DOCSLIB.ORG

Sparta in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries BC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sparta in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries BC Sparta in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries BC Dorian origins The Spartan Dorians conquered Laconia some time around 1000 BC as part of the general Dorian invasion of the Peloponnese. They settled in the valley of the Eurotas River originally in four villages, though a fifth was added later. These subsequently were united into Sparta. They conquered other neighbouring communities subduing the inhabitants to one of two lower classes – the perioeci (“those who live around”) and the helots (probably a term derived from “captured in war” but possibly meaning “inhabitant of Helos” a village in Laconia). The perioeci had citizen rights within their own communities but their foreign policy was controlled by Sparta and they were required to supply troops in the event of war. At some stage the Spartans passed a law making it illegal for Spartans to participate in trade, and thereafter the perioeci became economically important. The conditions of the original helots is not known, especially as later writers never distinguish between them and the Messenian helots who were Messenians reduced to serfdom following Sparta’s conquest of Messenia. By c. 750 BC Sparta was unusual within Greece in that it retained the monarchy – and in fact had two kings. However, it was broadly similar in that the government was essentially an oligarchy of the leading aristocratic families, and there was political unrest created by over-population and land-hunger. The Spartans resolved this problem by conquest of their neighbour, Messenia, rather than by colonization. The First Messenian War On the basis of the writings of Tyrtaeus, a mid C7th BC Spartan poet, in combination with the list of victors at the Olympic Games the First Messenian War is believed to have taken place between 730 and 710 BC. Dorians had also conquered Messenia after the Dorian migration but the precise nature of Messenian society at this time is unclear – presumably there were Dorian overlords and non-Dorian subjects. Tyrtaeus specifically states that the war lasted nineteen years and in the twentieth the Messenians withdrew. It is not known whether as a result of the war Sparta annexed the whole of Messenia or only a part of it. Whilst some Messenians may have emigrated others withdrew to Arcardia which subsequently supported them in the attempted war of liberation. Other Messenians were forced into serfdom, which from the poetry of Tyrtaeus, bound them to hand over half their produce to their masters. The increase in wealth of the Spartans did not cure their internal political disturbances, and one group became disgruntled, presumably because they were discriminated against economically and politically. They became known as the Partheniai. This group was sent to found the colony of Taras (Tarentum) in southern Italy, c. 706 BC. Whilst this removed one source of political trouble, it is likely that other groups within Sparta continued to have grievances and that there was considerable political unrest there. This is confirmed by the work of Herodotus, who © blacksacademy.net 1 specifically states that until the reform of the constitution the Spartans “were the worst governed of virtually all the Greeks” (Herodotus 1.65). Thucydides also states that the Spartans suffered from civil strife during this period. After the First Messenian War the Spartans attempted to take control of the disputed border land of Thyreatis between their territory and that of Argos. However, they were defeated by the Argives at the battle of Hysiae in 669 BC. It is likely that the defeat resulted in increased tension within Sparta. One of their kings, Polydorus (reigning c.700-665 BC) was assassinated after taking on the leadership of the people’s party. The defeat of the Spartans at Hysiae also acted as a stimulus for the Messenians to rise up in revolt. The Second Messinian War and constitutional reform It is not possible to date the second Messenian war accurately. We know that Tyrtaeus fought in the war, which places the date c. 650 BC. The account by Strabo indicates that the Messenians were supported by Argos, Elis, Pisa and probably Arcadia. Tyrtaeus’s account makes it clear that for the Spartans it was a life-and- death struggle. It is possible that this war endured for up to 50 years and that only by 600 BC did the Spartans succeed in establishing their control over Messenia. Prior to this Sparta underwent a series of internal reforms that changed its constitution. By tradition these were ascribed