That is a very biased article that is playing up all the aspects of Spartan society that modern audiences would find repulsive for internet likes. At the end of the day it is not unlike the film it criticises (300) except it's going all the way to the other end and painting a portrait of a grim, evil empire.
It is good to keep in mind that pretty much all ancient societies had norms and customs that we find repulsive today, from pederasty, to slavery, including sexual slavery, to killing of female children, to depriving women of all human rights and treating them as chattel. Sparta sounds particularly bad if one does not know much about the ancients. Otherwise they sound somewhat ordinary and only a bit more up themselves than others.
Iirc that series addresses this critique in some depth, pointing out that sparta was particularly awful even by the standards of other greek states. Another interesting bit was how it's historically rare for slave-owning societies to have more than 50% of their population enslaved. Since sparta was closer to 80% enslaved people, they relied on particularly brutal methods to keep down the regular slave revolts, making them considerably crueler than their contemporaries.
> Another interesting bit was how it's historically rare for slave-owning societies to have more than 50% of their population enslaved
Probably worth noting, then, that in 1860, South Carolina and Mississippi had over 50% population enslaved, and four more states over 40% population enslaved.
Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations, I'm curious whether Spartans were more or less like Americans in this regard. A glorious empire built on brutality and moral superiority.
> Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations
Not as cruelly as Arab-owned slaves (the trans-Saharan slave trade started in 650 AD, which is pretty close to ancient). Despite importing as much or more slaves than both Americas, there is barely any Black presence in North Africa. Try to imagine why.
> Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations
I'd recommend you to actually read on the absolute horror the Helots had to go through
Only French Haití or Congo Free State can come to mind as being similar, the Helots were very different even from other Greek states, let alone Rome, Egypt or Cartage
Roman slaves at least had a path to freedom. Or a good portion of them did. Many (not majority) became citizens eventually (or their children did) and many in fact became quite prosperous. Their slavery wasn't based on racial status, but on class, and slavery wasn't considered genetically predetermined, but a product of status and conquest. "Graduation" out of slavery was actually possible.
American slavery being built on "race" and white supremacy offered no such path. Even "mixed race" descendants suffered. Even after slavery was abolished, former slaves were (and often are) still treated abhorrently.
I recall a single incident from Roman history where Crassus crucified 6,000 slaves on the Appian Way. Things like this make me think you can't easily quantify which slavery was the worst. Perhaps it was easier, in some contexts in Rome, to earn freedom, but perhaps you were more likely to be crucified too.
> "Graduation" out of slavery was actually possible.
This is also true of American slaves.
> Their slavery wasn't based on racial status, but on class, and slavery wasn't considered genetically predetermined, but a product of status and conquest.
So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved?
Bullshit. By the 19th century (which is the century everybody talks about) it was almost legally impossible to free a slave in the American south (things like, say, a $200 tax in Florida... which was more money than most people saw in a year).
Even when possible it was essentially never done.
> So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved?
In many of the US slave states, if you were a free black person, regardless of who your parents were, you had to either leave the state within a fixed time, or you would be enslaved. So, yes.
> By the 19th century (which is the century everybody talks about) it was almost legally impossible to free a slave in the American south (things like, say, a $200 tax in Florida... which was more money than most people saw in a year).
Believe it or not, most slaves were owned by fairly wealthy people.
Slavery has always meant a kind of subjugationa and social death but slavery in continental North America was probably among the best ever in terms of material living conditions. Most slaves in agricultural societies were always agricultural, and were worked to death, like in the Caribbean. That's how plantation agriculture worked, from Roman latifundia onward. Black slaves in wht's now the US had enormous natural increase in their population, which is if not historically unprecedented, damn close. They were also taller and better nourished than all but the upper echeloons of European society. Obviously people prefer to be free but there are multiple axes of comparison and American and Roman slavery each look "better" on different axes.
Rome lasted for 2,100 years. I'm not sure you can generalize the quality of life of a free person, let alone a slave.
> Roman slaves at least had a path to freedom
You need to be specific. Are we comparing Connecticut in 1784 AD to Gaul in 50 BC? Or Connecticut in 1783 AD to Gaul in 59 BC? Because the two comparisons are very different.
OP speaks the truth. At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them)
In the Roman empire, selling oneself as a slave was even seen as a last resort when capital was urgently needed (like when a debt repayment was ordered by a magistrate and a person didn't have enough money and fungible possessions to pay it). Slaves could also buy their freedom, and were sometimes even given their freedom as a gift.
Of course, there were cruel masters as well as kind ones. But prior to the African slave trade, the institution itself wasn't remotely as brutal or morally abhorrent, because it wasn't built on a social commitment to racism.
American racism was fueled in part by the abhorrent belief that Africans were of a separate race (i.e. subspecies) that was inferior in a Darwinian sense, thus dehumanizing them in people's minds. This sentiment appears sometimes in 1800s American literature. (And if I may say so, I think it bears a remarkable resemblance to some Nazi antisemitic propaganda.)
Roman slavery is one of the most romanticised things on the internet. The number of slaves who could buy their way free was miniscule. Most slaves were worked to death on the farms and mines, and had about a 5-year life expectancy after capture. Sure, life was better for a handful of slaves, particularly well-educated Greek slaves, but for most slaves life was brutal and short.
People seem obsessed with declaring the US south as having some sort of so-much-worse slavery, but they view the past with pretty rose-coloured glasses. 'But it's not racism!' is a meaningless moral alteration to the act of raiding other lands, dragging people back to your lands, and working them to death in under a decade.
As for Roman opinions on racism, no, they weren't racists in the sense of the modern term, but they were still intensely bigoted and committed more than a few genocides. Our friend Jules came home bragging of killing a million Gauls and enslaving a million more and got social cachet for that. They didn't see Gauls as a difference 'race' (that's a modern construct) but they definitely saw them as an outgroup that needed to be dominated.
> ...At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them)
So, you launch a massive generalization, and attempt to walk it back by opting out most of the world (Asia, the middle east/Arab World, but making no mention of Africa, or Oceania). While we broadly view slavery as a despicable practice, please don't practice selective historical revisionism to minimize the barbaric suffering experienced to this day in some countries, and the astronomical death rates in the sugar plantations.
Examples from Historical Context: American Slavery in Comparative Perspective [1]
"Death rates among slaves in the Caribbean were one-third higher than in the South, and suicide appears to have been much more common. Unlike slaves in the South, West Indian slaves were expected to produce their own food in their "free time," and care for the elderly and the infirm."(
"The largest difference between slavery in the South and in Latin America was demographic. The slave population in Brazil and the West Indies had a lower proportion of female slaves, a much lower birthrate, and a higher proportion of recent arrivals from Africa. In striking contrast, southern slaves had an equal sex ratio, a high birthrate, and a predominantly American-born population".
