religion, and way of thought and the
same feeling about what they were fighting for. This
difference had to be explained to his readers, and to
this end he describes the empire.
A logical link between
the two main sections is to be found in the account in
Book VII of the westward march of Xerxes’ immense army
from Sardis to the Hellespont on the way to the crossing
by the bridge of boats into Greece proper. First comes a
story of Xerxes’ arrogance and petulance, followed by
another of his savage and autocratic cruelty, and then
comes a long, detailed description of the separate
military contingents of the army marching as if on
parade, followed by a detailed enumeration of all the
national and racial elements in the huge invasion force.
Herodotus describes the
history and constituent parts of the Persian Empire in
Books I–IV. His method in the account of the empire is
to describe each division of it not in a geographical
order but as each was conquered by Persia—by the
successive Persian kings Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius.
(The one exception to this arrangement is Lydia, which
is treated at the very beginning of the history not
because it was first conquered but because it was the
first foreign country to attack and overcome the Greek
cities of Asia Minor.)
The first section of
Book I, the history and description of Lydia and its
conquest by the Persians, is followed by the story of
Cyrus himself, his defeat of the Medes and a description
of Persia proper, his attack on the Massagetae (in the
northeast, toward the Caspian), and his death. Book II
contains the succession of Cambyses, Cyrus’ son, his
plan to attack Egypt, and an immensely long account of
that unique land and its history. Book III describes the
Persians’ conquest of Egypt, the failure of their
invasions to the south (Ethiopia) and west; the madness
and death of Cambyses; the struggles over the succession
in Persia, ending with the choice of Darius as the new
king; the organization of the vast new empire by him,
with some account of the most distant provinces as far
east as Bactria and northwest India; and the internal
revolts suppressed by Darius. Book IV begins with the
description and history of the Scythian peoples, from
the Danube to the Don, whom Darius proposed to attack by
crossing the Bosporus, and of their land and of the
Black Sea.
Then follows the story
of the Persian invasion of Scythia, which carried with
it the submission of more Greek cities, such as
Byzantium; of the Persians’ simultaneous attack from
Egypt on Libya, which had been colonized by Greeks; and
the description of that country and its colonization.
Book V describes further Persian advances into Greece
proper from the Hellespont and the submission of Thrace
and Macedonia and many more Greek cities to Persian
might, then the beginning of the revolt of the Greek
cities of Ionia against Persia in 499, and so to the
main subject of the whole work.
Method of narration
This brief account of the first half of Herodotus’
History not only conceals its infinite variety but is
positively misleading insofar as it suggests a
straightforward geographical, sociological, and
historical description of a varied empire. The History’s
structure is more complex than that, and so is
Herodotus’ method of narration. For example, Herodotus
had no need to explain Greek geography, customs, or
political systems to his Greek readers, but he did wish
to describe the political situation at the relevant
times of the many Greek cities later involved in the
war. This he achieved by means of digressions skillfully
worked into his main narrative. He thus describes the
actions of Croesus, the king of Lydia, who conquered the
Greeks of mainland Ionia but who was in turn subjugated
by the Persians, and this account leads Herodotus into a
digression on the past history of the Ionians and
Dorians and the division between the two most powerful
Greek cities, the Ionian Athens and the Doric Sparta.
Athens’ complex political development in the 6th century
bc is touched upon, as is the conservative character of
the Spartans. All of this, and much besides, some of it
only included because of Herodotus’ personal interest,
helps to explain the positions of these Greek states in
490, the year of the Battle of Marathon, and in 480, the
year in which Xerxes invaded Greece.
One important and,
indeed, remarkable feature of Herodotus’ History is his
love of and gift for narrating history in the
storyteller’s manner (which is not unlike Homer’s). In
this regard he inserts not only amusing short stories
but also dialogue and even speeches by the leading
historical figures into his narrative, thus beginning a
practice that would persist throughout the course of
historiography in the classical world.
Outlook on life
The story of Croesus in Book I gives Herodotus the
occasion to foreshadow, as it were, in Croesus’ talk
with Solon the general meaning of the story of the
Greco-Persian Wars, and so of his whole History—that
great prosperity is “a slippery thing” and may lead to a
fall, more particularly if it is accompanied by
arrogance and folly as it was in Xerxes. The story of
Xerxes’ invasion of Greece is a clear illustration of
the moral viewpoint here; a war that by all human
reasoning should have been won was irretrievably lost.
To Herodotus, the old moral “pride comes before a fall”
was a matter of common observation and had been proved
true by the greatest historical event of his time.
Herodotus believes in divine retribution as a punishment
of human impiety, arrogance, and cruelty, but his
emphasis is always on the actions and character of men,
rather than on the interventions of the gods, in his
descriptions of historical events. This fundamentally
rationalistic approach was an epochal innovation in
Western historiography.
Qualities as a
historian
Herodotus was a great traveler with an eye for
detail, a good geographer, a man with an indefatigable
interest in the customs and past history of his
fellowmen, and a man of the widest tolerance, with no
bias for the Greeks and against the barbarians. He was
neither naive nor easily credulous. It is this which
makes the first half of his work not only so readable
but of such historical importance. In the second half he
is largely, but by no means only, writing military
history, and it is evident that he knew little of
military matters. Yet he understood at least one
essential of the strategy of Xerxes’ invasion, the
Persians’ dependence on their fleet though they came by
land, and therefore Herodotus understood the decisive
importance of the naval battle at Salamis. Similarly, in
his political summaries he is commonly content with
explaining events on the basis of trivial personal
motives, yet here again he understood certain
essentials: that the political meaning of the struggle
between the great territorial empire of Persia and the
small Greek states was not one of Greek independence
only but the rule of law as the Greeks understood it;
and that the political importance of the Battle of
Marathon for the Greek world was that it foreshadowed
the rise of Athens (confirmed by Salamis) to a position
of equality and rivalry with Sparta and the end of the
long-accepted primacy of the latter. He knew that war
was not only a question of victory or defeat, glorious
as the Greek victory was, but brought its own
consequences in its train, including the internal
quarrels and rivalry between the leading Greek
city-states, quarreling that was to later culminate in
the devastating internecine strife of the Peloponnesian
War (431–404 bc).
Conclusion
Herodotus had his predecessors in prose writing,
especially Hecataeus of Miletus, a great traveler whom
Herodotus mentions more than once. But these
predecessors, for all their charm, wrote either
chronicles of local events, of one city or another,
covering a great length of time, or comprehensive
accounts of travel over a large part of the known world,
none of them creating a unity, an organic whole. In the
sense that he created a work that is an organic whole,
Herodotus was the first of Greek, and so of European,
historians. Herodotus’ work is not only an artistic
masterpiece; for all his mistakes (and for all his
fantasies and inaccuracies) he remains the leading
source of original information not only for Greek
history of the all-important period between 550 and 479
bc but also for much of that of western Asia and of
Egypt at that time.
Encyclopædia Britannica
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
The Political Organization of Sparta
|
Sparta was ruled by two royal dynasties, though the ephorate
occasionally seized the reins of power. The original harmonious
relationship with Athens turned into rivalry and confrontation
after the Persian Wars.
|
Sparta's form of government was
a monarchy with two lines of kings, the Agiads and the
Eurypontids, sharing power between them.
The Spartan aristocracy dedicated itself to
7, 8,
11 warfare and was supported
by the taxes of the helot peoples.
In the first half of the seventh century в.с, the lawmaker
10 Lycurgus instituted a
political code called the Great Rhetra ("agreement" or "law"),
which listed Spartan customs and traditions.
A council of 28 aristocrats, elected for life, governed with the
kings. Beside the council was an assembly (apella) of
male citizens that approved or vetoed council proposals. A new
institution called the ephorate ("overseers") emerged in
the fifth century в.с: this group of five men was at first
elected annually by the apella, but soon usurped the leadership
of both the council and the apella and eventually displaced the
kings from power. It wasn't until 226 B.C. that King Cleomenes
III was able to break the power of the ephorate.
Sparta established its domination over the whole of the
Peloponnesus, and only few dared to rebel against the powerful
state. In contrast to Athens, Sparta was wise enough to demand
only men and weapons from other city-states and not to interfere
otherwise in their internal affairs.
|