to a mythical leader called Lycurgus, and Plutarch even wrote a life of Lycurgus, but it is not known for certain that he is a real historical figure. Nonetheless, it is usual to call the reforms the “Lycurgan” reforms. As a result of these reforms a form of written constitution was created, with a document called the “Great Rhetra”, meaning enactment or decree, laying down the provisions of the new constitution. According to this document, which survived in some form down to the time of Aristotle and which was the basis of Plutarch’s work, firstly a cult of Syllanian Zeus and Athena was established; secondly a council, called the Gerousia, with thirty elders was created; thirdly, the ultimate power in the state was given to the assembly of the people; and fourthly, which is probably a later amendment, the Gerousia was granted the authority to annul a decree of the Assembly if the proposal presented to it had been altered in some way during the debate. Scholars do not agree on the interpretation or dating of this document. The dating of the Great Rhetra is not agreed upon. Proposed dates range over the whole of the C7th BC, and the context is placed from after the success of the First Messenian War down to the turmoil following the struggles in the Second Messenian War. On the whole it a date after c. 650 BC is favoured; that is, in the context of the Second Messenian War. Under the Great Rhetra the power of the two hereditary kings was officially diminished. The two kings were drawn from two families, the Agiads and the Eurypontids; both were equal in authority, though the Agiads were senior in status. Under the new constitution they had no special preeminence in the Gerousia; however, they retained the hereditary duty (and right) of leading the army in war, and © blacksacademy.net 2 in practical terms they remained the most powerful people in Sparta, owing to the prestige of their position and their preeminence in times of war. The life of Cleomenes I, as described by Herodotus, illustrates this point; he is clearly the dominant force in Sparta at that time and responsible for shaping its foreign policy. Herodotus also ascribed to the Spartan kings the constitutional right to declare war. However, it is disputed whether this was in fact true; or possibly, there were changes to this power following the conflict between Cleomenes and Damaratus c. 506 when a quarrel between them forced Cleomenes to abandon his attempt to restore Hippias to the Athenian tyranny. After that it was not permitted for two kings to campaign together. The council of the Gerousia was comprised of the two kings and twenty-eight elders, who had to be over sixty years of age. They were elected for life to the Council by acclamation in the Spartan Assembly. The Gerousia had a probouleutic function, namely, they prepared legislation to be brought before the Assembly. This made it the most powerful organ of the Spartan state. In addition, the Gerousia was the highest court of the state and alone had the right to impose the death penalty, banishment or loss of rights. Kings also could be prosecuted in this court and in fact between the 490s and 378 seven or more kings were prosecuted. Such prosecutions undoubtedly were politically motivated. The Great Rhetra does not refer to the Ephors. Possibly, at the time of the decree the Ephors did not exist or were not important. However, by a later stage the five elected Ephors became very powerful as they controlled the executive, and were responsible for implementing the decisions of the Assembly. An Ephor seems to have been a representative of the Spartan people (those who could attend the Assembly) so he is possibly equivalent to a Roman tribune. Ephors also presided as judges in civil cases, and would combine with the Gerousia when a king was under trial. They were responsible for the administration of the state system of education, called the agoge. They also received foreign ambassadors and were responsible for the management of army affairs, including the draft. Two Ephors would accompany the king when he conducted a campaign. Ephors were elected, held tenure for one year, and could not be reelected. As a council they did not hold a single policy and did not as a body oppose the king or Council. As their tenure of office was strictly limited, an Ephor who exceeded his authority could be liable to retaliation. Thus, the political power of an individual Ephor was not lasting; the power was vested in the institution rather than in the individuals who represented it. However, according to tradition one Ephor, Chilon, was accounted one of the seven wise men of ancient Greece. Some say it was Chilon (c.556 BC) who counseled a policy whereby the Spartans would not lay claim to ethnic superiority, and as a result Sparta was able to form alliances with virtually all the cities of the Peloponnese except their traditional enemy, Argos. The Ecclesia (“Assembly”) comprised all male Spartans, called Homoioi, meaning “peers” or “equals”. The Assembly was made sovereign by the Lycurgan reforms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hope Simpson Janko