"Slavery in the United States was especially distinctive in the ability of the slave population to increase its numbers by natural reproduction. In the Caribbean, Dutch Guiana, and Brazil, the slave death rate was so high and the birthrate so low that slaves could not sustain their population without imports from Africa. The average number of children born to an early nineteenth-century southern slave woman was 9.2—twice as many as in the West Indies."
Additionally, you have ignored that slavery is still active in a number of countries [2], [3], [4], [5]
Slavery is a practice worthy of contempt, still practiced, and modern.
> Slaves could also buy their freedom, and were sometimes even given their freedom as a gift.
Again, this is not a difference between ancient slavery and American slavery. Why do you mention it?
> Of course, there were cruel masters as well as kind ones. But prior to the African slave trade, the institution itself wasn't remotely as brutal or morally abhorrent, because it wasn't built on a social commitment to racism.
Now it seems like you're specifically trying not to respond to the claim that American slaves received crueler treatment than ancient slaves did.
You're arguing that exceptions and rare occurrences in American slavery are equivalent to the norms in Rome and for some reason trying to make American slavery seem like it really wasn't all that bad.
Your style of responding also makes it seem like you're arguing the point that slavery wasn't all that bad in the US from a very specific view point
They're rare occurrences in American slavery and they're also rare occurrences in Rome.
As some other people have pointed out, if you look at objective indices of quality of life, the United States generally comes out as possibly the best place in all of history you could have been enslaved.
>there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery
Absolutist statements like this rarely seem to hold true.[0]
American slavery is European slavery as well. Europeans (both countries and individuals) benefited extremely handsomely from enslaving people in Africa and bringing them to their colonies in America. And even after they had finally outlawed slavery for themselves just a few scant decades before the US did, they kept buying that affordable slave-produced cotton and sugar and coffee and etc. from the Americas.
Speaking specifically of Greeks and Romans. And in general, Ancient peoples did not consider slaves to be as animals, but American slave-owners often held the belief that they were sub-human and not more than talking beasts.
There was a class of Mycenaean slave that was close to a free man, who could own land and have status.
Greek slaves could be involved in every economic activity except politics. Slaves were bankers, craftsmen and tradespeople. Male slaves might be personal assistants, shield makers, cutlers, bedmakers, while female slaves would be textile weavers and bakers. Not only were slaves not seen as denegerate inferiors, they were expected to be able to take over their masters' business when needed. Some of the most famous and respected philosophers were slaves.
Slaves could earn wages, and use those wages to pay a fee to live and work alone, and even use their savings (or loans/gifts) to buy their freedom. Cretian slaves could own a house and livestock and pass it down to their family, which was also granted the same familial laws as freedmen.
Debt slavery was common until it was abolished; people basically could become serfs until they paid off their debts, and then become free again. Some slavery was limited to a period of time, and slaves had rights / could be involved in legal disputes, and so win freedom or other rewards.
Roman slaves perhaps were treated worse than Greek originally, and many more of them were used for agricultural labor, probably putting their experiences on par with American slaves. But as the Roman empire progressed, slaves gained many more rights.
Worth nothing also that a lot of Spartan "historical information" is more myth and bullshit than evidence-based. Spartans were masters of propaganda. Helots may have been treated like shit, but apparently a lot of the reputation was inflated or made up by later historical writers.
Helots could also be craftspeople, own land, raise crops, keep money, buy their freedom. They maintained family units and were less often dispersed than Greek slaves. Helot children born of Spartan citizen fathers would become members of the army as an intermediate rank.
The idea that "Sparta" was close to "80% enslaved people" is confused and I hold
the author of the linked article responsible for not clarifying the confusion.
"Sparta" is the name of the principal city of the city-state of Lacedaemon,
which comprised the regions of Laconia and Messinia in the Peloponnese. The
inhabitants of the city of Sparta are in ancient sources referred to as
Lacedaemones ("Λακεδαίμονες") and are the people we, in the modern day, know as as
Spartans or Spartiates ("Σπαρτιάται").
The people inhabiting the greater area of the Lacedeamonian city-state, the
inhabitants of the settlements in Laconia and Messinia, were never referred to
in any ancient text as "Spartans" or "Lacedaemones" and they were only referred
to, to the extent they were ever mentioned, as "helots" ("είλωται") or, simply,
as the Spartans' slaves. Any reference to those people as "Spartans", let alone
"Lacedaemones" is a modern invention and only serves to deepen the confusion I
highlight here. In fact, I am only aware of a single modern "source" that
commits this confusing error: the blog post linked above. If we were to give
those people a modern name devoid of political connotations, that would be
"Lacones" ("Λάκωναι") or "Messinians" ("Μεσσηνοί"), the inhabitants of the
regions of Laconia and Messinia.
So it makes no sense to say that "Sparta" was "80% enslaved people" or the other
errors committed in the linked article. It might make sense to say that "Laconia
and Messinia (resp. Lacedaemon) was 80% enslaved people", although that would
greatly weaken the intended invective against Spartans. It would certainly
make sense to point out that Spartans, i.e. the inhabitants of the city of
Sparta, had a huge number of slaves in proportion both to their own numbers and
in comparison to the number of slaves of other Greek city-states of the same
historical period(s), but again that would not be a proper attack on the myth of
Sparta, which is what is intended. Of course it makes every sense to point out
the cruelty of Spartans, but in that case, if we call the helots "Spartans",
also, the confusion only deepens.
All such nuance is left out of the article linked above which makes it very,
very misleading and confuses people who are used to getting their knowledge of
history from second- third- and further- hand accounts, like the one in the
linked article, or the movie 300, etc. Unfortunately once something is elevated
to mythical status there is nothing more profitable than to tear it down, even
if this tearing down is based on the same poor knowledge of history that allowed
it to be elevated in the first place.
>The idea that "Sparta" was close to "80% enslaved people" is confused and I hold the author of the linked article responsible for not clarifying the confusion.
...
>The people inhabiting the greater area of the Lacedeamonian city-state, the inhabitants of the settlements in Laconia and Messinia, were never referred to in any ancient text as "Spartans" or "Lacedaemones" and they were only referred to, to the extent they were ever mentioned, as "helots" ("είλωται") or, simply, as the Spartans' slaves.
He's referring to the entire Spartan state, which at that time included Messinia. It's accurate to say it was composed of ~80% enslaved people. That's clear if you read the article. The fact that most helots were from other ethnic groups doesn't change the fact that they were living under the rule of the Spartan state.
