[Scott Oden]

Pictish Scout, on Oct 17 2007, 08:53 AM, said:

And there wasn't only 300 greeks in that battle.

This is an important point, in my mind. For as much as we heap glory on the Spartans for standing and dying, it's the sacrifice of the men of Thespiae that we should be applauding. But, it goes virtually unnoticed. Spartan law forbade Leonidas from withdrawing his men once he had commited to the battle. They could not retreat. The Thespians had no such laws; they were there of their own free will and stayed of their own free will. Nor were they militarily ineffective when compared to the Spartans -- according to Herodotus, a Thespian captain won the prize of valor alongside the Spartan heroes, Alpheus and Maron. They stayed because they were needed, not because of their laws*.

Conan, I think, would have raised a glass to their courage.

Best,

Scott




*It's likely Leonidas and his men would have stayed, too, had their laws not taken the decision out of their hands. But, the fact is we'll never know because Spartan law DID take the decision away from Leonidas.

[John Maddox Roberts]

Like the U.S. Marine Corps, the Spartans owned a first-rate propaganda machine. In any battle in which the Spartans partook, all glory for victory went to the Spartans. In the event of a defeat, it was the cowardice of their allies that was to blame. Spartan discipline and courage were indeed formidable, but it was their self-created reputation for invincibility that unnerved their foes. Once they were soundly and unequivocally defeated by Epimanondas, their reputation lay in ruins. They remained a militarily important state, but nobody believed they were invincible any more, so they weren't. Spartan defeats became fairly common after that devastating blow.

[deuce]

John Maddox Roberts, on Oct 17 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

Like the U.S. Marine Corps, the Spartans owned a first-rate propaganda machine. In any battle in which the Spartans partook, all glory for victory went to the Spartans. In the event of a defeat, it was the cowardice of their allies that was to blame. Spartan discipline and courage were indeed formidable, but it was their self-created reputation for invincibility that unnerved their foes. Once they were soundly and unequivocally defeated by Epimanondas, their reputation lay in ruins. They remained a militarily important state, but nobody believed they were invincible any more, so they weren't. Spartan defeats became fairly common after that devastating blow.

Exactly, JMR. Unlike the Spartans, the Cimmerians just kept coming, even after being beaten and colonized by the Gundermen. As REH said about their "pureblooded" descendants: "the most indomitable and savage race that ever trod the blood-stained fields of battle".

[vetrebond]

Pictish Scout, on Oct 17 2007, 02:53 PM, said:

vetrebond, on Oct 17 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

The major reason the 300ish Spartans were able to hold off so many was because the persian tacticians were total retards. Any tactician would know that the small pass would render numbers obsolete, and that the few could hold off many for a very long time, and it would be a costly adventure. A wise(yet ruthless) tactician would send in a wave to fight, forcing the Spartans into their Phalanx formation, and THEN rain arrows down upon them. Sure, the arrows would hit both armies, but it would force the spartans to drop their phalanx and defend against the arrows, allowing the advancing persian toops to break the lines, or they would maintain the phalanx, and the arrows would cause casualties in the lines, also breaking the formation.

The problem wasn't a matter of strength of arm, but a major deficiency of intelligence on the side of the Persians. Why does it always seem that the Persians are always getting their butts kicked by smaller armies ?

Also, as for the gaysex among the greek armies. I was under the impression that the sex between soldiers was encouraged for two reasons. 1) it cuts down on raping the local pesantry girls, and 2) it creates a very strong bond between the two, and they would fight even harder to protect the men they'd loved. I may be wrong, but that's just the impression that i get.

Persians won that battle outflanking the greeks and shooting arrows at them, and almost won that war too. They did invade Greece and campaigned there of an year or more, and even took Athens, if I remember well. And there wasn't only 300 greeks in that battle.

How many men had they lost before they finally found a pass around to out-flank them ? What would the persians had done if one of the spartans hadn't betrayed the hidden pass around to them ? How many more persians would have died throwing themselves against the spartan's shields before they eventually grew too tired to hold up their shields ? Most likely, the Perian armies would have starved and disbanded before the spartans got tired. IF they'd have simply rained down arrows as their first wave hit the phalanx, they would have killed more spartans. Instead, they shot the arros, sent their foot soldiers and cavalry in, then when they pulled back after a few exchanges, they fired some more arrows.