    AYIOS STEPHANOS IN SOUTHERN LACONIA AND THE LOCATIONS OF ANCIENT HELOS by RICHARD HOPE SIMPSON and RICHARD JANKO estiò Pulov@ pro # Puloio,@ Pulov@ ge men@ estiè kai # allov.ò ‘There is a Pylos before Pylos, and another Pylos besides’ (verse from the epic cycle cited by Strabo viii. 3. 7, cf. Aristophanes Eq. 1059) This article1 originated when R.H.S. drew some of his published and unpub- lished observations on Laconian topography to the attention of R.J., who had just brought out the final report on the excavations at Ayios Stephanos. Consideration of these observations and of other recent scholarship has led us to reconsider the significance of Ayios Stephanos in the Late Bronze Age, the location(s) of ancient Helos, and the network of premodern roads in the region. The photographs were taken by R.H.S. in 1956 during his extensive survey of southern Laconia, on behalf of the British School, when he first discovered the site of Ayios Stephanos2. The maps, compiled by the authors, have been drawn by Jennifer Grek Martin. I. AYIOS STEPHANOS AND ITS HISTORY Ayios Stephanos lies in South Laconia on the western edge of the modern Helos Plain (Fig. 1). The excavations that were undertaken there in 1959–77 by the late Lord William Taylour, under the auspices of the British School, have revealed a coastal settlement with a long history, which can be reconstructed in detail from a stratigraphic sequence that is, for the Bronze Age, almost complete. Although the site now lies some 2 km north of the sea (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Sparta Was a Warrior Society in Ancient Greece That Reached
    Ancient Sparta was a warrior society in ancient Greece that reached the height of its power after defeating rival city-state Athens in the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.). Spartan culture was centered on loyalty to the state and military service. At age 7, Spartan boys entered a rigorous state-sponsored education, military training and socialization program. Known as the Agoge, the system emphasized duty, discipline and endurance. Although Spartan women were not active in the military, they were educated and enjoyed more status and freedom than other Greek women. Because Spartan men were professional soldiers, all manual labor was done by a slave class, the Helots. Despite their military prowess, the Spartans’ dominance was short-lived: In 371 B.C., they were defeated by Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra, and their empire went into a long period of decline. SPARTAN SOCIETY Sparta was an ancient Greek city-state located primarily in the present-day region of southern Greece called Laconia. The population of Sparta consisted of three main groups: the Spartans who were full citizens; the Helots, or serfs/slaves; and the Perioeci, who were neither slaves nor citizens. The Perioeci, whose name means “dwellers-around,” worked as craftsmen and traders, and built weapons for the Spartans. 3 Layers of ‘Social Stratification’ ← Top Tier: Spartan Male Warriors and Spartan Women ← Middle Tier: Non Warriors, not full citizens, considered to be outside of true Spartan society. These were artisans and merchants who made weapons and did business with the Spartans. (Perioeci) ← Helots or slaves. These were people who were conquered by the Spartans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herodotos Project (OSU-Ugent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography
    Faculty of Literature and Philosophy Julie Boeten The Herodotos Project (OSU-UGent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography Barbarians in Strabo’s ‘Geography’ (Abii-Ionians) With a case-study: the Cappadocians Master thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Linguistics and Literature, Greek and Latin. 