I want to emphasize one of Geleg's points, if not several of them. Having gone through the post graduate history program at UoA I was brought up to speed on a great deal of historical methods. History is like a science and 'facts' have to be supported by evidence, otherwise it is just supposition. There are a variety of methods to validate facts and a wide variety of sources both primary and secondary, however, it goes beyond that. You have to look at the historian as well and find out where he is coming from.
All this babble about Sparta reminded me how much I've forgotten since I read up on that very small city state whose CITIZEN body never amounted to much more than 9000 men. So I dug around in my book shelves to see what I had on hand. I found three books on Sparta, 4 on ancient greece, 1 on Thermoplae. I thumbed through them to glean what I could at a glance and remind myself of what I knew or didn't know I had forgotten. I got in one entitled "A History of Sparta 950-192 B.C." by W. G. Forrest. I read this in college back in the day and my scribbled notes were all over it. Ignoring the ignorance of a 20 year old do nothing I got into the text and read it throughout (I had to set aside Vol. IV of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire for those of you who are wondering). I finished the book last night. Throughout, even in the beginning of the book, Forrest took a harsh view of Sparta. VERY HARSH. Hammering their institutions, their society and military. It was GOOD history, he spends a huge amount of time exploring the sources for said history, which is good. His narrative very good as well if occassionally a little convoluted. However, his tone continued to be hyper critical of everything Spartan, especially their military victories. Also (and he spent time explaining that he would do this) he would fill in the blanks with theory...which is okay, since he said it was his theory.
But I wonder about half way through the book about the historian. Especially his comments after the Persians were defeated at Plaetae wherein he described teh Spartans as bumbling into victory. I read on. At the books end, as he was discussing Sparta's sad state of affairs, decling populatin etc he discussed several revolutions that took place, spending a bit of energy on the final reformer, a regent by the name of Nabis. This regent, according to Forrest, is described by ALL the sources as a foul creature who murdered his ward and brought in armies of mercenaries into Sparta.
But, Forrest, goes to mat for the guy. Despite his source material, portraying him as someone who re-distributed the land to the "needy" (his word and to his mercenaries. He then says: "This could have been part of a general redistribution of land but nothing is said of it" ie, in the sources. I thought to myself...hhmmm?
"He set free many slaves (helots are not specifically mentioned but may be intended)" .... again with the commentary contrary to the sources. I thought to myself, this guy sounds like a socialist!
"And these moves, perhaps with others we hear nothing of (abolotion of debts for example), were enough to give him eager support of an army some 10000 strong".
Okay. That was enough. Now's he's just making crap up. When a historian does this, and they do almost always, there is a reason.
I finished the book and then got on the net to find out who Forrest was. Turns out he is a HIGHLY accredited historian from Oxford. This was not surprising at all. The history is good, reliance on source material good as well...except where he has a point to make. But, it turns out, that Forrest was a tremendous advocate of Greek liberty in the 1960s and 1970s and a very outspoken political liberal in England (is that a socialist? I'm not sure of my English political labels). His passion was fighting the Greek Military Junta that controlled the country in the 60s and 70s. Suddenly the whole anti-spartan, anti-military approach was understood.
This sentence captured it all. It was a direct comment to the government of greece who I imagine was using sparta as a propogand tool: "And these moves, perhaps with others we hear nothing of (abolotion of debts for example), were enough to give him eager support of an army some 10000 strong".
GREECE!!! REFORM!! Your army will be stronger, like the Spartans were.
This is all cool. Historians are people too. Had I known this BEFORE I read the book, I would have enjoyed it more and gotten more out of it as I would be able to discern when the gentlemen scholar was becoming passionate...land reform etc.
So my lesson, learned years ago, was reinforced: just because he's a fellow at harvard doesn't mean he can't be wrong. Just because its written down and sources quoted, doesn't mean its right. Nor does it mean its wrong. We have to be discerning in our material. Read many perspectives and come to our own conclusions. I agree with Forrest's comments that Sparta was the first state to accept that "all CITIZENS were equals" and forged a path for Greece and the world. I agree that Spartans were easy to corrupt when the went abroad and the "SPARTAN" ideal lasted only when Spartans dealt wit Spartans and other various points. I disagree that they bumbled there way through countless military victories. That is hard to do.
I'm going wrap up Gibbons now, I begin reading teh sources on ancient greece (I have recently come to love reading about ancient Rome and Greece), beginning with Herodotus.
Now back to work!
Steve
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying
He who sits on the elephants back
Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com
