What happened to the Spartans?

[Turb0!]

Can anyone tell me what happened to the Spartans after the Hellenistic Era? I've read that, by the time Alexander the Great came into play their society was in decline, but wasn't Sparta still on the map well into the time of the Roman Empire? Did they retain any of the aspects of their martial culture which they were known for or did they become something entirely different than the Sparta most people know? Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on these questions.

[Lanista]

Can anyone tell me what happened to the Spartans after the Hellenistic Era? I've read that, by the time Alexander the Great came into play their society was in decline, but wasn't Sparta still on the map well into the time of the Roman Empire? Did they retain any of the aspects of their martial culture which they were known for or did they become something entirely different than the Sparta most people know? Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on these questions.

 

That's a very complex one.

 

You should pick up Paul Cartledge's Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, which dispels many a would-be savant's knowledge on the subject.

 

But in regards to their martial culture (I'm doing this from memory now, it was a while ago when I read the book - it's in Surrey, I'm in Texas at the mo), they were forced to stop the agoe practices after - as was their wont - backing the wrong side in the various Macedonian-Roman Wars. I think it was the powerful Achaean League that forced this move through.

 

In the Macedon-Roman wars, Sparta had some successes but as always, suffered catastrophic reverses too, so they were never able to capitalise and build on these.

 

Sparta's renaissance occurred when, once again, they backed the "wrong" side in a war - specifically the Civil War between Anthony and Octavian. Most of Hellas sided with Anthony (because he was there at the time), the Spartans stubbornly stuck with Octavian. Of course, against the odds, Octavian won and for once the Spartans got it right. This was the beginning of the Pax Romana, and a grateful Octavian restored their rights - Sparta was never conquered by the Romans, but there was no question of "Spartan independence" - they were governed as was the rest of the country, but this wasn't achieved by the sword.

 

Militarily, they were never the force of old again, and the oft-mentioned truism of "Sparta being a theme-park" was to some extents true, but its a statement made with historical hindsight. They were just doing their same old thing, but the world had moved on, even if Sparta hadn't.

 

Militarily - well, they would have just had Spartans auxiliary units, I'm sure.

 

We do know that when Justinian went off to invade Persia, he raised a Spartan legion in a nod to history, but the accounts of these soldiers are pretty scornful to be honest.

 

Get that book - its very scholarly, but its a must for anyone who wants to know what happened to them after the "glory days." Sadly though, there was never a return to the prowess of old - they had their successes as I say, but these were almost always followed by disasters that left them in a status quo. But they were never conquered by the sword - something for Spartanophiles to hold on to.

 

As I say, I'm doing this from memory, so if anyone has books to hand, please feel free to red-line and correct!

 

Cheers

 

Russ

[Turb0!]

Thanks Lanista. I'll be sure to check out that book. Do you recall if the author ever addresses how the Romans regarded Spartans, like did they admire them? Hate them? Or were they indifferent? It's an interesting question that not many people seem to address.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Turb0!

[Lanista]

Thanks Lanista. I'll be sure to check out that book. Do you recall if the author ever addresses how the Romans regarded Spartans, like did they admire them? Hate them? Or were they indifferent? It's an interesting question that not many people seem to address.

 

I think that they admired their history, but looked down on "modern" Greeks in general. Not sure what it says in the book, it was a while ago when I read it.

[Ursus]

The Romans had felt the Hellenistic Greeks had become debased, but admired certain aspects of classical Greeks, especially Spartan military valor.

 

I believe the red cloak of the Roman soldier may have been modeled on the Spartan red cloak, but I don't have the time to confirm it with a source. I am sure the resident military buffs can be of more help.

[Turb0!]

I believe the red cloak of the Roman soldier may have been modeled on the Spartan red cloak, but I don't have the time to confirm it with a source. I am sure the resident military buffs can be of more help.

