The Spartans. utopian society or brutal dictatorship?

I'm sure we've all heard of the Spartans. The people of the provience: Sparta back in the ancient Greek era.

Sparta was run by two kings, with a council of elders and magistrates (ephors) and all political business was done in secret, unlike in Athens (their on and off ally/enemy)

The entire society was devoted to war and creating the greatest warriors in history (and they pretty much did it).
At birth children were inspected and if they were found to be weak they'd be left alone to die on a mountainside and the strong babies were kept.
From a very very early age the males were trained extremely harshly as soldiers, homosexuality and lesbianism was encouraged and so forth.
Weird society hell bent on creating a utopian society.

I'm sure we all know a bit about the Spartans.
so what do you think?
Did they manage to create a perfect society or was it just a horrid dictatorship that should never have happened?
Discuss.

For me I love Sparta. The Spartans are my heros, although many of their methods do not appeal to me, and I think they were doing what seamed right to them.

 

One problem you're going to run into on a thread like this is that a majority of people are going to respond with only limited knowledge on the subject (although perhaps such could be said for many of the threads on boards to begin with). Heck, I spent a couple of months studying Spartan life from various sources and viewpoints and I still would be affraid to promote or denounce the whole culture in one motion due to ignorance of some details. Too many people are going to get caught up on one or two little facets without understanding the culture as a whole.

One thing to keep in mind as far as the 'Utopian' side goes is that while Spartan life was utopian for those who were able to become full fledged citizens, its whole existence was built on a foundation of slaves and lower labor castes. Without this group of people thought of as no different than livestock, the whole Spartan culture unravels. The Spartan utopia allowed for its citizens to enjoy leisurely pursuits, train and compete, and basically enjoy a good life because they didn't have to do any menial tasks. And it wasn't just foreigners who were held as slaves (which can be acceptable in the ancient mindsets), but also fellow Greeks.

As far as the 'Dictatorship' side goes, the only real 'dictator' in Spartan culture was their rigid traditions. Having two kings was a neat way of having a rapidly ready (non-committee) source of leadership (similar to why most democratic republics today have a single 'head of state'), but you check it with both a power of equal measure (the other king), and in the long run, the power of council, which ultimately could be the undoing of a rampant lord. Granted, as with any structure, there were periods where power was manipulated so it was unbalanced, but it was an effort. Both the council and the kingships, while not outright republican in nature, were often more representative of current ideals, than Athen's 'democracy' which at times was every bit a sham.

Their methods of weeding out the weak, while something that many will immediately pounce upon in today's world, did produce results and, if one provides some very cold logic, does make sense. In terms of introducing new blood, however, it was too limited in scope and hence they saw themselves with a shrinking population. Seeking perfection is one thing, but it all too often starts with a flawed perception of what the standard should be.

In the end, my opinion of Sparta falls between the two. They were really no better or worse than Athens, although by modern standars Athens is considered more culturally superior (victories tend to have that effect), partially because they were less outright violent.

 

I think the most fair way to judge Sparta would be in comparison to the Greek states around it. Sparta had many slaves, but then, so did did Athens and Thebes.

In the end, it turns out the Persians tended to be more 'benevolent' to thier conquered than any of the Greeks. Historically they were also the only ruling peoples who gave the Hebrew people anything resembling a fair shake.

 

Sparta!? Utopia!? They left babies to die if they thought they were "weak"! The only point of women was to bring babies into the world so that they could grow up to fight. The State would legally own children and send them to fight when they were 8 or so. THey cared for not arts or scinces only a harsh twisted method of sruvival, they stirke me as one of the more monsterous ancient civilizations

 

Dystopia with a few good qualities.

 

Sparta is far from Utopia. I don't see how a civilization focused on war can be a perfect one.

-Seldon

 

They left babies to die if they thought they were "weak"! The only point of women was to bring babies into the world so that they could grow up to fight. The State would legally own children and send them to fight when they were 8 or so.

No actually soldiers wouldn't fight untill they wre fully matured, but they did train from the age of 12.

As for the babies, consider it by the ancient era. It seams perfectly logical to me to weed out the weak babies that are going to be a weight on the advaace of the society.
Would I enforce that rule if I was king?
No.
Would I thrown upon another king who did?
No.

Oh and women did mroe than just raise children. They competed alot in sports, practicaly ran the politics, acted like police, and contrary to popular belief, they did commit themselves to art.

 

I'm sorry but killing children, especially for gender reasons hardly makes a utopian society. Not to mention the entire civlization was resting on slave labor. There were so many slaves in Sparta, that the government feared massive revolts.

-Seldon

 

In a world where it literally takes the strongest to survive allowing mediocracy and weakness to pervade itself into the national consiousness is both foolish and unprecedented.

While the Spartan measure of worth was extremely strict, I could piss off a huge number of people with one sentence.


What is the difference between throwing a baby off a cliff a week after birth and killing it a week before?

In modern America, the single most powerful and prosperous nation in human history, children are killed because they are either an economic burden upon the parents or because they are an emotional burden upon the parents.

I find the selection of a child's life based upon economic incentives far more despotic than when it is based upon thier physical capability to survive in a dangerous world.