2015 Promotor: Prof. Dr. Mark Janse UGent Department of Greek Linguistics Co-Promotores: Prof. Brian Joseph Ohio State University Dr. Christopher Brown Ohio State University ACKNOWLEDGMENT In this acknowledgment I would like to thank everybody who has in some way been a part of this master thesis. First and foremost I want to thank my promotor Prof. Janse for giving me the opportunity to write my thesis in the context of the Herodotos Project, and for giving me suggestions and answering my questions. I am also grateful to Prof. Joseph and Dr. Brown, who have given Anke and me the chance to be a part of the Herodotos Project and who have consented into being our co- promotores. On a whole other level I wish to express my thanks to my parents, without whom I would not have been able to study at all. They have also supported me throughout the writing process and have read parts of the draft. Finally, I would also like to thank Kenneth, for being there for me and for correcting some passages of the thesis. Julie Boeten NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING Deze scriptie is geschreven in het kader van het Herodotos Project, een onderneming van de Ohio State University in samenwerking met UGent. De doelstelling van het project is het aanleggen van een databank met alle volkeren die gekend waren in de oudheid.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient History Sourcebook: 11Th Brittanica: Sparta SPARTA an Ancient City in Greece, the Capital of Laconia and the Most Powerful State of the Peloponnese
    Ancient History Sourcebook: 11th Brittanica: Sparta SPARTA AN ancient city in Greece, the capital of Laconia and the most powerful state of the Peloponnese. The city lay at the northern end of the central Laconian plain, on the right bank of the river Eurotas, a little south of the point where it is joined by its largest tributary, the Oenus (mount Kelefina). The site is admirably fitted by nature to guard the only routes by which an army can penetrate Laconia from the land side, the Oenus and Eurotas valleys leading from Arcadia, its northern neighbour, and the Langada Pass over Mt Taygetus connecting Laconia and Messenia. At the same time its distance from the sea-Sparta is 27 m. from its seaport, Gythium, made it invulnerable to a maritime attack. I.-HISTORY Prehistoric Period.-Tradition relates that Sparta was founded by Lacedaemon, son of Zeus and Taygete, who called the city after the name of his wife, the daughter of Eurotas. But Amyclae and Therapne (Therapnae) seem to have been in early times of greater importance than Sparta, the former a Minyan foundation a few miles to the south of Sparta, the latter probably the Achaean capital of Laconia and the seat of Menelaus, Agamemnon's younger brother. Eighty years after the Trojan War, according to the traditional chronology, the Dorian migration took place. A band of Dorians united with a body of Aetolians to cross the Corinthian Gulf and invade the Peloponnese from the northwest. The Aetolians settled in Elis, the Dorians pushed up to the headwaters of the Alpheus, where they divided into two forces, one of which under Cresphontes invaded and later subdued Messenia, while the other, led by Aristodemus or, according to another version, by his twin sons Eurysthenes and Procles, made its way down the Eurotas were new settlements were formed and gained Sparta, which became the Dorian capital of Laconia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ubiquity of the Cretan Archer in Ancient Warfare
    1 ‘You’ll be an archer my son!’ The ubiquity of the Cretan archer in ancient warfare When a contingent of archers is mentioned in the context of Greek and Roman armies, more often than not the culture associated with them is that of Crete. Indeed, when we just have archers mentioned in an army without a specified origin, Cretan archers are commonly assumed to be meant, so ubiquitous with archery and groups of mercenary archers were the Cretans. The Cretans are the most famous, but certainly not the only ‘nation’ associated with a particular fighting style (Rhodian slingers and Thracian peltasts leap to mind but there are others too). The long history of Cretan archers can be seen in the sources – according to some stretching from the First Messenian War right down to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Even in the reliable historical record we find Cretan archer units from the Peloponnesian War well into the Roman period. Associations with the Bow Crete had had a long association with archery. Several Linear B tablets from Knossos refer to arrow-counts (6,010 on one and 2,630 on another) as well as archers being depicted on seals and mosaics. Diodorus Siculus (5.74.5) recounts the story of Apollo that: ‘as the discoverer of the bow he taught the people of the land all about the use of the bow, this being the reason why the art of archery is especially cultivated by the Cretans and the bow is called “Cretan.” ’ The first reliable references to Cretan archers as a unit, however, which fit with our ideas about developments in ancient warfare, seem to come in the context of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE).