There is no such thing as "The entire Spartan state". There is (well, was) the city-state of Lacedaemon and the city of Sparta. The two are confused because Lacedaemon is often synechdochically called "Sparta" and the people of the city of Sparta are usually called "Lacedaemones" in ancient sources. But the people in Laconia and Messinia (not just Messinia) were "helots", not "Spartans", not "Lacedeaemones" and not anything else.
So if you want to say that the people who lived in Laconia and Messinia were the slaves of the Spartans, which we call the helots, and that there many more times more helots than there were Spartans, then you're welcome, because that is accurate. But to say that "Sparta was closer to 80% enslaved people" as the OP says, is false.
Yes, synecdochically and when it's clear from the context which one is meant. But when you say something like "Sparta was 80% slaves" it's not clear from the context and you have to clarify which one you mean, the city or the city-state. Otherwise you are only spreading confusion, just like the series of blog posts above.
And it is still the case that the helots were the slaves of the Spartans, that nobody called the helots "Spartans", and that nobody thought that "helots" were Spartans, not in any ancient source and not in any modern source I'm aware of outside the linked series of blog posts.
If you (or, you know, others) think this is wrong, you're welcome to show me where, in modern or ancient texts it says that "helots were spartans" and "sparta was mostly populated by slaves", or something similar -except of course for the scandalously revisionist blog posts we're discussing.
It's still the case that 80% of the population of the Spartan state was slaves. That's what's relevant to this conversation; the rest is just sophistry.
No, it's not sophistry and I don't appreciate you insulting me by saying I engage in sophistry. I am sick and tired of random people on the internet accusing me of intellectual dishonesty because they have no idea what I'm talking about because they haven't any knowledge relevant to the subject at hand, other than having read a blog post or two.
As to the "the case" that "80% of the population of the Spartan state were slaves", that is an acceptable turn of phrase, but it is not what the blog author says. He says that the majority of the people of "Sparta" were slaves. This is calculated to come across as a tear down of the myth of "noble" Sparta because it makes no distinction between the free citizens of Sparta who are the ones elevated to mythical status by ignorance of history, and their slaves, who are never and under no circimstances considered to be part of the "noble warriors of Sparta" or what have you.
In short, the author is making a very clear attempt to exploit the confusion caused by the synecdochical use of "Sparta" to mean both the city and the city-state, to make a point that ultimately only serves his vanity, and is not really informative. To say that "most people of the city state of Sparta were slaves" is only revelatory to those who have no idea of ancient history.
To give you an analogy, it's like someone making a huge todo about how "Black holes are not really black". This can only be news to people who don't know what black holes are and what is meant by "black" in their name. Then instead of trying to clarify the meaning of the word "black" in "black hole" the author launches into a tirade about how black holes have been glorified as being the blackest bodies in the universe when in reality they are not even black and most of their mass is invisible because it's hidden behind the event horizon and Oh Gods! All you 've ever been told about physics, it's all wrong! You've been worshipping a black body that is not even black and is not even all there!
It's a lot of noise for nothing but internet likes and an utter appeal to ignorance that does not improve the reader's knowledge one bit. And it is many peoples' first point of entry into the subject of not only Sparta, but ancient history in general. If that first point of entry is not 300 instead, which to be sure is even worse but without which the author's blog post would not even exist, because it has nothing to say other than "300 sucks, man".
300 has Persians throwing incendiary grenades. Their king is a giant. He's carried to battle on a golden throne, like a Warhammer figure. But the author saw fit to attack 300's realism by picking apart its mythologising of "noble" Spartan warriors, which nobody has ever believed other than people who learn their history from comics and movies. This is how much the author of the blog post is interested in historic truth.
I appreciate your post and i thought it was informative.
That being said i do think you could have made your point more succinctly.
For a while, it seemed like you were arguing semantics vs actually informing the reader.
Your point is valid. I'm not sure how to present it better, but I'd posit:
"Sparta, the city, was not 80% slaves. That stat only true about the state. This distinction only matters because the author is critizing sparta society on the basis that Sparta's seat of power was slave-cornucopia. But this is false. Sparta the city is mostly spartan citizens, making the author's criticism-by-sleight-of-hand dishonest"
>"Sparta, the city, was not 80% slaves. That stat only true about the state. This distinction only matters because the author is critizing sparta society on the basis that Sparta's seat of power was slave-cornucopia. But this is false. Sparta the city is mostly spartan citizens, making the author's criticism-by-sleight-of-hand dishonest"
Except, as the author points out, the Spartan system that he's criticizing requires the Spartiates to have a plantation of helots to support them so they can spend all their time training for battle. A man in ancient Sparta could only be a Spartiate if they had a plantation of helots (if they lose their plantation they lose their status as a citizen), so the helots were just as much a part of Spartan society as they were.
Thanks and you're right that I could have made my point more concisely. The series of comments I made in this conversation were not my most well-written ever.
The author is addressing the perception of Sparta as it exists in popular culture today. Which is to say - the perception that is fueled by movies like 300, and the military culture that adopted that perception to glorify itself by proxy. Because of that, the vast majority of people are not aware that Spartans were a tiny minority of the residents of Sparta (the state), or that most residents were slaves. If you do, great - but your assertion that the article "does not improve the reader's knowledge" is not grounded in reality.
"Spartans can't be 80% slaves because the Spartans didn't consider their slaves to be Spartans" is perhaps a linguistic truth, but it requires an absurd literalism to keep banging that drum instead of understanding that he's talking about the society the Spartans built, which includes the helots. The Spartans owned the helots!
>> "Spartans can't be 80% slaves because the Spartans didn't consider their slaves to be Spartans"
That is not what I said. Why do you misquote me? This is what I said:
>> The people inhabiting the greater area of the Lacedeamonian city-state, the inhabitants of the settlements in Laconia and Messinia, were never referred to in any ancient text as "Spartans" or "Lacedaemones" and they were only referred to, to the extent they were ever mentioned, as "helots" ("είλωται") or, simply, as the Spartans' slaves.
Nobody in ancient times considered the helots to be "Spartans". This is in the same way that nobody in ancient times considered the slaves of the Athenians to be "Athenians" or the slaves of the Romans to be "Romans". And no historian in modern times does so, either. When speaking of the Gauls, subjugated by the Romans [1], no author, ancient or modern, cals them "Romans". For any ancient or modern culture that had slaves, the distinction is always there: the People of X on the one hand, and their slaves on the other.
