Thread by @BretDevereaux

I'm not sure if this will convince anyone new, but I want - after all the back and forth - to present the grounds for my negative judgement of Sparta at its simplest:

The real contention here is that Sparta was an unusually - perhaps uniquely - unfree society. 1/

That contention in turn depends on two factual pillars:
1) That the Spartan form of slavery (Helotry) was unusually cruel and violent, even by the low standards of ancient slavery and
2) That Sparta had a far higher percentage of people enslaved than other societies. 2/

Of these, pillar (2) is not meaningfully disputed by anyone. Simply what we know about the balance of kleros/non-kleros land (tabulated by Figueira) combined with the subsistence math of supporting the spartiate lifestyle effectively mandate a large helot population. 60%+ 3/

60% is a huge proportion of slaves; way higher than Rome or Athens (c. 10-30%) or the pre-war US South (c. 33%).

Meanwhile, pillar (1) is the unanimous testimony of our sources. Even pro-Spartan sources like Xenophon; others (Plutarch, Thucydides) are blunter. 4/

Some modern scholars have attempted to tinker on the edges of this, by arguing that our sources like the (over)-emphasize Spartan differentness and that a handful of poorly attested institutions in Greece might be similar to helotry. 5/

But I find even those scholars aren't looking to launch a full assault on Pillar (1) because there's simply no evidence to sustain it. At best one can argue the legal distinction that the helots were brutally treated 'serfs' instead of brutally treated 'slaves.' 6/

So these two pillars are simply not seriously contested. And I've seen no effort by Sparta's defenders on this platform either to serious contest them.

What I've seen is outrage at the necessary *conclusion* the pillars require. 7/

Part of this is because while a lot of works on Sparta - especially textbook level treatments - don't dispute the pillars and may even explicitly affirm them, they politely decline to draw the conclusion the pillars require. 8/

But if slavery is the worst thing short of a death a state can do to someone and if helotry was a particularly cruel form of slavery and if the Spartan state held a greater percentage of its population in that condition than any other polity - this has to be a terrible society.9/

And that tweet up there 👆, that's my argument about Sparta.

All of the rest of it is just supporting points, mainly heading off arguments that all of the slavery was 'worth it' because it enabled the Spartiates to do something else. 10/

For instance that helotry was 'worth it' because it enabled the Spartans to be the greatest warrior-badasses ever.'

Obviously not - the Spartans were militarily mediocre viewed against the broad Mediterranea. 11/

foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/22/spa…

Sparta was marginally more capable at land battles than most poleis, but not dramatically so, and that capability came with crippling drawbacks in terms if tactical inflexibility, strategic incompetence and brutishly ineffective diplomacy. 12/

Romans, Macedonians, Assyrians and yes, Persians all manage better military records in a wider variety of combat environments at greater logistical distance.

Honestly, Syracuse, which goes a full set of rounds w/ Carthage, could at its height probably outfight Sparta handily.13/

Elsewhere I've tackled the idea that the unique equality among the spartiates justified helotry: it doesn't because it didn't ever exist. The homoioi were never actually equal in wealth, there were always rich and poor spartiates. 14/

acoup.blog/2019/09/05/col…

If you want a lot more detail on that point, read Hodkinson's Property & Wealth in Classical Sparta. 15/

And I've also addressed the idea that helotry was 'worth it' because Sparta had some great, innovative form of government (which no other state copied or imitated). Proponents argue the system was stable, but it was pretty much doomed to self-destruct from oliganthropia. 16/

Treating Spartan legends like serious history instead of legends gives Sparta this huge run from c. 800 BC on, but that's just myth-making. We might as well date the Athenian democracy from Theseus.

The actual system starts in 650 and self-destructs in 378 (with Theban help).17/

The Athenian democracy - admittedly with brief interruptions - lasts longer (508-411, 410-404, 403-1st cent). So too the Roman Republic (509-49).

I'm not sure being an 'exceptionally stable slave-prison' is much of an achievement, but Sparta is not exceptional, even here. 18/

In short there are societies in the ancient world which manage these things - being good at war, being stable, legal equality among citizens - much better than Sparta and they do it with a lot less slavery. 19/

None of which should be taken to excuse Roman or Athenian slavery, which was brutal, economically unnecessary (in my view), and evil.

Slavery is always and everywhere wrong.

Which is why a society that has *even more of it* is not a society worth emulating. 20/

Nor, I should note, do I think the inhuman treatment of Sparta's absolutely *massive* underclass (again, c. 60-80%, compared to 10-30% in other ancient slave societies) would be somehow justified if Sparta did achieve something.

But they didn't, which is worse. 21/

After 600, Sparta gives us no great literature, no remarkable architecture, no new discoveries, no notable artwork, no significant military innovations, no valuable trade goods, nothing.

Just a decent-not-great junior varsity hoplite team, for all that slavery and cruelty. 22/

Again, if you want the very best Greek-speaking war-fighters, the Macedonians are ::points north:: over there. Their society is primarily composed of free peasants, instead of ultra-brutalized slaves and post-359 they are *much* better at fighting than the Spartans ever were. 23/

But to return to the core, it is this:
1) Helotry was a particularly cruel form of slavery
2) Sparta had more slaves per capita than any other ancient state
3) Slavery is the worst thing a society can do to a group of people short of killing them. 24/

So if you want to dispute my negative judgement of Sparta, these are the points you must argue - although I will note that all defenses of slavery will be deposited, with their proponents, in the garbage bin outside.

But on points (1) and (2) - give me your best. G'luck.

/end

(Ah, spotted a typo so a brief correction: where it says '378' instead write '371.' )

@MykeCole The spartiates, being rich, might have been more physically fit (Xen Lac. 4.5; 5.9) than the average hoplite, though this may come out in the wash as the ratio of perioikoi to spartiates shifts due to oliganthropia.

@MykeCole And it's possible though not really demonstrated that the unique Spartan social system provided a greater degree of solidarity among the elite.

But that's it - it's a pretty narrow set of advantages, on the whole.