The Spartan Mirage is that sources, especially those from a later period, use Sparta as a means to serve themselves, rather than discussing who they actually were, and that highlight the city-state and its people as distinctively different from everyone else. No source is free from bias, and there are very, very few material sources that come from Sparta itself. Most material is written by non-Spartans, but they usually possess the same themes, regardless of how the author views Sparta. These themes can be viewed positively or negatively by whoever is discussing them, but may be framed in a way that serves their point. A lot of “facts” about Sparta and her people could simply be literary inventions to serve a story, or actual facts twisted in a way that serves the author's point.
We can view some of these themes from various sources, starting with a contemporary source from around the time of the Spartans, such as Herodotos. In Book Seven of his Histories, regarding the discussion of the battle of Thermopylai, where we have the famous “300”, specifically regarding the other Greek allies withdrawing from the battle, he states this:
It is also claimed that Leonidas himself sent them away, because he was anxious to ensure their survival, while believing that it would be inappropriate for himself and the Spartiates who were there with him to abandon the position they had originally come to hold. According to this interpretation, which seems to me by far the likeliest, when Leonidas realized how demoralized his allies were, and how lacking in appetite for sharing in the danger, he dismissed them; but he knew that his own departure would leave a foul stain upon his honour. By holding his ground, he would leave behind him instead a great name, and preserve the prosperity of Sparta from obliteration. You see, at the very first tremors of war, the Spartiates had immediately consulted the oracle; and the Pythia had told them that either Lacedaemon would be destroyed by the Barbarians, or else their king would die. [...] In my opinion, it was because Leonidas had been mulling this over, and because he wanted to store up the glory for the Spartiates alone, that he dismissed the allies, rather than because there was a difference of opinion which then prompted those who left to make a disorderly retreat.
There are a few things we can take away from this paragraph. Firstly, Herodotos believes Leonidas I, one of the kings of Sparta, would willingly send his allies away from the battle, despite the odds stacked against him. Secondly, there is some belief that the Spartans were after glory - they wished to be the heroes, to be those who are remembered. Today, most remember just the Spartans who fought at Thermopylai, forgetting the numbers of Helots forced to serve with them, as well as other forces from Greece who chose to stay, or in the case of the Thebans, were forced by the Spartans to stay.
Another example comes in Thoukudides in History of the Peloponnesian War, after Korinthian delegates make their way to Sparta to ask for help protecting themselves against Athenian aggression, giving a long speech about their grievances with Sparta, parts of which are:
'Spartans, what makes you somewhat reluctant to listen to us others, if we have ideas to put forward, is the great trust and confidence which you have in your own constitution and in your own way of life. This is a quality which certainly makes you moderate in your judgments; it is also, perhaps, responsible for a kind of ignorance which you show when you are dealing with foreign affairs. Many times before now we have told you what we were likely to suffer from Athens, and on each occasion, instead of taking to heart what we were telling you, you chose instead to suspect our motives and to consider that we were speaking only about our own grievances.' 'You Spartans are the only people in Hellas who wait calmly on events, relying for your defence not on action but on making people think that you will act. You alone do nothing in the early stages to prevent an enemy's expansion; you wait until your enemy has doubled his strength. Certainly you used to have the reputation of being safe and sure enough: now one wonders whether this reputation was deserved.' 'An Athenian is always an innovator, quick to form a resolution and quick at carrying it out. You, on the other hand, are good at keeping things as they are: you never originate an idea, and your action tends to stop short of its aim.'
It is important to note that this is not Thoukudides talking here, but his recording of a speech given by someone else, which he likely acquired through another person, or potentially several other people. We can pull from these extracts foreigner’s thoughts on how Sparta worked as a city–state. They have trust in themselves and themselves only, and give very little thought to the happenings of others. We can also see that Sparta must have a reputation, “making people think you will act”, regarding their strength and ability that allows the thought of them acting to be a good enough defence against foes, or at least as far as the Korinthian delegation is concerned. Lastly, we can see that there is an opinion that Sparta remain in their traditions, steadfast in their existing beliefs. Sparta is targeted by the delegation for not doing enough to help their allies, blaming their way of dealing with problems, for which they are “the only people in Hellas” to do so in such a way, as the reason behind why the Korinthians were receiving aggression.
In the fourth century BCE, Xenophon wrote, among other things, the Constitution of the Lacedaimonians, which the opening lines of go as follows:
It occurred to me one day that Sparta, though among the most thinly populated of states, was evidently the most powerful and most celebrated city in Greece; and I fell to wondering how this could have happened. But when I considered the institutions of the Spartans, I wondered no longer.
We could argue the validity of this statement, but it is obvious that at the beginning of this work, Xenophon has prior knowledge of Sparta. This makes sense, as he fought with a Spartan led mercenary group against the Persians in Asia Minor, and lived in the Peloponnese after being exiled from Athens. Calling them ‘powerful’ might also indicate a level of respect towards them. He proceeds to call Lykourgos, the legendary lawgiver of Sparta, ‘the utmost limit of wisdom’. Sparta is a powerful city in the eyes of Xenophon, held in high regard above other cities in terms of their laws and ways of living. The constitution is where we find a lot of discussion about these ways of living, as the focus is on Sparta as a city-state rather than their movements through Hellas, as in Thoukudides and Herodotos. Xenophon commonly pits these practices against those of other city states throughout Hellas.
There is disagreement about whether Xenophon as pro-Spartan, or anti-Spartan, or ever changing, due to issues with chronology in his works, but it can be observed that in the fourth century BCE still has a reputation of power and is definitely different from other places in Hellas, regardless of Xenophon’s highly debated personal views.
