Sparta: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Superpower by Andrew Bayliss

The most important thing to remember when considering the history of the ancient Greek city of Sparta is the almost complete absence of contemporary source material. Virtually everything we have was written by non-Spartans, and often enemies, and was not contemporary with the events being described.

What is certain is that Sparta was different to the other Greek city-states. For a while, these differences made them the preeminent power in Greece, after which brief moment in the sun, they slipped back into obscurity.

The popular film and graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller has probably done the most to recreate the myth of Spartan austerity and invincibility. We have a glimpse into their way of life, the military discipline and the upbringing of boys in particular. Much of what we see in the film is based on ancient sources, and although some of the speeches were verbatim words, they were in fact spoken by other Spartan generals at different battles.

One of the things that made Sparta unique was the way that the state was structured. While Athens prided itself on democracy, the Spartans had two kings from separate royal families. Not a monarchy but a dyarchy if we want to play with words which have their origins in Greek. In fact, Sparta was so democratic that a king could be fined, exiled or deposed. Kings were primarily military commanders. The other major part of the government was a council of elders called the Gerousia (from which we get the word geriatric). There were twenty-eight Spartan citizens over the age of 60. They served in the position for life. Then five ephors were elected each year to oversee the constitution. There was also a Spartan citizen assembly that could vote on laws put forward by the elders. This was done by shouting, not placing a vote with pebbles like the Athenians. Spartan life had a lot of checks and balances to prevent anyone becoming too powerful. But in the end, these restrictions might have also led to Sparta’s downfall.

It was the Spartan military elite that produced the most admiration. The small band of citizens were full-time fighters and the rest of the time they trained and kept themselves fit. This in part accounts for the Spartan success at the Olympic Games, where they dominated running and wrestling events for more than a century. To be a Spartan hoplite soldier, you had to be a landowner able to furnish the communal barracks in which you lived with a monthly haul of 45kgs of barley, 3kgs of cheese, 1.5kgs of figs, some pork, and 37 litres of wine. This was produced on your estates by your workers or slaves, enabling you to spend all your time fighting, or training in preparation to fight. You also had to be able to afford your own arms and armour.

Below the citizen class were a couple of layers of people – the freed men and the slaves. The slave population, called helots, had probably the most precarious status in all Greece. They were hunted and killed by boys and young men of the citizen class as part of their military training. The idea was to remove the most dangerous of the slaves who might foment rebellion. In this way, the small elite band of citizen warriors was able to maintain control over a freed and slave population that was many times larger. However, as you read the book, it becomes very obvious how preoccupied the ever-dwindling number of citizens were about the threat from the ever-growing non-citizen population.

Andrew Bayliss’ book progresses chronologically, with chapters covering a narrow slot between 481 and 479 BCE when the Persians invaded Greece and King Leonidas fought at Thermopylae, a long period of Spartan isolation from 479 to 431 BCE, a ten year period of tit for tat and then a period of wars between 421 and 404 BCE when Sparta appeared to have the upper hand for a change. From 404 to 386 BCE, it really did appear that the Spartans were making their own empire, but in the final dated chapter, covering 386 to 371 BCE, we have reached what Bayliss describes as decline and fall. Their dominance was short-lived. He contrasts the Spartans with the much later Roman Empire and considers where the Spartans failed to adapt. For the Romans, it was simple; they integrated the countries they conquered into their empire and made them part of an ever-growing whole. The Spartans clung to their ideal of a small citizen band and never expanded the membership. As their numbers dwindled after two centuries of fighting, they were no longer able to maintain the dominance they once had, and even failed to make strong lasting alliances. In the end, their arrogance was their downfall – a need to “treat anyone they thought beneath them as they pleased.”

Having studied some of the period covered by this book at school, and been forced to read Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War, I was familiar with a long period of wars in which Athens seemed to have the upper hand. Thucydides was, after all, an Athenian general and historian. It is good to now see more of the Spartan perspective, but also to see exactly how much backwards and forwards took place in just over a century. Battles won on both sides, fleets captured and then lost, walls built and then demolished. All this was punctuated with various truces which lasted anywhere from four months to five years, or even thirty years, although in that time there were plenty of truce-breaking skirmishes. The wish not to pit and potentially lose your whole army or fleet in a single battle meant there was plenty of negotiation and diplomacy. I was very surprised to read that numerous generals on both sides had a very precarious position. Hero after one victorious battle, villain after a loss. Some were put on trial and exiled, only to come back into favour and be recalled. One or two generals swapped sides not once but multiple times.

Also back and forth were city-state alliances between Sparta, Athens, Thebes, Argos and Corinth, plus a host of smaller locations. All seemed to frequently change sides and allegiance. At one point, the Spartans even allied themselves with the Persians when they saw the opportunity of great gain. All this makes for fascinating history, in which it is good to remember that there are other names for the Spartans, one of which is Lacedaemonians. It refers to the region from which they came and has gifted us the modern word laconic. Meaning, brief of speech, there are plenty of amusing examples in the book of Spartans criticising the use of too many words when one or two would be sufficient.

Reviewer: Marcus Hobson

Allen & Unwin