Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9440355" data-attributes="member: 18">I'd argue the evidence to support that their youth training produced exceptional troops is pretty weak. Also, the agoge could start at 7, but only if you thought your kid was hard enough, and you only had to actually graduate from it by age 30.The real difference seems to have been the Spartan hoplites was simply that they spent a lot more time practicing and actually fighting than other hoplites, because they were effectively a professional army in an era when that was uncommon, as they had to be on standby 24-7 to put down the constant revolts from the helots, the ethnic underclass they brutally suppressed, and kept as somewhere between slaves and serfs (basically with a degree of freedom more like serfs, but a total lack of a value on their lives which was more like that of slaves - there was also a component of aggressive humiliation tactics not normally seen with serfs or slaves).However, it's also questionable whether the level of elite training they engaged in actually was all that beneficial in hoplite warfare, because it's peculiar form of combat that whilst requiring discipline, does not actually benefit much from martial skill (as far as we can tell). Only when a phalanx falls apart and people have to start engaging with swords and so on will skill at arms play much of a part.I would argue that you can tell that they were only so good because when they fought other states in Greece, they didn't just auto-win, in fact despite all this they fairly often lost. They had two centuries during which they won enough to create these dodgy legends, but that was it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9440355, member: 18"] I'd argue the evidence to support that their youth training produced exceptional troops is pretty weak. Also, the agoge [I]could[/I] start at 7, but only if you thought your kid was hard enough, and you only had to actually [I]graduate[/I] from it by age 30. The real difference seems to have been the Spartan hoplites was simply that they spent a lot more time practicing and actually fighting than other hoplites, because they were effectively a professional army in an era when that was uncommon, as they had to be on standby 24-7 to put down the constant revolts from the helots, the ethnic underclass they brutally suppressed, and kept as somewhere between slaves and serfs (basically with a degree of freedom more like serfs, but a total lack of a value on their lives which was more like that of slaves - there was also a component of aggressive humiliation tactics not normally seen with serfs or slaves). However, it's also questionable whether the level of elite training they engaged in actually was all that beneficial in hoplite warfare, because it's peculiar form of combat that whilst requiring discipline, does not actually benefit much from martial skill (as far as we can tell). Only when a phalanx falls apart and people have to start engaging with swords and so on will skill at arms play much of a part. I would argue that you can tell that they were only so good because when they fought other states in Greece, they didn't just auto-win, in fact despite all this they fairly often lost. They had two centuries during which they won enough to create these dodgy legends, but that was it. [/QUOTE]

Verification