And aside from the thespians and the hoplites, there was also a pretty big naval battle taking place as well, which also seems to go ignored.

[Sharn]

I'll wade in....I don't think Conan could have handled the Spartans overly long. His natural inquisitivness would have caused him to at least hang around and see what "this" was all about. Beyond that, he would have strongly disdained their ascetic heavily regimented lifestyle. I'd imagine he say," No women in the mess? You drink your wine mixed with water? Are you men or dogs?", and so forth until he killed one or a dozen of them and had to hoof it. As for the Spartans, they might be impressed by his physical dimensions but he would still "only" be a barbarian...uncouth, lawless, faithless and no better than one of their helots...in short NOT a Spartiate.

I'm glad that most of you seem aware that the Spartans were more propaganda than reality. Most of the battles they won by reputation alone and probably during the route when the other phalanx broke is when they really did most of their killing. Interestingly, the Spartans began to drop off their bronze armor and by the Peleponessian War they typically carried the bronze faced hoplon and wore the pylos style helmet (much like a cabacete morion or pikeman's pot from the 16th century) and the ubiquitous red tunic of Lacedamon. Also the Greek city states were experimenting with missile and cavalry troops(peltasts or javeline men). The phalanx was becoming outmoded and ineffective, though the Spartans continued to doggedly use it.

It wasn't until Phillip of Macedonian revitalized it with the sarissa, a lighter shield and supported it with cavalry that it became a viable military formation. The Macedonian phalanx was also somewhat more versatile in that they drilled to change direction and were not as static as the older Greek version. Prior to the refurbishment of the phalanx the idea of "refusing a flank attack" was not even considered. Still, even this phalanx was defeated by the Roman's use of heavy infantry armed with javelins and swords.

I used to be overly intriged with the Spartans and spent alot of study into their culture and military organization. Yes, they were probably the first truly "professional" fighting force in that they devoted their lives to war and no other occupation (really not much different than Gallic noble warriors, Germanic Jarls and knights during the Middle Ages). They had a society that supported them to focus on one thing at the expense of all others. Even their food was bland and tasteless. The old adage" all work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy" certainly applies to them. They were a stagnant and uninspired people and as a result were overthrown and their weakness revealed. I much prefer Skythians to Greeks and so would Conan I think

[Xaltotun]

Sharn, on Oct 20 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

I'll wade in....I don't think Conan could have handled the Spartans overly long. His natural inquisitivness would have caused him to at least hang around and see what "this" was all about. Beyond that, he would have strongly disdained their ascetic heavily regimented lifestyle. I'd imagine he say," No women in the mess? You drink your wine mixed with water? Are you men or dogs?", and so forth until he killed one or a dozen of them and had to hoof it. As for the Spartans, they might be impressed by his physical dimensions but he would still "only" be a barbarian...uncouth, lawless, faithless and no better than one of their helots...in short NOT a Spartiate.

I'm glad that most of you seem aware that the Spartans were more propaganda than reality. Most of the battles they won by reputation alone and probably during the route when the other phalanx broke is when they really did most of their killing. Interestingly, the Spartans began to drop off their bronze armor and by the Peleponessian War they typically carried the bronze faced hoplon and wore the pylos style helmet (much like a cabacete morion or pikeman's pot from the 16th century) and the ubiquitous red tunic of Lacedamon. Also the Greek city states were experimenting with missile and cavalry troops(peltasts or javeline men). The phalanx was becoming outmoded and ineffective, though the Spartans continued to doggedly use it.

It wasn't until Phillip of Macedonian revitalized it with the sarissa, a lighter shield and supported it with cavalry that it became a viable military formation. The Macedonian phalanx was also somewhat more versatile in that they drilled to change direction and were not as static as the older Greek version. Prior to the refurbishment of the phalanx the idea of "refusing a flank attack" was not even considered. Still, even this phalanx was defeated by the Roman's use of heavy infantry armed with javelins and swords.

I used to be overly intriged with the Spartans and spent alot of study into their culture and military organization. Yes, they were probably the first truly "professional" fighting force in that they devoted their lives to war and no other occupation (really not much different than Gallic noble warriors, Germanic Jarls and knights during the Middle Ages). They had a society that supported them to focus on one thing at the expense of all others. Even their food was bland and tasteless. The old adage" all work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy" certainly applies to them. They were a stagnant and uninspired people and as a result were overthrown and their weakness revealed. I much prefer Skythians to Greeks and so would Conan I think

Great pic!

