Spartan Training

[Jshock_75]

Spartans were definitley very clever... I would go so far as to say they would get some sort of free "rogue" feat, considering the recruits were effectivley required to steal enough food to survive.

 

[takyris]

Hm. I'm inclined to view some of these claims with skepticism, and to look at some of the others in the context of what other people at the time were doing. I'm trying to remember a Greek War Tactics book I read a long time ago, and it said something about the Athenians being the "good guys" by modern standards when they joined the Spartans in the war against Persia, but then Athens attempted to monopolize trade and throw its weight around, which is why the Spartans went in and whupped 'em a little. Which doesn't make the Spartans these evil warlike jerks -- or at least, no more so than the Athenians, who started the Athens-Sparta war.

(Note: I'm getting all this from the book, which focused mainly on war tactics and not on culture. It only really said, "Sparta wasn't nice, but it was by no means the awful barbarian state that Athens made it out to be -- that was Athenian propaganda, and Athens was the aggressor in the war.")

I'm not saying that I want to time-travel back to Sparta and live among my true people, but it sounds like some people are taking what they do out of context ("They beat their slaves?! Why, that's barbaric!", which is true, just like it was true a few thousand years later in Georgia, but only from our perspective) and believing some of the bad press that the Athenians flung out.

Yeah, they sound like the badass war-guys of their time, which implies a certain level of not-nice-itude. But I don't know that they ate babies or sold their friends' e-mail addresses to spam providers or digitally altered "Star Wars: A New Hope" so that Han doesn't shoot first.

 

[MaxKaladin]

It's pretty hard to forget the story about the boy and the fox when practically _every_ _single_ _webpage_ about the Spartans tells it.

I've gathered there is some pretty suspect and outright contradictory data out there. Fortunatly, I'm not doing historically accurate Spartans. I'm just making a D&D version. Heck, some of the nasty stories are just the thing I need.

I'm aware the Spartans were probably unfairly demonized by their neighbors, but even if only half of what I've heard is true then I'd say they're still pretty nasty folks.

 

[dagger]

Also something that is not commonly known, very few of them took woman as lovers except to breed. Most had male lovers exclusively.

The bond between the warriors was also greater for this reason. The sex between males was incouraged and accpted.

 

[takyris]

It's pretty hard to forget the story about the boy and the fox when practically _every_ _single_ _webpage_ about the Spartans tells it.

I just did a Google search, and found it referred to as a legend. As in, a parable, a fable, which every page I went to said was "probably not true".

What exactly is problematic here? It's an obviously exaggerated legend meant to show how badass the Spartans were, and it uses as an example a military trainee. In the middle ages, there was no concept of children. Look at the art. Children are painted as adults seen from a distance, not as children. In ancient Greece, is it that hard to imagine that children would also be treated as miniature adults, subject to the same laws? If this were a story about the badass U.S. Marines, it would be "A green trainee" instead of a young boy, and the wound (from the broken beer bottle under his shirt or something) would send him to the hospital instead of the grave (because of modern sensibilities regarding death), and when he got out of the hospital, he'd be given one hundred pushups for punishment, and then promoted to the head of his class for honor and ability to withstand pain.

It's military camp-talk. Same today as it was then, within the social context of the time.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Edit: I did consider the idea of a subrace and may do that. As part of that idea, I considered what someone with Spartan priorities might have done in the way of magically enhancing the "race". What might they have added and how might it be balanced? (Probably just an ECL).

I also considered the idea of making sure eveyone had a level of thief and warrior/fighter (the rogue because they expected their kids to steal food to get enough to eat -- it was supposed to develop resourcefulness or something like that).

I'd avoid the subrace thing. That's definitely a slippery slope: just look what's happened with Elves.

I'd treat Spartans as what they are: a culture with a focus on martial/physical prowess.

Don't give bonuses to physical abilities. Instead, simply make sure that the order of preference for abilities is physical first, mental second. That way you get the result what you want (Spartans being strong, tough, fast) while keeping Spartans human. [see EDIT below]

To reflect the training I'd start every Spartan with one level of Fighter, and force the human bonus feat [see EDIT below] to be spent on a custom "Spartan Training" feat. This feat can be whatever you think is appropriate, such as something that gives much the same effect as an ability alteration (such as "+1 to all Str-based skill checks and -1 to all Cha-based skill checks), Or you could go with something simple like making all Spartans take Endurance, Great Fortitude, or Lightning Reflexes. Me, I'd go with Endurance.

I'd also give Spartans access to appropriate base classes like Marshall and Warmage, and prestige classes such as Tactical Fighter, Warchief, and Havoc Mage (all from Miniatures Handbook).