Yet the author is deliberately muddying the waters playing on the confusion between "Sparta" the city-state and "Sparta" its capital city, and even invents new terms to refer to them: he calls "Spartiates" the free citizens of the capital city, and "Spartans" everyone else, a distinction impossible in the Greek language and unused by anyone except the author as far as I can tell.
All these deliberate confusions are the result of a perverse reading of history, clearly aimed at making an impression to people who are not familiar with the history of Sparta outside its depiction in popular media and it is clearly calculated to draw internet attention to the author's blog by riding on the coattails of the success of such popular media, and not to inform about history.
The only antitode I know against fudging and misdirection like this is to make language precise and clear.
I thought so at first. I think poster got so caught up in explaining the Greek that he forgot to make his point.
For a while, it seemed like poster was arguing semantics vs actually informing the reader on why author could be wrong.
I'm not sure how to present it better, but I'd posit:
"Sparta, the city, was not 80% slaves. That stat only true about the state. This distinction only matters because the author is critizing sparta society on the basis that Sparta's seat of power was slave-cornucopia. But this is false. Sparta the city is mostly spartan citizens, making the author's criticism-by-sleight-of-hand dishonest"
I read the entire series and can't agree with your assessment at all. Yes he was very critical of Spartan society, but I feel he very clearly demonstrates through various sources why he has these views, e.g. highlighting that most of what we hear, see and might admire about Sparta is true only for 3% of the population (spartiates), while the vast majority are lower classes and in particular slaves (helots). And even those 'good things' might not be true.
I'd be interested where you disagree on substance.
Note that this is from memory but, for example, the author of the linked blog
posts makes an outrageous distinction between the free people of "Sparta", which
he calls "Spartiates" and all "Spartans" which includes the helots. This is were
your expression "3% of the population (spartiates)" comes from.
That is an outrageous distinction that is not found in any ancient or modern
source. It appears to be something that the author completely made up in order
to support his revisionist interpretation of the history of ancient Sparta.
First, there is no way to make a distinction between "Spartan" and "Spartiate"
in the Greek language. In Greek, ancient and modern, a person who lives in, or
is from, a place called "Sparta" is a "Σπαρτιάτης", i.e. "Spartiate".
"Σπαρτιάτης" is most commonly latinised as "Spartan", sometimes as "Spartiate",
but there is no semantic difference between the two.
Second, there is no modern source I'm aware of, other than the linked series of
blog posts, and certainly no ancient source that refers to the helots as
"Spartans", "Spartiates", "Lacedaemons", or anything else but "helots", or
simply the slaves of the Spartans. This is because ancient authors only ever
refer to helots when they want to point out how cruel were the Spartans (which
obviously must exclude the helots themselves from the group of "Spartans") and
don't really care about them, or their fate, otherwise. So the idea that the
population of "Sparta" was mostly made up of slaves is a figment of the author's
imagination.
It is true that the slaves of the Spartans were (many) more than the Spartans,
but this is also true of most other Greek city-states, where manual labor was
performed by slaves and many citizens owned more than one slave. In fact, other
Greeks did not treat their own slaves with any less cruelty than the Spartans.
For example, the main source of richess of classical Athens was the silver mined
from the mines of Lavrion where thousands of slaves, including children, were
made to work in conditions that we would, today, rightly find revolting.
From memory again, there were other errors, all of which were the result of the
author trying to play up historical themes for clicks, but I would have to
re-read the series of posts to remember. In any case my recommendation is to
turn to primary sources if one is interested in the history of Sparta. Read
Thucydides, read Plutarch, read Xenophon, read Plato, read Aristotle, read
Herodotus even, but keep in mind that everyone who wrote about Sparta had a
political affiliation, either to Sparta, or to the enemies of Sparta, and in any
case ancient historians were not always 100% accurate.
> It appears to be something that the author completely made up in order to support his revisionist interpretation of the history of ancient Sparta.
The author addresses this VERY directly and at length in a "Conclusions: Who Matters?" section of one of the posts. For example (though the whole section is worth a read):
> All too often, I see students read the Greek contempt for the poor man, the non-citizen, or the slave with horror but then immediately turn around and replicate those patterns of thought in their own thinking about these societies (well of course the ‘mob’ cannot be trusted to rule – Thucydides and Xenophon said so – to which I am endlessly responding, ‘yes, but should you believe them?‘).
> Indeed, this credulous approach to the source tradition – accepting not only the facts they give, but also their guesses about what is to them the distant past and their judgments about the moral worth of a Sparta that probably never existed – is so common that it has had a name since the 1933, le mirage spartiate, coined by Francois Ollier. Rousseau and Jefferson had an excuse for their gullibility – we do not.
The passage you quote does not address the distinction between "Spartiate" and "Spartan" that the author is attempting to make, and which is the subject I discuss in my comment above (in fact, that is the subjec of the "it" in "it appears" in my comment).
The author of the blog posts has basically made up the idea that "Spartiate" and "Spartan" are two different words with different meaning. "Spartan" or "Spartiate" on the one hand, and "Helot" on the other hand are two different categories, but "Spartan" and "Spartiate" are different Latinisations of the same Greek word, Σπαρτιάτης and not similar-sounding words with subtly different meaning, ast he author claims. This claim, that "Spartan" and "Spartiate" are different words representing different categories of people is the revisionism that I am commenting on.
Can you quote a passage from the linked series of blog posts that directly addresses this revisionism?
> outrageous distinction between the free people of "Sparta", which he calls "Spartiates" and all "Spartans" which includes the helots
> That is an outrageous distinction that is not found in any ancient or modern source. It appears to be something that the author completely made up in order to support his revisionist interpretation of the history of ancient Sparta.
"Spartiate" is used to mean the free citizens of Sparta, as is "Spartan", but the author claims that one means the free citizens and the other the helots.
Yes, the ancients were very different from us. But Sparta was special even to contemporaries. And it was special ways that are especially appalling to modern sensibilities. It’s dishonest to ignore that.
Great series! I came out with the feeling that the Spartans were like the genteel Antebellum plantation owners of Greece: seemingly noble and stoic, but in reality terribly cruel, corrupted, and decadent.
He recently appeared in the EconTalk podcast and its worth hearing too (will find the link). But they touched on Sparta and the thing that struck me was just how unequal - something like 5% or less of the population of Sparta (and it was a big state by Greek standards), only 5% were "free" - everyone else was a Slave.
The level of violence to stop that becoming an uncontrolled uprising must have been huge.
Modern Gulf emirates have a similar ratio of citizens to guest workers. Western profesionnals are treated with respect, but manual workers from India or Philippines are basically slaves in everything but name.
