Jump to content

Talk:Spartan army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is working on this?

[edit]

Would anyone working on this article sign here please? I'm trying to work out how popular it is.

--Samrsharma 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist and I'm the one who gave it the "start" class assessment. But, to your question: no, I'm not actively editing the article. Why don't you check the edit history? --Kimontalk 17:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks-I didn't know about that! Samrsharma 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had done a minor correction concerning the number of oar levels on biremes (listed as 20,changed to 2) and triremes (listed as 30,changed to 3),but the Navy section is entirely different now. SpartanGlory1983 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983[reply]

Copyeditors

[edit]

Can an experienced copyeditor look at this please? Despite loads of attempts I can't seem to banish that tag

Samrsharma 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Issues

[edit]

Some parts of this article sound like they were written by a three year old and other parts sound like they were written by a high school kid who has only learned of Sparta from movies about Greek tales. The section on values and Tactics is especially bad. - 24.10.25.141 07:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with an article made into a film! I noticed that sort of thing before, do you have any idea about how to fix it? I've had a stab at it, but it is probably incomplete. This ties in with the copyedit tag. Kai Su?My Talk Page 14:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second footnote is completely wrong. Armies suffered very few casualties in battle. Anthropodismos (a total slaughter) very rarely happened. Usually a sidewould lose a few rooops and then retreat. The enemy would chase and get a few more, but there was never horrible slaughters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.215.11 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Hercules at the beginning of this article is inappropriate and misleading. It should be moved further down and replaced by a depiction of either a Spartan army or soldier. 68.210.45.181 (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one of the toughest??

[edit]

I do not agree with that Spartans were THE toughest soldiers known to man, and the best there is doubt about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.182.173 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it cited? If not well done, one of the is teneble but THE toughest is up for debate... Kai Su?My Talk Page 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah what the hell, let 'em be the toughest. Someone has to have been.68.210.45.181 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

it has noting in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.35.146 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now - It was vandalism 87.114.14.127 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical structure

[edit]

in the first paragraph the Second Messenian War is mentioned, in the second paragraph the phrase "By the end of the war, the structure had changed" refers NOT to the Second Messenian War, but to the Peloponnesian War, could somone please correct that, not everyone who comes here knows the all the wars, (start and end dates), off by heart. 203.206.248.84 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did some copyediting. Hopefully clearer now. Cheers, Cplakidas (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300 (film) showings

[edit]

According to this edit, the film "300" was on HBO, an American television station. I reverted a whole bunch of unuseful IP edits, including the usual batch of movie quotes. Probably there'll be more of that over the next day or two. I'll leave a note on the film article's talk page too. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 08:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans in Halo

[edit]

I've had to revert back out a reference to spartans in Halo. With respect, we need citations that state that the reference in the game s towards of that of the soldiers of Sparta. Without that reference, it is original research, specifically, synthesis to put the two together in speculation - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC) please check the game, spartans are in halo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolove (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Halo: The Fall of Reach it says that the halo series main character was taken from his home at the age 8-10 and put in with other children around his age group. The training consisted of obstical corses that had to be completed as a team or they wouldn't get dinner and other such training. During this training they were also taught about the Spartans from Greece showing them fight as a team and win countless battles. Another connection between the spartans and the SPARTAN-II super soldiers is how they are pictured; both are armor clad soldiers taking on and killing multiple foes, both are looked up to by soldiers of the other city states/army branches, both have been training to kill since a young age, and both had been trained to work together to achive victory. I think the refrences are pretty clear to me--69.72.15.224 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image File:Michigan State Logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge in this area is limited, but I'm relatively sure the Persian Army at Thermopylae could not possibly have had two million men. 68.92.62.109 (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thermopylae

[edit]

How did this show that the spartans were strong? They were just outnumbered but they did not win the battle. Also, this article's goal is not to tell Spartan Army was great but just give facts about it. Maybe this section could be removed?

Fireworking (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the sentences at the end of the lede, I agree. They are pretty much irrelevant there. Constantine ✍ 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Spartan army

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Spartan army's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Homosexuality

[edit]

Why do wikipedians refuse to mention the essential homosexual relationships in warrior societies like the Samurai or the Spartans? It was an important aspect of Spartan society and military culture. Why is there no mention of this in the article? 66.188.228.180 (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the need to insert the homosexual agenda into any issue you can, regardless of whether you can provide a reference or not? Your yammering is nothing but a political speech on a pages meant to represent fact. If you have something factual to say, say it, provide a reference, then sign your comment. I've already corrected your false insertion of your agenda into another article. Grow up. Kenfo 0 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference named "OCD":

  • From Agesilaus II: Cartledge, Paul Anthony (1996), "Agesilaus II", in Hornblower, Simon (ed.), Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • From Agoge: Hodkinson, Stephen (1996). "Agoge". In Hornblower, Simon (ed.). Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • From Agis IV: Cartledge, Paul Anthony (1996), "Agis IV", in Hornblower, Simon (ed.), Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • From Agis III: Bosworth, Albert Brian (1996), "Agis III", in Hornblower, Simon (ed.), Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality was a big part of greek culture, and it is known that certain ancient greek states used gay relations as a way to bring the men closer together (and by know, there is historical evidence, take it as it is). If you can find sources that the spartans did this as well, then it should be added to this article.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

javelin?