Trust me, you want to avoid subraces. Once you make one you'll want to make others (do Atheneans get +2 Wis?) and pretty soon the concept of "human" becomes meaningless. [not to mention preventing the other core races from being Spartans--see EDIT below]

To codify the above, make it like so:

Spartan: your culture emphasizes physical development.
Determine ability scores as normal. Arrange with the following requirements: no physical ability score may be lower than 10, and at least one physical ability score must be 12 or higher. Your character begins with one level of Fighter. Your human bonus feat must be spent on the "Spartan Training" feat.

-z

EDIT: scratch the human bonus feat requirement. Instead, make "Spartan Training" a fighter feat and require the fighter feat from the mandatory fighter level to be spent on it. Just like that, you've allowed for all races to be Spartans--which makes much more sense in a standard, racially-diverse D&D world. And you've tied the mandatory fighter level to the feat--which makes sense. Due to the ability requirements there should be more dwarf, half-orc, half-elf, and human Spartans than halfling, gnome, and elf spartans. Which, again, makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[MaxKaladin]

I just did a Google search, and found it referred to as a legend. As in, a parable, a fable, which every page I went to said was "probably not true".

What exactly is problematic here?

Well, mostly I think that there has to be more than that one story out there for various websites to use, but the only story that seems to get used on many webpages is that one about the boy and the fox. You would think more people would either use a different story or use more than one. I found the "come back with your shield or on it" story to be rather underused, for instance.

Maybe Google is just turning up the wrong websites for me though.

In the middle ages, there was no concept of children.

I've read that that wasn't true. Rather, they (the medievals) lacked modern sensibilities concerning children and adolescents. We would be seen as being insanely overprotective to them (even to parents a hundred years ago). The art thing, from what I've read, is related to status. Supposedly, size didn't so much to actual physical size as to status. Many of the "small adults" that were thought to be children are evidently actually supposed to be adults of low status. It's been quite a while since I read this, so I may have some of the details wrong. All my books are in storage right now, so I can't provide cites but the name Barbara Hanawalt comes to mind.

 

[hong]

Hm. I'm inclined to view some of these claims with skepticism, and to look at some of the others in the context of what other people at the time were doing. I'm trying to remember a Greek War Tactics book I read a long time ago, and it said something about the Athenians being the "good guys" by modern standards when they joined the Spartans in the war against Persia, but then Athens attempted to monopolize trade and throw its weight around, which is why the Spartans went in and whupped 'em a little. Which doesn't make the Spartans these evil warlike jerks -- or at least, no more so than the Athenians, who started the Athens-Sparta war.

(Note: I'm getting all this from the book, which focused mainly on war tactics and not on culture. It only really said, "Sparta wasn't nice, but it was by no means the awful barbarian state that Athens made it out to be -- that was Athenian propaganda, and Athens was the aggressor in the war.")

I'm not saying that I want to time-travel back to Sparta and live among my true people, but it sounds like some people are taking what they do out of context ("They beat their slaves?! Why, that's barbaric!", which is true, just like it was true a few thousand years later in Georgia, but only from our perspective) and believing some of the bad press that the Athenians flung out.

Yeah, they sound like the badass war-guys of their time, which implies a certain level of not-nice-itude. But I don't know that they ate babies or sold their friends' e-mail addresses to spam providers or digitally altered "Star Wars: A New Hope" so that Han doesn't shoot first.

I have no joke here, I just want to say that I totally endorse this movie, novelisation, TV series, musical, adaptation, and/or reinterpretation:

http://www.journalscape.com/pasquinade/2003-11-24-10:39

 

[Agback]

I'm aware the Spartans were probably unfairly demonized by their neighbors, but even if only half of what I've heard is true then I'd say they're still pretty nasty folks.

Most of the really cool stories were told by their admirers. But of course, that doesn't make the stories true.

Regards,


Agback

 

[shilsen]

I've read that that wasn't true. Rather, they (the medievals) lacked modern sensibilities concerning children and adolescents. We would be seen as being insanely overprotective to them (even to parents a hundred years ago).

True. It's also partly related to the fact that in medieval times (and both earlier and later), there were a whole lot of complicated issues for people to deal with which made the question of parenting seem a lot less important. When you have the Black Death showing up every few years, whether to smack a child or not becomes a fairly unimportant question. Even in 2003, many countries/cultures would regard the American (for example) treatment of children as far too overprotective, and that's partly because these cultures/countries have more pressing issues to spend their time and energy on.

The art thing, from what I've read, is related to status. Supposedly, size didn't so much to actual physical size as to status. Many of the "small adults" that were thought to be children are evidently actually supposed to be adults of low status. It's been quite a while since I read this, so I may have some of the details wrong. All my books are in storage right now, so I can't provide cites but the name Barbara Hanawalt comes to mind.

I haven't encountered this piece of information, but it's quite incorrect. Consider medieval paintings of historical figures that we can identify (and whose status we are aware of). Children, whatever their status, tend to be painted as little adults. It's simply a matter of existing perspective and perception being reflected in the art form.