How the history repeats itself, this time among hi-tech skyscrapers.
They still would have to fear, that someone leaks the video of it - and some superior needs a scapegoat to punish, because everyone here respects human rights etc.
A legally owned slave, was legally OK to be raped or killed. And ok to proudly tell everyone about it.
>They still would have to fear, that someone leaks the video of it
Is it really a deterrent, though? You said yourself that it'd be scapegoated and its not like they depend on good PR to keep their goodies, they own the country after all.
Also I can't help but wonder what these people talk about behind closed doors, do they really play by the same rules you and I would be held accountable to behind closed doors?
But it is already. Lots of otherwise heinous activities are tolerated just fine by the West. When was the last time the name Khashoggi found its way into Western mainstream media?
I had been thinking about fantasy stories and what the maximumly evil evil empire you could write in a story and still have it somewhat believable. After reading that, I think Sparta is probably it, if not a little beyond it.
Honestly a lot of colonial rule feels pretty awful too, and with a similar flavor.
Yet something about Sparta seemed worse. Maybe because they maintained a kind of stability of oppression for so long, or maybe it's my own biases and the fact that oppressed and oppressor were both white and more-or-less of the same culture. Or is it inevitable that this kind of oppression also must be supported by ideologically denigration of the oppressed? But is denigration even enough, do you also need separation, the sense that the oppressed are a different people? That is, did the Spartan ruling class look down on the helots as not just inferior but alien? If so then the class differences may have had all the same attributes as race and racism but without skin color differences.
Very few other slave societies _had kids ritualistically kill the slaves as part of their education_ (there's maybe some wiggle room on whether this actually happened or was mythical, but it's _definitely_ part of the popular view), so there's that.
Sparta was also an oddity just in the sheer size of the slave class; under 5% of the population was fully free. Few if any other slave societies had that sort of ratio.
> That is, did the Spartan ruling class look down on the helots as not just inferior but alien?
Yes; they were 'foreigners' (they were originally, at least mythically, inhabitants of a neighboring city state). They also had a separate discriminated class for Spartans who'd been stripped of civil rights; these weren't viewed as the same.
> Honestly a lot of colonial rule feels pretty awful too, and with a similar flavor.
I suspect what makes colonialism feel less shocking is that most of the cruelty happens "out there" and the day-to-day activities that promulgate it were usually done with native man-power in those regions. Like one faction there that was elevated above the others and made to do the dirty work.
The primary beneficiaries aren't forced to see and live with it and very few of them ever have to go and get their hands dirty. This is all sustained by a set of narratives and beliefs back home that sanitize these activities and depict the foreign populations as being not sophisticated enough for self-government or appeals to reason. They were either childlike and ignorant or inherently violent martial races.
Sparta, in contrast, had a hereditary elite that does its own dirty work up close and didn't seem to be engaged in any self-deception about the moral status and intellectual capabilities of their slaves.
SM Stirling's Draka, an attempt at a maximally evil empire, borrowed quite a lot from the Spartans, presumably for this reason. Though they were a lot more competent, which was always one of Sparta's major failings.
> SM Stirling's Draka, an attempt at a maximally evil empire
I was under the impression that Stirling was optimizing more for maximal believability than maximal evil. (If he was optimizing for maximal evil then I may need to find some beer for him to hold.)
I wouldn't have thought it was at all believable by alternate history standards (and I think Stirling has actually acknowledged that?)
I'm struggling to think of _any_ nastier fictional society, though. The closest might be alternate history portrayals of a late 20th century Nazi Germany, which are usually pretty awful, but they usually fall down a bit on sheer horror vs Stirling's Draka, particularly the later stories.
That might be the issue; I never really got around to reading the whole series. Though my impression was that the later stories were not alternate history but more semi-hard 'science'[0]-fiction, which opens more leeway for making whatever the author is trying to build believable[1], and there's a tradeoff between believability versus evil[2], so having more leeway on the former lets you increase the latter as well.
(My impression of the early books was broadly on the evilness level of "Nazi Germany, but less incompetent". I suppose, given real-world observations, that I probably should find competence a detriment to believability, especially in villians, so that's also a possibility.)
0: I have unrelated issues with that term, but it's what the genre is usually called.
1: On the extreme end, you have a fantasy setting where the laws of nature outright enforce cliches like good-always-wins-in-the-end or evil-can-never-truly-be-stopped-only-delayed, and how evil the empires is is mostly a function of how those effects interact. In more 'realistic' settings it's things like how easy mass surveilance versus jailbreaking is.
The issues with believability in the first book are mostly just around the backstory; the history of the Draka makes no sense at all.
> My impression of the early books was broadly on the evilness level of "Nazi Germany, but less incompetent".
I mean, that's up there in the evil stakes. But also, the Draka were a lot more... messed up. Both had deeply alien (and arguably rather Spartan, to go back on topic for a second) value systems, but by the time Nazi Germany fell, the vast majority of the population had only had Nazi values inflicted on them for about 15 years; the Draka social system was _centuries_ old.
It is a very interesting series. However, I think he understates classic Spartan military prowess.
If you look at Deveraux's list of military victories and defeats, you will see a lot of the defeats came after the Peloponnesian war. I believe even Greek sources talked about how Spartan society became softer after winning the Peloponnesian war.
Also, the Spartans were famous for their army not their navy.
If you take the list and remove naval battles and battles fought after the Peloponnesian War, you end up with something like 12 victories and 4 defeats with is a 75% win rate which is likely pretty impressive all things considered.
He also points out that the Spartans fought primarily against much weaker opponents, making their military prowess not so impressive. If I constantly pick fights against children, my win rate would be quite high as well.
What was pointed out was that the way the Greeks organized their battle formations, the strongest of their formation would generally face the weakest of their opponents' formation. Since Spartans were usually seen as the strongest, this meant they faced generally those seen as the weakest. And he also points out that when this general model is explicitly broken, the Spartans really suffer in their documented military effectiveness.
That's pretty interesting. So it was basically confirmation bias: people thought they were strong, so they were put in positions where they performed well, which perpetuated the idea that they were strong?
Been meaning to turn this one into a PDF to read on the train.
I wonder if he's ever considered publishing that or some of his other long reads. A low estimate has This Isn't Sparta at 130 pages. Images take that higher.
I don't understand the point of changing words like "many" to "mony" or "man" to "mon". I mean if you're anyway writing the entire thing in modern day English then why do this.
Is it just for the effect of it I.e., making it look sophisticated? or is it some kind of attempt at retaining the originality/authenticity?