    [Show full text]
  • Politics and Policy in Corinth 421-336 B.C. Dissertation
    POLITICS AND POLICY IN CORINTH 421-336 B.C. DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by DONALD KAGAN, B.A., A.M. The Ohio State University 1958 Approved by: Adviser Department of History TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ................................................. 1 CHAPTER I THE LEGACY OF ARCHAIC C O R I N T H ....................7 II CORINTHIAN DIPLOMACY AFTER THE PEACE OF NICIAS . 31 III THE DECLINE OF CORINTHIAN P O W E R .................58 IV REVOLUTION AND UNION WITH ARGOS , ................ 78 V ARISTOCRACY, TYRANNY AND THE END OF CORINTHIAN INDEPENDENCE ............... 100 APPENDIXES .............................................. 135 INDEX OF PERSONAL N A M E S ................................. 143 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 145 AUTOBIOGRAPHY ........................................... 149 11 FOREWORD When one considers the important role played by Corinth in Greek affairs from the earliest times to the end of Greek freedom it is remarkable to note the paucity of monographic literature on this key city. This is particular­ ly true for the classical period wnere the sources are few and scattered. For the archaic period the situation has been somewhat better. One of the first attempts toward the study of Corinthian 1 history was made in 1876 by Ernst Curtius. This brief art­ icle had no pretensions to a thorough investigation of the subject, merely suggesting lines of inquiry and stressing the importance of numisihatic evidence. A contribution of 2 similar score was undertaken by Erich Wilisch in a brief discussion suggesting some of the problems and possible solutions. This was followed by a second brief discussion 3 by the same author.
    [Show full text]
  • In Greece Under Rome (100 Bc - 100 Ad)
    STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD) edited by Tamara M. Dijkstra, Inger N.I. Kuin, Muriel Moser & David Weidgenannt PUBLICATIONS OF THE NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE AT ATHENS VI engaged actively with the increasing funerary culture, festival and associ- presence of Roman rule and its repre- ation, honorific practices, Greek lit- sentatives. The archaeological and ep- erature, and political ideology. The igraphic records attest to the contin- variety of these strategies attests to At the beginning of the first century ued economic vitality of the region: the vitality of the region. In times of BC Athens was an independent city buildings, statues, and lavish tombs transition the past cannot be ignored: bound to Rome through a friendship were still being constructed. There actors use what came before, in di- alliance. By the end of the first centu- is hence need to counterbalance the verse and complex ways, in order to ry AD the city had been incorporated traditional discourses of weakness on build the present. into the Roman province of Achaea. Roman Greece, and to highlight how Along with Athenian independence acts of remembering were employed perished the notion of Greek self- as resources in this complex political rule. The rest of Achaea was ruled by situation. Tamara M. Dijkstra, Inger N.I. Kuin, Muriel the governor of Macedonia already Moser & David Weidgenannt (eds): since 146 BC, but the numerous de- The legacy of Greece defined Greek Strategies of Remembering in Greece fections of Greek cities during the and Roman responses to the chang- under Rome (100 BC - 100 AD).