Moving forward into the second century CE, we can read about Lakonia, the region in which Sparta is situated, from Pausanias, who travelled around Greece noting things of interest. He states:
That was when Xerxes brought his people against Greece, and Leonidas with three hundred Lakonians met him at Thermopylai. There have been many wars fought by Greeks and by the barbarians among themselves, and a fair number of them have become famous through the courageous behaviour of one man, like Achilles in the Trojan War and Miltiades in the battle of Marathon; but in my opinion the grandeur of the action of Leonidas has towered over the exploits of all earlier and later ages.
The famed 300 Spartans make an appearance, despite the fact that sources such as Herodotos attest that there were more Greeks at Thermopylai than just Spartans. Six hundred years later, and the Thespians who volunteered to stay and the Thebans forced to stay fade into obscurity. The Spartans are highlighted as those who fought in the face of defeat, those who were courageous. Bravery shown by only the Spartans, and bravery more dominant than that shown by others. We can see from this passage that Pausanias holds Leonidas in higher regard than Achilles, despite Leonidas’ lack of a godly parent. Leonidas is more prominent and important to Pausanias than a demi-god. This could be attributed to the direct and seeable impact on Pausanias’ life that Leonidas’ story has, as opposed to Achilles. Regardless, Pausanias also helpfully shows us that, despite it being six hundred years later, Thermopylai is still a prominent event in Sparta:
Every year they hold speeches about them, and hold games in which only Spartans can enter. There is a stone tablet here with the names of all the men who fought out that battle, and their father's names.
Onwards by quite some time and through to the Renaissance and beyond shows that the tale of Thermopylai and the Spartans who died there remained present in the minds of those who interacted with any material or person from Greece, with praises for the Spartan monarchs and grievances for the monarchs at the time.
In the 18th century CE, Richard Glover published a poem regarding Leonidas, where he describes the king in ways such as:
The virtuous Spartan, who resign'd his life
To save his country at th' Oetaean straits
[...] He alone
Remains unshaken. Rising, he displays
His godlike presence. Dignity and grace
Adorn his frame, where manly beauty joins
With strength Herculean. On his aspect shine
Sublimest virtue and desire of fame,
Where justice gives the laurel; in his eye
The inextinguishable spark, which fires
The souls of patriots: while his brow supports
Undaunted valour, and contempt of death.
I am selected by th' immortal gods
To save a people. Should my timid heart
That sacred change abandon, I should plunge
Thee too in shame, in sorrow.
Glover is showing Leonidas to be a hero, dutiful to his city, dutiful to his country, dutiful to the gods. He approaches the idea that he may die with little issue, and sees it as a duty put on him by the gods that he holds too much honor to refuse. He is ‘the virtuous Spartan’, not simply just a brave Greek, he is Spartan.
Today, there are still plenty of people who idolise the Spartans in a way that separates them from the rest of the Greek world. Michigan State University’s athletic teams adopted the name “Spartans”, and are not the only university to do so. Football clubs across the world, such as Sparta Prague in Czechia, also bear the name of Sparta.
The movie ‘300’, released in 2006, has probably done very little to change the idolisation of Spartans.
Throughout history, regardless of who the source comes from, and what their opinion on Sparta may have been, some themes remain prevalent. They were supposedly honorable people, interested in glory, commonly cast out the weak, and steadfast in their traditional beliefs. These values seem to be favored throughout time, and attributes more than often only associated with the Spartans. Through the likes of Leonidas, we can see how Sparta as a strong city state from ancient times, honorable in the face of defeat and brave in the face of death, continues to plough on at a glorious pace. The further through time we go, however, the more and more respect seems to become hero-worship, and the more and more Sparta becomes alienated from the rest of Greece.
The likes of ancient writers obviously had some respect for the city, but Xenophon believes their power comes from their laws, not their racial superiority. It is deliberate, not god given. Herodotos shows that Leonidas may have dismissed his allies through wanting glory through Sparta, and remained at Thermopylai fearing the Phythia’s prophecy would come true if he did not die there. His interests remained with Sparta, not with ‘saving a people’, unless those people were his own (though he was more than willing to sacrifice the Thebans). The concept that Sparta cared only for their own people is reiterated through the writings of Thoukudides. The Leonidas that Herodotos writes about bears similarities to the likes of Glover’s, but how much is what Glover writes an idealisation of a figure who bears more resemblance to the figures of Greek mythology than history? Pausanias saw Leonidas as more heroic than a demigod, but does Glover see Leonidas as also being a demigod, or something equivalent?
Despite how similar Sparta remains throughout history, their emphasis on tradition standing the test of time, their reception from others has changed repeatedly. The further in time from a source we go, the stranger and more different Sparta becomes, even though their practices and virtues remain unchanged. The vast majority of our sources come from those who are not Spartan. Herodotos, Thoukudides, Aristotle, Pausanias, are all distinctively not Spartan, all possessing their own ideas and opinions about Sparta. Through time, how much of our view of Sparta has been skewed? We know so little about Sparta from Spartans, so it is easy to say they might have thought themselves racially superior.
How much of what we perceive as “Sparta” is simply a literary invention to serve a story? A dramatisation of an event? Was Leonidas truly as virtuous as Glover describes?
No source, ancient or modern, serves as an unbiased account of how Sparta actually was. They are an almost mythical people that have some steadfast rules on how they behaved, but are built upon for the likes of entertainment. We’ll likely never know the true ins and outs of Sparta from the perspective of a Spartan. These ancient peoples are likely to continue to be idolised for their ‘strange’ but seemingly admirable behaviors for a while to come.
This post is written by Alexander Ó Suilleabháin, edited by Bane of Babylon Team and proofread by Nebula Sar.