I think I vaguely recall the explanation from a classics course many, many, many years ago, but I can't find a source without investing a ton more effort, so take this with a grain of salt: IIRC, Plutarch wrote the sayings in intentionally archaic (for his time) Greek. He lived hundreds of years after Sparta had disappeared as a power in the ancient world, so he could have intended it to demonstrate the great antiquity of the quotations, or he could have done so to paint the Spartans as rough-around-the-edges rustics. The translation attempts to mimic this effect by translating the archaic-sounding Greek as archaic-sounding English.
To me it sounded like suddenly they were Rastafarians. Or perhaps Rastas out of the William Gibson novel, Neuromancer? I've read that more recently than I've read the history of Bob Marley and the Wailers, because I still have Neuromancer but sold Catch A Fire (I should go buy another copy, it was a very good book).
It's supposed to be conveying some kind of regional accent/dialect, I think. A bit from the same translation:
A Spartan, being asked if the road into Sparta were safe, said, That depends on what kind of a mon ye are; for the lions gang about where they wull, but the hares we hunt over that land."
Edit: poking around the translation some, it looks like it's supposed to represent the Doric Greek dialect.
Correct. The translated sentence ("my son was a gude and honourable mon, but Sparta has mony a mon better than him.") does ends with two distinctly Doric words: τήνω (there, i.e. in Sparta) κάρρονας (stronger/better), instead of the Attic ἐκεῖ κρείττονας.
Thanks! Fascinating that the translator chose to represent the dialectal bits explicitly with a contemporary dialect, even though the style of the translation is not all contemporary. And the contemporariness makes the intent hard to understand without reading a bunch of footnotes (or ancient Greek) only a few decades later.
Per the heading, it is a scan of an old book which itself seems to be a collection of older texts. The weird spellings are consistent with English representations of Scottish speech patterns, and might have been intended to communicate to the original audience that the Spartans' general gruffness and aggression were comparable to that of Scots.
From a British perspective, this is pretty clearly a faux-Scots interpretation for that earthy feel the author must have thought was warranted. Appropriated with all the confidence only the English can muster. I may be way off base, but those are first impressions.
> aither clear yersel' of this or stop yer living.
A few stereotypical Scots markers there. And "mony" and "mon" are Northern features from Derby to Scotland in various pockets. Dying out altogether now, of course, becoming the homogenised transatlantic factory line English we're all so excited to speak nowadays. Can I get a tea with milk to go? Cheers!
I don’t think Sparta was as cruel and callous as portrayed.
I think our view of Sparta is influenced by two main things:
1. Spartan propaganda. It was in Sparta’s interest to portray themselves as crazy, devoted warriors who relished the thought of dying for their country. How would you feel going up against a bunch of guys who would rather die on the field of battle than go home in defeat and have their own mothers kill them.
2. We actually don’t have surviving first person Spartan accounts. Most of what we know about the Spartans comes from others- mainly the Athenians. Now the Athenians as bitter rivals to the Spartans also found it in their interest to portray the Spartans as crazy warrior psychopaths.
We know from history that the Spartans actually lost battles. Also in those battles, there were a lot of Spartan survivors who actually surrendered. In addition, we actually have no historical record of any mass killings of losing soldiers by their mothers.
So take what you read about Spartan warriors with a huge grain of salt.
Xenophon was an Athenian, but he was positively disposed towards Sparta and had seen military service under Spartan commanders. He's probably our best source.
Sparta milked the Thermopylae battle a lot, presenting themselves as defender of Greek independence against foreign invaders, sometime even as they were taking money from them to pay for their wars against other Greek cities
I have read a comparison about the structure of the Spartan society, basically consisting mostly of slaves like no other culture that used slave labor. Today we know what early experience of violence may do to a person and as far as I now, Spartans hat to kill one helot to be finally admitted into adult Society.
So we get two things.
1. A worrier based elite society, consisting basically of psychopaths
2. A society structure that seem more to resemble a concentration camp with guards.
Reminder that Spartan society was nightmarishly abusive to every single member from its slave class to its ruling class in the name of military supremacy, which they failed at. The only thing they were truly successful at was propaganda, which still dominates the way they are looked at today.
I remember something a friend that got a masters in history said. Peoples often define themselves relative historical empires and their own contemporary enemies. As a result they have an incentive to play up both.
I've wondered about the Spartans, they conquered and enslaved some of their neighbors. And kept them that was for 200 years or something. Probably meant they weren't able to manage anything more than that.
> Being asked by a woman from Attica, "Why is it that you Spartan women are the only women that lord it over your men," she said, "Because we are the only women that are mothers of men."
> When a foreigner made advances in a mild and leisurely way, she pushed him aside, saying, "Get away from here, you who cannot play a woman's part either!"
This, on the other hand, would offend a lot of contemporary sensibilities.
Explaining that one: 1. Spartans were proud of their men.
2. Sparta despite being very extreme compared to other Greek cities in a lot of things, was an exception regarding women role in politics, in the sense in Sparta was acceptable to hear women opinion (women still had no formal power, but they were allowed to talk to men about politics, while on Athens for example this was forbidden).
Whereas Athenian and other Grecian culture was admired and spread across the Roman empire after it was militarily conquered, Sparta's fate was humiliating. They were turned into a kind of human zoo. The old training rituals continued, but mainly as a tourist attraction for wealthy Roman aristocrats to ogle at.
It’s worth mentioning that Spartan women held huge amounts of wealth due to the violence within their society (men’s wealth would be inherited by their wives who would then remarry). According to Aristotle (who is very biased) the women lived lives of luxury. The point of this is that the women who extol the violence of men have a material self interest in the deaths of their men (minimally as a class, potentially individually).
It's worth noting that Aristotle was not a disinterested commentator on Sparta: he loathed the relatively high amount of freedom Spartan women had compared to Athenian women, and went out of his way to argue that when bad things happened to Sparta it had resulted from this.
Yeah, he was super biased. For a number of reasons. I just kept it as a parenthetical because I think it’s fair to assume that they were relatively wealthy, more equal and powerful than their contemporaries, even if Aristotle is likely overstating the extent of these differences.
Some of the 5% of Spartan women who were full citizens, perhaps. However, Sparta was an extremely unequal society, with some 85% either slaves or helots (also slaves, but owned by the state, not individuals).
The named women aren’t helots and it’s unlikely the unnamed women would be helots either. I was under the impression The only group we refer to as Spartan are that minority population of elites as the rest were referred to as helots (who were also unable to serve in their military)
That is the point of the comment I believe: pointing out that we tend to ignore the vast majority of the inhabitants of Sparta when we think of Spartans.