Isn't Angus McBride the guy that illustrated all those Osprey titles?
(I've been getting into historical miniature wargaming of late and have perused some of the Osprey titles. They look nice, but not much bang for the buck, as they say. )

[Kortoso]

Indeed, the Scythians were always my favorite ancient people.

[Adam]

Kortoso, on Oct 29 2007, 05:13 PM, said:

Indeed, the Scythians were always my favorite ancient people.

My favourite ancient ones were THrebans, Sumerians and Romans

As to Conan and Spartans Conan would have never fitted into Spartan system:

1. Spartans fought as phalanx and Conan was an individual

2. Conan was intelligent and had a compassionate heart (Tower of elephant) - he would either change the whole Spartan society or overthrow it using Helots after seeing what Spartans were doing to Helots

3. No fun in Sparta forConan - Spartan coins weren't even made of silver (not to mention gold ones) [according to Cartledge's book] - how and in what way could Spartans pay Conan for his deeds?

[LCUCHULAIN]

BIFlight, on Oct 12 2007, 09:25 PM, said:

Darned if there haven't been some damn insightful posts here.

Mostly what I was thinking with the contrast was those parts of Spartan culture that clashed with the elements REH "picked on" in his view of civilization vs. barbarism, as illustrated in typical Conan stories. I imagined that, for all the flaws he might see Sparta as having, Conan could respect *civilized* men who treated each other as equals (even if only a certain caste were "equal") and who were genuinely fit, powerful soldiers who didn't take crap from anyone. The legendary killing of the Persian messengers is a good example of this: where many other societies would have bowed and scraped, the Spartans committed an act that was considered utter blasphomy, tossing messengers into a well and taunting them even as they died. That reminds me of Conan--both entities simply refuse to be cowed or intimidated. They'll go down fighting before they'll spend one second submitting to another's will.

Anyway, that's just an example.

I agree, the Spartans in my opinion were "civilized barbarians", they served the State, were individualistic warriors that knew how to fight as a team. Conan would have been drawn to the fact that they were: a) militaristic - Conan served in the military of many countries for many years, and was a general before he became king. disciplined organization - Conan respected discipline as a soldier and demanded it when he led men. c) Sparta was a small city-state that owed and recognized no High-king just as Cimmeria was made up of clans that had no one ruler to unite the country. Conan would have found many things to his liking about Sparta, hell even the food was similar to Cimmerian as it was bland and not diverse.

[Sharn]

LCUCHULAIN, on Dec 8 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

they served the State, were individualistic warriors that knew how to fight as a team. Conan would have been drawn to the fact that they were: a) militaristic - Conan served in the military of many countries for many years, and was a general before he became king. disciplined organization - Conan respected discipline as a soldier and demanded it when he led men. c) Sparta was a small city-state that owed and recognized no High-king just as Cimmeria was made up of clans that had no one ruler to unite the country. Conan would have found many things to his liking about Sparta, hell even the food was similar to Cimmerian as it was bland and not diverse.

Spartans were certainly NOT encouraged to be individuals, hell even the nature of a "dual kingship" makes the "king" not even unique in the "kingdom". They were very militaristic - too much so, Conan wouldn't have gone for that, after all the man was a free form fighter and very much a mercenary not a "soldier of the State". While he very well acknowledged military and field discipline he more often was all for the reckless berserk charge right into the face of the enemy(more or less every man for himself). As for the blandness of food and beverage...could that be one of the reasons he left Cimmeria ya think? Stodgy, set into their ways, gaesa ridden, tacit tribesmen were what Conan railed against-essentially Cimmeria was too small for Conan. Sparta would be even more so.

[LCUCHULAIN]

Sharn, on Dec 8 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

LCUCHULAIN, on Dec 8 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

they served the State, were individualistic warriors that knew how to fight as a team. Conan would have been drawn to the fact that they were: a) militaristic - Conan served in the military of many countries for many years, and was a general before he became king. disciplined organization - Conan respected discipline as a soldier and demanded it when he led men. c) Sparta was a small city-state that owed and recognized no High-king just as Cimmeria was made up of clans that had no one ruler to unite the country. Conan would have found many things to his liking about Sparta, hell even the food was similar to Cimmerian as it was bland and not diverse.