Both ideals are, to me, barbaric and foolish.
One moreso than the other however.

That aside, as it could easily hijack any thread, the Spartans were one of the most powerful and perhaps one of the most PEACEFUL nations in Greece.

Like Eygpt, the Spartans defined a way of life that they believed worked, and they decided to maintain that for as long as possible.

The stability and highly moralistic nature of Spartan life bread a people that were predisposed against massive infighting.

How often did the Spartans fall upon themselves in Civil War for power or money?


The Spartans were a highly moralistic society that seemed to perfect each matter of importance, disregard frivolous distractions, avoid the greater evils of personal greed, and strive for Honor and Brotherhood.

While not a Utopian Society in any way, the Spartans were far from a despotic tyranny, and were one of the greatest nation's of thier time.

Thier ideals were basically utopian.

 

I think you could call it dystopia after the fashion of North Korea or George Orwell's Oceania from 1984. But since Sparta rarely had any strongman leaders, I don't think it quite qualifies as a dictatorship.

Though I think we should define utopia more specifically.

 

It seams perfectly logical to me to weed out the weak babies that are going to be a weight on the advaace of the society.

You consider war to be advancement of society?

As for the supposed cultural and intellectual achievements of the Spartans, I wonder why we seem to read so few Spartan works today as compared to Athenian ones.

 

You consider war to be advancement of society?

In many instances it is. Do I like it? Hell no.
Do I like the idea of babies being thrown off a cliff? Nope.
It is logical for the good of the society. YES!
No different from an abortion really. From the momment a baby is concieved it is no more valuable than a 25 year old successfull business man.

 

That aside, as it could easily hijack any thread, the Spartans were one of the most powerful and perhaps one of the most PEACEFUL nations in Greece.

This doesn't say much, however:

The Greek cities as a whole were perhaps the most inolerant people in the ancient world and while they were not the most brutal and warlike (a ditinction that likely belongs to the Assyrians), they ranked pretty high up there. In war they began even more hostile than the Etruscan/Romans, though the Romans, being the more inventive, eventually surpassed them (though a Greek Empire in place of the Roman Empire would probably have been even more lurid and authoritarian than the Romans wound up being).

The Empire they destroyed, the Persians, were known as practically benevolent in comparison. The Persians were no saints (no Empire or country ever is) but the Persians took a lot of care in treating thier subjects well. THey were not as ethnocentric as the Greeks were.

 

Do I like the idea of babies being thrown off a cliff? Nope.
It is logical for the good of the society. YES!


No it's not, if you think about it. It denies the possibility that the baby might have other redeeming values that could make up for this. There are several babies that have problems at birth that they might later grow out of. Or alternatively, even those with things like permanent disabilities or physical defects might have been useful to society.

For instance, a one-armed military genius would've done Sparta a whole lot more good than an average, but fully capable hoplite warrior.

 

Clearly the Spartans did not go strong on brains, which explains why Rome, instead of Sparta, was the center of a Mediterranean empire.

 

Clearly the Spartans did not go strong on brains, which explains why Rome, instead of Sparta, was the center of a Mediterranean empire.

That's a poor arguement. You can't assume the Spartans wanted what Rome had.

 

They weren't really a dictatorship, at least under Archidamus. My only real knowledge comes from the era of the Persian War to the Peloponnesian War in the 400s, so I'm no expert. However, especially with the Peloponnesian war, Sparta was not exactly a war monger. Their initial opposition to go to war with Athens, even if it meant the expansion of the Athenian Empire was many things, but it was obviously not aggressive. Also, Sparta, while not innocent, was much..."nicer" in dealing with her allies than Athens ever was.

 

They certainly weren't very nice to their slaves. For example, some Spartan soldiers once had their helots undertake a rescue mission of sorts to save their hides... then they killed the helots afterwards, on the account that those helots brave enough to save their masters' lives could theoretically lead a slave rebellion.

 

For their time period and the ideoliogy that they lived in, the Spartans worked well. If they didn't then they would have been overrun as a nation state by the other greek states, persians and so forth before making an imprint on society. By no means do I think that the methods used were morally right and a civilizing influence. But for that time period, they worked.

 

what so they survived because they are child killers?

 

They survived because their focus of a civilization was that everything support their field soldiers. Slaves were taken, used and brutalized, all in support of their field armies...

 

Slavery is a morally corrupt institution degrading to all parties.

Worship the Spartans all you want, but they are far from perfect.

 

I would say that it's an over-statement to say the Spartans "survived" because of that. After all, there was nothing dictating that they needed to be that violent. Most of the time, they were by far the most belicose of the Greek city-states, so it's not like they were victims.

 

For their time period and the ideoliogy that they lived in, the Spartans worked well. If they didn't then they would have been overrun as a nation state by the other greek states, persians and so forth before making an imprint on society.

But at the same time, it was the Spartans' inflexibility and harshness that directly led to their downfall.

 

As for the babies, consider it by the ancient era. It seams perfectly logical to me to weed out the weak babies that are going to be a weight on the advaace of the society.

Unfortunately, not a practice specific to the ancient era. Destroying the "weak" and promoting the "strong" as an ideal is not too dissimilar from the ideology of the National Socialist Party.