    [Show full text]
  • Greece--Selected Problems
    REPORT RESUMES ED 013 992 24 AA 000 260 GREECE -- SELECTED PROBLEMS. BY- MARTONFFY, ANDREA PONTECORVO AND OTHERS CHICAGO UNIV., ILL. REPORT NUMBER BR-62445...1 EDRS PRICE MF-$0.50HC-$4.60 113F. DESCRIPTORS- *CURRICULUM GUIDES, *GREEK CIVILIZATION, *CULTURE, CULTURAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS,*PROBLEM SETS, *SOCIAL STUDIES, ANCIENT HISTORY, HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM A CURRICULUM GUIDE IS PRESENTED FOR A 10-WEEK STUDYOF ANCIENT GREEK CIVILIZATION AT THE 10TH -GRADE LEVEL.TEACHING MATERIALS FOR THE UNIT INCLUDE (1) PRIMARY ANDSECONDARY SOURCES DEALING WITH THE PERIOD FROM THE BRONZE AGETHROUGH THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD,(2) GEOGRAPHY PROBLEMS, AND (3) CULTURAL MODEL PROBLEM EXERCISES. THOSE CONCEPTSWITH WHICH THE STUDENT SHOULD GAIN MOST FAMILIARITY INCLUDETHE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSAL CATEGORIES OF CULTURE(ECONOMICS, SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, POLITICAL ORGANIZATION,RELIGION, KNOWLEDGE, AND ARTS), THE INTERRELATEDNESS OF THESE CATEGORIES AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME, AND THEINFLUENCE WHICH CHANGES IN ONE OF THESE MAY FLAY INPRECIPITATING LARGE -SCALE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGE. ANINTRODUCTION TO THE BIOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS (INDIVIDUAL GENETICCOMPOSITIONS) AND GEOGRAPHICAL DETERMINANTS (TOPOGRAPHY, CLIMATE,LOCATION, AND RESOURCES) OF GREEK CIVILIZATION IS PROVIDED.THE STUDENT IS ALSO INTRODUCED TO THE IDEA OF CULTURALDIFFUSION OR CULTURE BORROWING. (TC) .....Siiiir.i.......0.161,...4iliaalla.lilliW116,6".."`""_ GREECE:, SELEcT DPRO-BLES . Andrea POcorvoMartonffy& JOISApt, I. g ... EdgarBerwein, Geral Edi rs 4 CHICAGO SOCIALSTU i OJECT TRIAL EDITION Materials
    [Show full text]
  • PHILOPOEMEN IMMODICUS and SUPERBUS and SPARTA the Decision Taken by the Achaean League in the Autumn of 192 B.G at Aegium To
    PHILOPOEMEN IMMODICUS AND SUPERBUS AND SPARTA The decision taken by the Achaean League in the autumn of 192 B.G at Aegium to wage war against the Aetolians and their allies was crucial to the Greeks and their future. Greece proper had been divided for generations among several political bodies — and, in fact, had never been united into one state. Yet all those known as Έλληνες felt the natural human desire to avoid the unnecessary violence, bloodshed, and self-destruction engendered by ceaseless competition for preeminence and hegemomy in the domestic arena. The so-called “Tragic Historians” adopted these emotions as the leitmotif of their principal efforts to delineate the deeds and omissions of the Greek leadership and populace.1 Rome’s powerful political-strategical penetration east of the Adriatic sea, into Mainland Greece, particularly during the later decades of the third century B.C, undermined the precarious balance of internal Greek politics. The embarrassment which had seized most of Greece is easily understandable. Yet the Achaeans at Aegium do not appear to have been inspired by the memory of their ancestors’ resistance to the Persians. The Achaean leaders, Philopoemen not excluded, rejected Aetolian pleas for help or, at least, non-intervention in the struggle that they had started in the name of Έλληνες for the whole of Greece. Somewhat surprisingly, the Achaean leaders hastened to declare war on the Aetolians, anticipating even the Roman crossing to Greece2. These are the bare facts available to us (Livy 35.50.2-6). However, the conventional interpretation of these occurrences derived from Polybius 3 tends to be pathetic more than historical, and consti­ tute an embellished portrait of Achaean policy and politicians of those days rather than an honest guide to the political realities of the Έλληνες and Greece proper.