Well, that goes for every commentary on ancient societies. Unless it's explicitly about slaves and outcasts, it's about the at most 10% of the society that wasn't.
At some point the Romans got more people to participate on their society, but that's centuries after any of that.
> Unless it's explicitly about slaves and outcasts, it's about the at most 10% of the society that wasn't.
This is absolutely not true. Pretty much no other society in history actually held more than 80% of the population enslaved like Sparta did. Rome certainly never did, nor did the other Greek states of the era.
Sparta's demographic makeup was deeply weird even for the time. There's a decent summary here: https://acoup.blog/2019/08/23/collections-this-isnt-sparta-p... (tl;dr: >95% of people in Sparta were some sort of underclass, almost all slaves. By contrast, about 60% of people in Athens were an underclass, of which 70% slaves)
It's true. Just read any hisoty source for any historical period before modern times. See how many accounts you can find about the lives of "common people", which usually means slaves, serfs, etc. Even in modern times, you hear about Churchill or Lincoln, but where are the stories of the carpenters, or farmers, the milk maids or the nurses, the midwives or the factory workers? Who remembers their names, what they achieved, what they held dear, who they loved and married, and how they died?
Most of hisotry is about the people that hold all the power in their hands and most of the time their great deeds is to crush everyone else underfoot. We learn the dates and placenames of the great battles where king so-and-so defeated king such-and-such, but do we ever hear the names of the hundreds or thousands of their men who left their families and land to go and die a sad, senseless death?
This is eloquent but silly. There is a lot of good research, and popular accounts of it, on the effects of population-level status and trends on historical events. Given the article topic I would suggest starting with Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1905125305?tag=fivebooks001-20
Instead I suggest you start with the primary sources like Thucydides, Plutarch, Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle. I sure have and I don't need to read k'th- hand accounts, for large k, like the one you suggest.
Their sayings do have a rather "disposable" view of their sons. I suppose it is the equivalent of that loathsome White Feather movement, which had a too-significant overlap with the Suffragettes of the time.
Lets keep in mind that quotes that survived someone had deemed as worth repeating to perpetuate certain prestige, status or idea. Plus, it's all filtered by time, people and politics,
Spartans spoke a different dialect of Greek (Doric) than the Athenians (Attic) and it used to be fairly common to translate bits of Doric as if they had been spoken by a Scottish Highlander.
Sounds an awful lot like what I perceived from the media of the Islamic state. I think it's a kind of mentality that, though brave, needs to be stamped out thoroughly.
Given the alternative to prevailing militarily was typically slavery or dispersement and homogenization into the conquering society, I can see why these ideas were treated as important. As a proxy for meaning now? Spartan myths and ideals are a fun mythology and aesthetic for some and a straw man for others, so any discussion in the present is going to play out on party lines.
It really shouldn't. An asterisk is perfectly legal in a filename and in a URL path. It is a special shell character, but if your webserver is looking up static files via the shell, you need a different webserver pronto.
> “ "Why is it that you Spartan women are the only women that lord it over your men," she said, "Because we are the only women that are mothers of men."
And yet here we are reading their best jokes, many centuries later.
> One woman, observing her son coming towards her, inquired, "How fares our country?" And when he said, "All have perished," she took up a tile and, hurling it at him, killed him, saying, "And so they sent you to bear the bad news to us!"
The Jewish culture was very different in that era. At the time Spartans conquered the Messenians (establishing the Spartan culture as we know it), Israel and Judea were still in their First Temple period - a Yahwist monolatry. The hardline monotheism that is one of the defining features of Judaism today would not appear until a century later.
The Zoroastrians and Buddhists as well. Perhaps the Yazidis should be counted in that number as well. And certain elements of aboriginal cultures -- I'm thinking of the Rainbow Serpent -- go back tens of thousands of years.
There's a subset of people who think (or at least act like they do) anything short of a strong condemnation of something they don't like is an endorsement.
Usually you see these people pop up when discussing societal norms in the 3rd world but they do pop up frequently enough to be noticed when discussing history.
A lot of those quotes make me think that they thought they were so much better than everyone else that their downfall was chiefly caused by believing their own propaganda. This hubris, which the Athenians always warned about, has caused many empires to fall throughout history.
Doesn't it depends on the context? Defending an elderly from assault or protecting one's family from a reckless person is violence in the name of virtue.
While violence is sometimes justified, I think it's still better to build a society that tries to solve its problems without violence or prevents problems that can only be solved with violence.
When you have reckless people attacking the elderly you need better psychological healthcare and a better social system to prevent that.
I understand your point and in a narrow context it's definitely true, but in a larger context you can prevent most violence by changing society.
I think we need to distinguish between violence and capacity for violence. Yes, we should strive towards a society that tries to solve its problems without violence as much as possible. But new problems appear every now and then, and not all of them can be solved without violence, unfortunately. So we still have to be able to resort to it when needed.
Many of these people are heavily traumatized. Charles Manson for example was mistreated by his mother and in prison. If there were better child protective services and a more humane prison system in place, he might never have done what he did.
Most people doing evil things are in part doing these evil things as a result of their circumstances. By changing their circumstances through social programs you reduce violence and make everyone happier as a result.
You can argue that blaming violence on circumstances ignores people's own responsibility, but I believe that better social and medical programs are still worth it because they attack the part of the root cause society can influence most easily.
Rule of law and systemic governance will always be more practical to manage this, than dependence on heroic vigilante justice to meet an evil individual with a heroic individual, on the spot and ready to act.
There's a variety of reasons for this, but one of 'em is that in a condition of systemic governance, there's some societal pressure against the kind of sadism you mention. In a world like Sparta, it's hard to tell the heroes from the villains, and anybody might lash out at any time. Even the quotes given, spell out situations where random violence was just a part of everyday, expected life. This causes tensions and grudges.
The potential to commit violence can be reframed as strength. It's useful because it grants you negotiating leverage, regardless of whether you are the aggressor or defender. Can't defend yourself? Vae victis.
The capability to commit violence might be a strength in a world where violence is an unfortunate necessity, ie for defense of the common good. But unless it's paired with wisdom and reluctance (as the opposite of the willingness noted above and gleefully promoted by adherents to the Spartan mythos) that capability is mostly the tool of tyranny.
There's a novel twist on this particular selection too. Glorifying violence and being callous about its consequences is even more abhorrent from a position where you're guaranteed not to suffer the direct consequences.
Hm, all most all of them are horrible. It's so impressive to me that we still proclaim Sparta as something worthwhile of praise when it was an awful inhumane culture and society that didn't even last that long.