[edit]

someone has edited the article to state spartans carried a javelin for long range fighting. i find this proposition highly dubious. unless someone can cite a classical source to support this (deadliest warrior does not count), i believe it should be removed from the article. if the spartans had indeed carried any kind of ranged implemented, they wouldn't have been so vulnerable to kiting tactics (eg, sphacteria and lechaeum). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.83.40 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they did use a long range weapon it would probably be the bow and arrow. But if you can find sources saying spartans used a javelin then add it in. But until then it cannot be added.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's exactly my point. the article currently states the spartans carried a javelin for ranged fighting. i'm not aware of any classical source that says the spartiates had ranged implements at all. that would have been left to helots or perioeci (such as the sciritae). therefore, i believe the current bit about javelins is incorrect and should be removed.

Preliminary to GA review

[edit]
File:Léonidas- Sparte.JPG
Full-length version

I've looked for images to illustrate articles pertaining to the Spartans before, found little at Commons, and sympathize with the challenges the editors of this article face in obtaining images appropriate for a GA-level article. However, I have some concerns about captions that don't distinguish between ancient depictions of Spartans and later "reimaginings". I also find it historically confusing to display the flags in the top image. In photoshopping, it might've been better to drop them altogether. If they're present, the caption needs to do a better job of explaining what this is. If you're going to drop the background and just focus on the statue itself, the full-length version seems better to me as a "cutout".

Since I'm not here just to grumble, if you don't mind I'll tinker with the captions to make them more accurately informative. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet alternative
I also just deleted the modern-era painting of Hercules. I don't see Heracles mentioned in the article, but if I overlooked it and an image is wanted, this is most definitely a case where a representation from Greek antiquity should be used—and fortunately these are abundant. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here also is an alternative image of a Spartan helmet, in case editors are unaware of it. I think it's stronger graphically, and dramatic because it looks as if it sustained a blow, but will leave that up to the editors. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structural questions

[edit]

Also preliminary to your GA review, the editors might want to ask themselves why you have separate sections on "Tactics" and "Tactical structure". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Spartan army/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll undertake this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dab link tool in the toolbox to the right shows 2 dabs and a redirect in need of attention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
Mycenaean age
Archaic Age and expansion
Establishment of Spartan hegemony over the Peloponnese
Persian and Peloponnesian Wars
End of hegemony
Social structure
Tactical structure
Tactics
On the march
Clothing, arms and armor
Philosophy, education and the Spartan code
Spartan Navy
Wars and battles
In popular culture
Images
  • The licensing is very spotty. Most of the sculptural content will need to be tagged {{PD-old-100}} or something similar to clarify the author's copyright is not being violated. Most are just tagged to indicate that the photographer's copyright is being waved. There should be a clear presentation that shows something like the following:

Photographer

Artist

Note that {{PD-old-100}} on WP and {{PD-old-100}} on commons differ in the age indicated (100 vs. 70 years)

The following are works for which licensing needs to be remedied in the manner noted above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following works need to move clearly state that an artist has released their copyrights. It is not clear if the person releasing the copyright is the artist or a photographer of the work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following work seems to need a photographer's copyright. The sculpture is government work, but is this a government photograph of the work?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following work seems to need a photographer's copyright. The artwork is PD, but who is the photographer?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mora reference disappeared.

[edit]

Mora, a tactical unit of around 600 men.

At some point a very brief reference to the Mora was removed.

Would be ideal to have some reference somewhere in the article however brief.

Full page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mora_(military_unit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.99.69 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Spartan army/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Comments on Start assessment == Fixing these will go a long way to improving the article. You can request for help here. --Kimontalk 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

End of Hegemony - In answer to Why did mercantile activity reduce wealth.