    [Show full text]
  • ([email protected]) Boston University CAMWS 2018 Correcting Herodotus 1.56: ​ the Histories’ Non-Answer to the Pelasgian Question ​ ​
    Matthew W. Kelley ([email protected]) Boston University CAMWS 2018 Correcting Herodotus 1.56: ​ The Histories’ Non-answer to the Pelasgian Question ​ ​ I. The Grammar 1) Hdt. 1.56.1-2: ...μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐφρόντιζε ἱστορέων τοὺς ἂν Ἑλλήνων δυνατωτάτους ​ ​ ἐόντας προσκτήσαιτο φίλους, [2] ἱστορέων δὲ εὕρισκε Λακεδαιμονίους καὶ Ἀθηναίους προέχοντας τοὺς μὲν τοῦ Δωρικοῦ γένεος τοὺς δὲ τοῦ Ἰωνικοῦ. ταῦτα γὰρ ἦν τὰ ​ προκεκριμένα, ἐόντα τὸ ἀρχαῖον τὸ μὲν Πελασγικὸν τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν ἔθνος. καὶ τὸ μὲν οὐδαμῇ κω ἐξεχώρησε, τὸ δὲ πολυπλάνητον κάρτα. “Afterward, [Croesus] took care to inquire whom of the Greeks, being the most powerful, he should acquire as his friends. He made the inquiry and found that the Spartans were best of the Doric race and the Athenians the best of the Ionic. For these races were preeminent, the first being of old a Pelasgic tribe and the other a Hellenic one. And the first has not yet left their home for anywhere, while the other is very much a wandering tribe.” 2) Raymond Weil is the only scholar to read the lines as I propose: “Les Athéniens sont un ‘ethnos’ héllenique qui fait partie du ‘génos’ ionien, les Lacédémoniens un ‘ethnos’ pélasgique à rattacher au ‘génos’ dorien.” - Weil (1960) 385. II. Arguments for Common Translation ➢ Dorian invasion = πολυπλάνητον ➢ Athenian authochthony = οὐδαμῇ κω ἐξεχώρησε ➢ Herodotus ties Athenians or Ionians to Pelasgians 3 times. ○ 1.57, 7.94-95 (both qualified), 8.44 (back when all of Greece was Pel.) ➢ Dorians are Hellenes par excellence. ​ III. Why Pelasgian Dorians are possible ➢ Dorians did travel, but no more than Ionians.
    [Show full text]
  • The Differing Journeys Through Childhood in Ancient Athens and Sparta
    Growing up Greek: The differing journeys through childhood in ancient Athens and Sparta Elizabeth Ann Robertson Thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Dr Samantha Masters March 2018 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work therein is my own, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Date: March 2018 Elizabeth Ann Robertson Copyright © 2017 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract Athens and Sparta were the two most prominent city-states during the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, but their socio-political systems differed markedly. As a result of such radical differences it could be hypothesised that the childhoods and, in particular, the education and socialisation of children, would also differ. The aims of this thesis are: 1. to examine the extent and nature of the differences between the childhood experiences of each group of children from the two city-states, Athens and Sparta, in particular the type of education and socialisation system to which each was exposed; and 2. to discern to what extent and in what way the socio-political system of their respective state had an impact on their upbringing and their journey to adult citizen status.
    [Show full text]
  • Athens V. Sparta DBQ
    Athens v. Sparta DBQ Directions The task below is based on documents A through Q. This task is designed to test your ability to work with the information provided by various types of documents. Look at each document and answer the question or questions after each document. Use your answers to the questions to help you write your essay. Background Ancient Greece was a somewhat isolated set of civilizations. Two city-states that developed were Sparta and Athens. Though the two occasionally worked together, they were completely different from one another. Task For Part A, read each document carefully and answer the question or questions after each document. Then read the directions for Part B and write your essay. You may use the chart at the end of the documents to help you organize your thoughts. For Part B, use your answers from Part A, information from the documents, and your knowledge of social studies to write a well-organized essay. What are the differences between Athens and Sparta? DOCUMENT A [from Strabo’s (A Greek Historian) history, Book VIII.5.4] …although all the people in the towns around Sparta were technically subjects of the Spartans, they were given the same legal rights as the Spartans at first. Then Agis the son of Eurysthenes took away their equality and had them pay tribute [special taxes] to Sparta. Most submitted – but the Heleians, who occupied Helos and were called “helots,” rose in revolt. A war was fought and the Spartans beat the helots, who were forced from that point on to be slaves to the Spartans with no chance of being set free.
    [Show full text]