Aside from Sports (where competition is the whole point outside of the Ivy League), Sparta is always portrayed as cruel and inhumane, deservedly so. On the other hand, they were, apparently, good at waging war one way or another.
I've not seen it associated with philosophy and civilization as Athens was, among others.
Spartans were known to have terrible logistics, they couldn't field an army for more than a year. Back then, most armies needed to live off the fat of the land and/or have huge supply trains to remain effective, and Spartans had neither skillset. (When talking Bronze age tactics: this was the key advantage of slingers, who could craft their sling-bullets from clay and rocks found near the battle areas. Mass production and distribution of arrows was still not mastered in the 1000 BC-era or so)
As such, Spartans would "gloriously" run into a few battles, declare themselves superior, then go home. While the enemies would just keep marching towards their target, sustainably pressing forward.
Its like watching an expert Sprinter battle a Marathon Runner. War is a marathon, not a sprint. Consider the Persian armies that fought against the Greeks: thousands of miles away from home.
In contrast, Spartans fought on their home turf and barely were able to do so effectively. Sure, they won a lot of battles, but holding back the Persian army required more than just winning a battle here or there.
----------
That's why the Athenians worshiped Athena: the goddess of wisdom _and_ war. They realized that waging war was both an issue of might and intelligence. Intelligence to move your supplies and organize them so that your armies can stay in the field longer than your enemies.
--------
That being said: the Marine Corps glorify the Spartan way of thinking, because the USA's Marine Corps are designed to be the spearhead of battle.
The Army is more about logistics. Its got less glory but is more practical. They don't glorify the Spartan way.
Makes sense. It's like a perfect metaphor for imbalances between individualism and collectivism.
Seems like Sparta internalized personal valor so intensely that the only collective good they could possibly understand, was to project the whole country as an imagined heroic individual, and then try to individually triumph in the name of that country.
Meanwhile, there's a lot of countries out there with more of an interest in community spirit and collective action. I daresay there's good metaphors for leaning too far in that way, as well, but Sparta did get wrecked in the end by the collectivists, who quite simply out-organized them and provided better support for their soldiers.
If honor dictates you have to jump over the ten foot wall ALONE, you ain't doing it, and humbler people who build a human pyramid and lift up those not good at climbing… their whole army's gonna be on the other side of that wall, anytime they want.
As far as I can tell, the modern world has left the realm of "individual vs collectivism" and is more about "individual vs collective vs collective-of-collectives".
There's nothing wrong with the Marines being the modern Sparta, because the Marines are just one team in our team-of-teams of the military. Marines + Army work on the same projects together, so the Marines can be the "unsustainable elite fighting force", while the Army can hold the zones after the Marines have done initial combat.
From this perspective, individuals glorifying combat works in the context of the Marines. If the Marines were alone, they'd fall just like Sparta did way back in the Greek days: but that's not really an issue today. The Army will inevitably help out whatever conflicts the Marines get into.
So the "different cultures", the different stories that these communities have, work out in the context of the team-of-teams that make up today's military.
--------
Society has advanced a lot in the last 3000 years. We know that we can build a community similar to the Spartans. The questions we have today aren't "good vs bad", but more about "where is the proper place this philosophy should be in our greater society?".
Yes, absolutely. If we need Spartans, and we have that larger perspective, we can make not only the Spartans, but also the context for them to exist in. You've got it exactly right.
They had a professional officer corps and drills. In fact, that's mostly what the Spartiate class was really.
Since other city states had armies comprised of the gentry donning a suit of armor when needed, it made a lot of a difference in that context.
Well it turns out that you can have a worthwhile society while also having a professional officer corps and drills, it's just that the Spartans didn't.
Indeed. They were good are producing high-quality individual infantrymen. But (1) there weren't very many of them, and (2) there's a lot more to winning wars than how tough your infantry are.
I'm reminded of Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo who both thought that Americans were only interested in money and sex, decadent, undisciplined and unmilitaristic (all true, to some extent), and that therefore they'd be easy to beat in a war. It didn't quite work out for them!
You could be right and I might be wrong. I get the feeling for them it’s more focused on sportsmanship and fellowship than adversarial competition.
If the focus were on winning then they’d recruit like the other schools for their sports teams (pac10, bigEast, etc. I know some have expanded and names have changed)
perhaps a greater percentage of ivy athletes play for "the love of the sport", as something less than 1% of all college athletes will go on to a professional career (and few of those will by ivy leaguers), but competition is certainly still central. folks who go to exclusive schools tend to be quite competitive, practically by definition. winning and being competitive are certainly not the same though. these athletes want to win, even if they're at a disadvantage and don't win as often as the big sports schools. note also that ivy leaguers tend to do better at sports in which money hasn't heavily distorted the playing field.
the problem for ivies with respect to recruiting (for winning) is the academic admissions floor, not money (harvard and yale having two of the biggest endowments in history) nor necessarily even an aversion to cheating and corruption. top athletes are too conspicuous not to draw outsized scrutiny in that regard, and tarnishing the brand that way just isn't worth it.
> a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen
Not quite that much according to my observations. All the nationalists where i'm from are bunch of literal morons that can't do much useful things beyond clenching fists and shouting $country greatest in the world, everyone other country run by little girl.
Not sure where to start with this ludicrous comment. It seems to break many of the In Comments guidelines, e.g. in every one of their first 6 paragraphs. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I could have written at greater length but I don't believe I'm breaking the other guidelines. Schopenhauer isn't a fellow commenter, he's a historical figure and one of his most notable qualities was being incredibly abrasive, spiteful, and cantankerous, which informed a fair portion of his writing. There are many sources for this but I'll submit his essay "On Noise" as an example [1]. In it, he spends half a dozen paragraphs to reach the same conclusion as The Grinch in his eponymous Christmas special, for the same reasons. You may think the essay is satirical - it's not. It's representative. Discussing Schopenhauer without a clear view of his nature as an asshole is as lacking an analysis as reading Bukowski without the same.
Well, Nietzche liked Schopenhauer at least until after Untimely Reflections was published.
Schopenhauer certainly could bad-mouth anyone or anything. But remembering him for that is like remembering Dijkstra for the put-downs of Basic or Fortran rather than for his constructive work.
Couldn't find a definitive source for this. Wikipedia states it was a neighbour who wouldn't leave his entrance so he pushed her out of the way. She then sued him claming she was violently assauled, had become paralyzed, and was unable to work. He was found guilty and he paid her pension 15 years until she died.
The cruel irony of this was that despite how friendly their society was toward violence (as seen by these quotes)... they weren't particularly awesome at fighting for it.
Long read but well worth it for interested people.