[edit]

I am by no means an expert on this subject but I believe that the problem being alluded to is that Spartiates could not be merchants, by law. The Spartans believed that mercantile activity was beneath them and classified such people as a lower order without full citizenship. The arrival of more merchants doesn't reduce wealth, quite the opposite, but the people who have that money are barred from law from serving in the army. Especially as merchants bring crops from other areas to compete with the local land owners produce prices decrease and suddenly the wealth Spartan elite can no longer count on their land to make them wealthy. They are likely never in poverty if they own decent land, but having to pay for the right to get hacked to death by Macedonians starts to sound like a pretty bad deal when you are feeling the pinch. The real problem here is that Spartiates couldn't realistically pursue other avenues of wealth generation, meaning that even slight changes in the balance of the economy would almost necessarily cause problems with recruitment. Being essentially barred from entrepreneurism meant that a Spartiate family who fell on hard times would likely be forced to leave the class and never return. Given the choice between paying their fees and hoping times would improve and leaving the army Spartiates began to chose the latter and become more mercantile. Which, ironically, would probably be a good thing for Sparta in a wider sense, since commerce is seldom a bad thing for a society, but was bad for their highly elite army that required all three of birth, wealth and physical prowess to serve. Even if a merchant was a behemoth of a man, born to Spartiate parents and with a huge chest of gold, he couldn't join the army. As it turns out, Sparta's methods were not really sustainable in the long term. Even in pre-Marian Rome where there were more people and no requirement for birth, they had problems recruiting the number of troops they needed. In Sparta where they opted out of using much of their manpower it was almost guaranteed to collapse at some point. While I would guess that the natural attrition of the class through war and low birthrate played a larger role, the economic factors made it progressively more taxing to serve even if you were willing to and that certainly hurried the collapse. 86.179.123.133 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

The "Spartan philosophy" section has evidence of bias. For example:

1) "Contrary to popular belief, Spartans valued knowledge and education more than the Athenians did."

This first line, though sourced, is quite a bold claim, especially given that it's prone to subjective interpretation and easily disputable.

2) "Although Athens has been praised as the "inventor" of democracy and philosophy, Sparta often has been viewed in popular culture as a society characterized by brutal, mindless discipline and merciless emphasis on physical fitness. [...] Sparta also wasn't a totalitarian state as many believed."

These lines are written in such a way that one might think that the editor was keen on repudiating what he believes to be common, unjust, stereotypes of Spartans. While this may not be true, this is certainly the impression. It is also possibly original research and needs to be sourced. Are Spartans really commonly portrayed as totalitarian and barbaric in popular culture? All in all, these lines only contribute to my perception that whoever wrote them is sympathetic to the Spartans to the point that his goal is to rectify negative perceptions of them.

3) "Sparta adopted its procedure for the sake of simplicity, and to prevent any bias voting, bribing, or cheating that was predominant in the early democratic elections."

This last line, by virtue of heavily suggesting that the Spartan method of range voting was prone to less bias and more efficient than other methods, reinforces the hints of bias throughout the paragraph. This is a substantial claim, especially given the fact that the results of their method of voting depends entirely on subjective interpretation rather than actual, objective counting, a fact the writer completely ignores. By ignoring the critical flaws to their voting method in favor of implying it prevented bias and corruption present in other systems—which is extremely dubious, it sounds to me that the editor might be trying to assert that Spartans are superior to other Greek states in regards to democracy.

It's not impossible that whoever wrote these lines is simply citing from sources, but the way it is written certainly sounds as though he is biased for Sparta edited with the goal of "redeeming" them of any negative assessment we may have of them in modern times. Sol Pacificus (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding the Lambda symbol on shields

[edit]

The newer source in the article seems to refute the older one regarding the existence of shields with the Lambda symbol on them (Relevant excerpts from both https://imgur.com/a/kjDy64C). Both seem to be more PopHist rather than academic, so I believe there is reason to collect an overview of recent scholarship and establish a consensus on whether the use of the symbol should be included in the article.

The reason why this is an RfC relates to the widespread use of the symbol on a shield across Wikipedia. The "Spartan Constitution" Template as well as the Sparta main article use a drawing of the supposed shield as illustrations, which seems to be inspired by the old movie The 300 Spartans. All of which should probably be replaced if there is no real evidence for the historicity of the design (maybe by a spartan helmet?). In recent years the particular shield design popularized by the 2007 version of 300 also became the logo of the Identitarian movement, which received media attention at the time,[1] where it is treated more like a popular misconception, while on Wikipedia it is essentially stated as fact. jonas (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RFC; it isn't clear what it is asking, and it doesn't start with an neutral statement. It should be closed and reopened with a new question (perhaps "Should the Lambda symbol be removed from shields representing Sparta, as well as associated text?". BilledMammal (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - you may want to re word this so a "support" or "Oppose" vote is easier to make, as a response. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anton Powell's A Companion to Sparta (2017) refers to Spartan hoplites using the lambda symbol on their shields. Michael Vickers' Alcibiades and Melos: Thucydides 5.84-116 (1999 is the source of the potential wordplay that Campbell mentions. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Sparta Fetish Is a Cultural Cancer".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spartan_army&oldid=1210481727"