8 Duel or ritualized combat
between hoplites armed with spears and shields, painting on a
Greek vase, ca. 560-550 B.C.
11 Spartan hoplite wearing a Corinthian helmet and greaves
7 Greek helmet and armor
|

10 Lycurgus Demonstrates
the Meaning of Education,
painting by Caesar van Everdingen, 1660-61
|
Sparta's relations with Athens
were good at first; the Spartans, under Cleomenes I, helped the
Athenians dispose of the tyrant Hippias in 510 B.C. Furthermore,
given the Spartans' military capabilities, they carried the
burden of the heaviest fighting during the Persian Wars.
This is illustrated by the Spartan king
12 Leonidas, who in 480 в.с.
blocked the advance of the vast Persian army with a tiny force
of warriors at the Pass of 9,
13 Thermopylae, buying time
for the other Greeks to arm themselves for the Battle of
Salamis.
The Spartans fought and died to the last man. Afterwards,
harmony between the two city-states was replaced by rivalry as
Athens sought to expand. The resultant tensions eventually led
to the Peloponnesian War.
|

12 Leonidas, King
of Sparta
|

9 Leonidas and his
companions before the
Battle of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.
|
|
| |

13 Leonidas at
Thermopylae, painting by
Jacques-Louis
David, 1814
|
|
|
Cleomenes I of Sparta
Cleomenes I of the Agiad family was king in Sparta
from ca. 521 to 490 B.C. He played an important role in
deposing the tyrants in Athens. Later, however, he came
into conflict with the Athenians.
In 494, he dealt Argos, Sparta's traditional enemy, a
crushing defeat at Sepeia, and he intervened in several
other conflicts. As he wanted to restore a strong
monarchy, the ephorates used his absence in war to
depose him in 491 and he committed suicide a year later.
|
|
|
|