Spartans were certainly NOT encouraged to be individuals, hell even the nature of a "dual kingship" makes the "king" not even unique in the "kingdom". They were very militaristic - too much so, Conan wouldn't have gone for that, after all the man was a free form fighter and very much a mercenary not a "soldier of the State". While he very well acknowledged military and field discipline he more often was all for the reckless berserk charge right into the face of the enemy(more or less every man for himself). As for the blandness of food and beverage...could that be one of the reasons he left Cimmeria ya think? Stodgy, set into their ways, gaesa ridden, tacit tribesmen were what Conan railed against-essentially Cimmeria was too small for Conan. Sparta would be even more so.

I didn't say they were encouraged to be individuals, but they could fight as individual warriors/soldiers that would fight as such until the phalanx was broken up. Meaning, they would fight in discipline and order and not give in to a 'berserker fury' like the enemies they fought! I think what is misunderstood in this post is whether Conan would like Sparta enought to want to stay there for an indefinite period of time. I think if the gold was good, the wars were plenty and if he didn't get into trouble by philandering with a general's girl or by breaking a nobles face, then he would stay until HE was ready to leave!
Again I think that Conan would appreciate the Spartan way with the exception of a few things and then he'd take his leave to more exotic countries eventually.

This post has been edited by LCUCHULAIN: 16 December 2007 - 06:21 AM

[LCUCHULAIN]

...fight as a cohesive unit as one military body, then if the phalanx broke up they could/would fight as disciplined individuals, whew!

[Sharn]

There is ZERO historical affirmation that Spartans were effective individual soldiers, all things being equal. While superbly trained in the phalanx and in generally superb physical condition (which really wasn't all that special as Greece as a whole was obsessed with athleticism) they did not train in anything but the phalanx, wrestling, and boxing. The phalanx training would occupy most of their time and the other disciplines would fall after that. Even the great defeat of the Athenians at Syracuse was completed not by Spartans, but by the local Syracusians.

Spartans are known for there social rigidity, there austere, boring and demagogic lifestyle. Things CONAN would have immediately been turned off by. He would give a wit "how good a fighters they were" once they told him he wasn't equal to them and a 'mere barbarian'. There's a failure to realize that it's not only Conan's perceptions to include in this. The fact is, the Spartans would not have Conan. He would be viewed with the legendary xenophobic, bigotted outlook that the laconic Spartans were famous for and have even less value than the oppressed helots of Lakedamon. Who cares about their "Dying in the Gap" when there a bunch of prigged up a$$holes.

[Kortoso]

Sharn, on Dec 16 2007, 02:34 AM, said:

wrestling, and boxing. ...

Just to be the devil's advocate here, you understand, but that would constitute individual training, and not by the Marquiss of Queenbury's Rules I'll warant.

Wasn't there also something about Spartan boys being encouraged to steal?

[Sharn]

Oh yes the legendary agoge. At the age of 7 these "Spartan" (when I say Spartan I mean the "people of the city of Sparta" or Spartiates not the people of the region of Lakedamon)boys were thrown in with a "peer" group and it was everyone for themselves...supposedly. In reality I believe that it was the beginning reinforcing tactic to show by physical example that to go it alone(and not conform) you were done for. That if you maintained the "pack" your survival and success was much better and approval was granted. So it was in the phalanx. Maintain ranks, no creeping to the right, protect the man to your right as the one to your left will protect you (in theory).

As for the individual "sports" these do not standout as almost all Greek city states endorsed athleticism. Sparta had no standouts in comparison to Athens, Corinth, Thessaly in these particular events. It is commented that Spartans were to have said they preferred actual war because during that time they could leave off of training/drilling for the phalanx. Gives you an idea of how repetitive this was. Also, philisophically for a Spartan to take time out of training for "war" to train for running, wrestling, boxing or Pankration meant that he took away from the "State of Sparta" and this was by all means frowned upon and discouraged.

[Sermon Bath]

my favorite ancient people were whoever it was that left all those beautiful 7,000 to 8000 year old pink, red, gold, and/or white arrowheads in the fields all around my hometown..........I used to almost pass out with joy with I would pick one of those up, rush home to clean it up and add it to my collection.........ah boyhood!!!!

[Spartan198]

Taranaich, on Oct 14 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

I'd have to agree with Pictish Scout, Cimmeria and Sparta seem like rather different places to me.