 

That would be fascinating, if true. I know that the Spartans founded a colony (their only colony, I believe) on the Italian Peninsula when Rome was still in its infancy. Could there have been any influence on Roman culture there? It seems unlikely since I also recall that that colony did not carry on the most well-known aspects of Spartan culture and were more into the arts. I want to say that the colony was Tarentum, but I am probably wrong.

[barca]

Thanks Lanista. I'll be sure to check out that book.

 

I also suggest that you look at Matyszac's book on the Roman Conquest of Macedon and Greece

http://www.unrv.com/index.php?p=728

 

Sparta made a resurgence under Cleomenes (235-222 BC) He reformed their military system and introduced the sarissa into their formation, but he was ultimatelly defeated.

 

Greek warfare had changed considerably from the classical period. The Galatians intoduced some changes in the arms and armor. The Aetolian league used mostly light troops, which may have been influenced somewhat by the Galatians.

 

The Achaean league under Philopoemen upgraded to the Sarissa or at least some form of a longer pike. I don't know if any Greeks still went into battle along the lines of the original hoplite phalanx, with the large hoplon shield and relatively short spear.

Edited May 19, 2010 by barca

[barca]

I know that the Spartans founded a colony (their only colony, I believe) on the Italian Peninsula when Rome was still in its infancy.... It seems unlikely since I also recall that that colony did not carry on the most well-known aspects of Spartan culture and were more into the arts. I want to say that the colony was Tarentum, but I am probably wrong.

 

I think you're right about that, and they certainly didn't carry on Sparta's martial tradition. When they came into conlict with Rome, they called in Pyrrhus to do their fighting for them, and they were less than enthusiastic about contributing to the war effort themselves. In fact, Pyrrhus had to rely on other Italian allies to supplement his troops.

[Lanista]

Thanks Lanista. I'll be sure to check out that book.

 

I also suggest that you look at Matyszac's book on the Roman Conquest of Macedon and Greece

http://www.unrv.com/index.php?p=728

 

Sparta made a resurgence under Cleomenes (235-222 BC) He reformed their military system and introduced the sarissa into their formation, but he was ultimatelly defeated.

 

Greek warfare had changed considerably from the classical period. The Galatians intoduced some changes in the arms and armor. The Aetolian league used mostly light troops, which may have been influenced somewhat by the Galatians.

 

The Achaean league under Philopoemen upgraded to the Sarissa or at least some form of a longer pike. I don't know if any Greeks still went into battle along the lines of the original hoplite phalanx, with the large hoplon shield and relatively short spear.

 

The Spartans did indeed adopt the Sarissa, but then were trounced in a battle trying to negotiate a ditch (its all in Cartledge and the Maty's books). But the original question was what happened after the Hellenistic period and thus far, Cartledge is the only source I've found that deals with that period in any real depth. I think the answer is "not much" to be honest.

 

I think its easy to forget that all this happened over a period of hundreds of years so what seems to us like a massive and sudden fade from history probably wasn't the the case at the time. Think...200 years ago, France was a major Imperial power and now its not, but we don't looks look at France and think "what happened to those guys, they were kicking everyone's asses a few years ago?" There wasn't a sudden, soviet-like collapse of Hellenic power - Hellenic power wasn't just Macedonian power, don't forget. Far from it, Macedon, until Phillip V, was the little leaguer when compared to the likes of the Selucids and Ptolemies.

[Turb0!]

Thanks barca. I'll check that out. I just finished reading Legionary and thoroughly enjoyed it so I'm sure I'll like Matyszak's work on this subject as well.

 

Lanista, that is a very good point and one that I think alot of people who have an interest in ancient history take for granted. When dealing with such a huge swath of human history, it is easy to look at events which are hundreds of years apart and place them next to each other as if they occurred in direct succession. But for the people who lived through it things were entirely different. I'm sure that when news reached Rome that Octavian had won the Battle of Actium people didn't throw up their hands and say, "Well there goes the Republic, looks like we're now an Empire."