Quote

Mostly what I was thinking with the contrast was those parts of Spartan culture that clashed with the elements REH "picked on" in his view of civilization vs. barbarism, as illustrated in typical Conan stories. I imagined that, for all the flaws he might see Sparta as having, Conan could respect *civilized* men who treated each other as equals (even if only a certain caste were "equal") and who were genuinely fit, powerful soldiers who didn't take crap from anyone.

Sounds like the Aquilonians to me: Howard (and Conan) spoke pretty well of them.

Quote

The legendary killing of the Persian messengers is a good example of this: where many other societies would have bowed and scraped, the Spartans committed an act that was considered utter blasphomy, tossing messengers into a well and taunting them even as they died. That reminds me of Conan--both entities simply refuse to be cowed or intimidated. They'll go down fighting before they'll spend one second submitting to another's will.

That always struck me as more pig-headed brutality than anything else, as most cases of shooting the messenger seem to be

Rather than being a sort of "barbaric civilization", I personally think Sparta had a lot of the decadence and hypocrisy rampant in other civilizations. The ritual killing of "imperfect children" is one such example: whilst the idea of Cimmerians leaving disfigured, disabled or even just "not quite right" children to die seems to conform with their savage ideals, I think the Cimmerians have enough problems without actively casting off children when they seem to have a hard enough time of it. Sparta, with it's lovely seaside location and plenty of crops, can afford to indulge in it's ubermensch culture, whereas the Cimmerians simply can't afford to play fast and loose with their resources, such as children. The Spartans maintained their high physical level through husbandry: the Cimmerians through their environment.

Apart from all that, considering the Cimmerians seem to have a dim view of slavery and hierarchy, I'd wager they'd dislike Sparta as much as any other civilized nation. The cruel existence of the Helots and their devotion to their king, society and phalanx would probably be anathema to the Cimmerians.

Actually,Taranaich (hey,don't I know you from somewhere?...),you're wrong about the throwing-the-messengers-into-the-well thing. That did happen,but it was ten years earlier and in Athens,not Sparta.

Other than that tidbit,I agree completely (I'm just on a much lower intellectual level than yourself and would never be able to word it like that).

This post has been edited by SpartanGlory198: 31 January 2008 - 02:18 PM

[Spartan198]

LCUCHULAIN, on Dec 16 2007, 06:27 AM, said:

...fight as a cohesive unit as one military body, then if the phalanx broke up they could/would fight as disciplined individuals, whew!

It's also worth noting that the Spartan army did,in fact,win the battle of Mantiniea in the usual "Hollywood-ish" brawl,but many consider them extremely lucky that they did so.

[Scott Oden]

SpartanGlory198, on Jan 31 2008, 07:17 AM, said:

You're wrong about the throwing-the-messengers-into-the-well thing. That did happen,but it was ten years earlier and in Athens,not Sparta.

Actually, according to Herodotus the Athenians hurled the Persian emissaries sent by Darius into a pit while the Spartans tossed theirs into a well. Xerxes didn't even bother sending emissaries to either Athens or Sparta before his expedition set out.

Herodotus, vii.133 (Macaulay translation):

Xerxes however had not sent to Athens or to Sparta heralds to demand the gift of earth, and for this reason, namely because at the former time when Dareios had sent for this very purpose, the one people threw the men who made the demand into the pit and the others into a well, and bade them take from thence earth and water and bear them to the king. For this reason Xerxes did not send men to make this demand.

Best,

Scott

[Spartan198]

Scott Oden, on Feb 1 2008, 06:49 AM, said:

SpartanGlory198, on Jan 31 2008, 07:17 AM, said:

You're wrong about the throwing-the-messengers-into-the-well thing. That did happen,but it was ten years earlier and in Athens,not Sparta.

Actually, according to Herodotus the Athenians hurled the Persian emissaries sent by Darius into a pit while the Spartans tossed theirs into a well. Xerxes didn't even bother sending emissaries to either Athens or Sparta before his expedition set out.

Herodotus, vii.133 (Macaulay translation):

Xerxes however had not sent to Athens or to Sparta heralds to demand the gift of earth, and for this reason, namely because at the former time when Dareios had sent for this very purpose, the one people threw the men who made the demand into the pit and the others into a well, and bade them take from thence earth and water and bear them to the king. For this reason Xerxes did not send men to make this demand.

Best,

Scott

Really? I could've sworn it was the other way around...