See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327437123

The nature of the Spartan society in the Archaic (750-480 BCE) and Classical
(480-323 BCE) Periods

Research · September 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27154.09927

CITATIONS READS

0 605

1 author:

Riana Rabie
University of South Africa
12 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ancient Cultures View project

Psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Riana Rabie on 05 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The nature of the Spartan society in the Archaic (750-480 BCE)

and Classical (480-323 BCE) Periods

Riana McArthur

Student Number: 14447088

MPhil in Ancient Cultures

Module 2 Assignment 1: Greece

Lecturer: Prof. Thom

March 2011
 Table of contents

Page

1. Introduction 2

2. Life in Spartan society 2

2.1. Spartan women 2

2.2. Spartan men 3

2.3. Marriage and sexual relations in Sparta 4

2.4. Other inhabitants of Sparta 4

a. The ‘perioikoi’ 4

b. The ‘helots’ 4

2.5. Spartan art, literature and architecture 5

2.6. Sparta’s strategic approach 6

3. Sparta’s constitution 6

3.1. The Great Rhetra 6

3.2. Dual Kingship (‘basileis’) 6

3.3. The Gerousia 7

3.4. The Assembly (‘ecclesia’) 7

3.5. The Ephors (‘Council of Elders’) 7

4. Decline in Sparta population 8

5. Conclusion 8

References

1
1. Introduction
During the fifth century BCE Sparta was at its pinnacle and became one of the most
influential and prosperous land-powers in Laconia (Pomeroy et al 2008:150). This was
largely due to the reforms of Lycurgus in the sixth century BCE which shaped the
distinct and sometimes controversial Spartan culture (Alcock 2002:173; Osborne
1996:197; Pomeroy et al 2008:155,158). The Spartan preference to preserve their history
in memory rather than in writing resulted in the loss of valuable information on Spartan
culture (Pomeroy et al 2008:152). However, the writings of Xenophon (Spartan
Constitution) and Plutarch (Life of Lycurgus) provide us with insight into the character
and the structure of Spartan society (Pomeroy et al 2008:150-151).

2. Life in Spartan society

Sparta was famous for being a conservative, polytheistic, well-ordered and autocratic
society, managed by moral laws (‘eunomia’) in a peaceful environment or ‘stasis’
(Finley 1984:25; Pomeroy et al 2008:177). Cult played a central role in Spartan life,
evident in the offerings made at the temple of Artemis Orthia (Pomeroy et al 2008:154).
Alcock (2002:145) mentioned that the Spartans shared and maybe even supervised cults
and sanctuaries, such as at Apollo Korynthos, with the ‘perioikoi’.

Plato referred to Sparta in Republic as a ‘utopia’, whilst others refer to Spartan life as the
‘Spartan Mirage’ (Buckley 1996:78). Why did this occur? Pomeroy et al (2008:177)
contributed this to the infiltration of the Spartan state in every aspect of individuals’
lives, emphasising piety and equality instead of extravagance: Spartans men and women
were treated equally and were prescribed how and when to behave, what to wear, who to
marry as well as when to bear children. The emphasis on economic equality and
elimination of greed was reflected in various facets of Spartan culture. For instance, all
soldiers had to wear the same uniform and use the same weapons and private property
and private family life were prohibited. Taken as a whole, individuality ceased to exist in
Sparta.

2.1. Spartan women

What was life like for Spartan women? Unlike other Greek women, Spartan women
enjoyed tremendous freedom and power (Boardman et al 1988:207; Pomeroy et al
2008:161). Girls exercised in the nude, were free from domestic obligation other than

2
 childbirth and were trained to become great soldiers (Pomeroy et al 2008:161-164;
Sowerby 1995:177). They were forbidden to wear cosmetics, they ate well and drank
wine with their meals. Their education, based on age, was prescribed and paid for by the
Spartan state. Spartan women were compelled to wear their hair according to their
marital status, seen in the short hair exhibited by recently wedded women (Pomeroy et al
2008:162).

2.2. Spartan men

Like girls, Spartan boys were raised from a very young age to be conforming,
competitive, skilled as well as courageous, fit and co-operative soldiers. This was known
as the ‘agoge’, a distinct state training for military attentiveness (Sowerby 1995:35). All
boys aspired to become ‘hoplites’, an infrantryman who could afford to own a shield
(‘hoplon’) and be part of the exclusive and professional Spartan army (Pomeroy et al
2008:174).

Unlike other Greek states, Spartan education did not focus on reading and writing but
military education (Pomeroy et al 2008:159). Military service, which continued until 60
years of age, started at birth and was at the core of Sparta’s existence (Finley 1984:26)
Spartan baby boys were subjected to a thorough examination for strong physical
characteristics and only those who passed the test were allowed to live (Pomeroy et al
2008:159). Boys left home at seven years of age and were rigorously trained to instil a
sense of obedience, conformity, a sense of collective pride and to refine their brilliant
military skills and physical abilities (Green 1973:63; Pomeroy et al 2008:160). This was
evident in the Spartan athlete Khionis who was victorious at three Olympic games
(Osborne 1996:16). Boys were also expected to steal as it showed self-sufficiency and
youths who did not achieve the expected high standards, were ostracised and ridiculed in
public (Pomeroy et al 2008:160). Entering puberty, boys performed preliminary military
service and from the age of 20 onwards, after their apprenticeship in the ‘agoge’, they
grew their beards and wore their hair in a distinct Spartan style with no moustache
(Buckley 1996:79). Boys were allowed to marry but until the age of 30 were not allowed
to reside with their wives as they had to dedicate their days to training and spending time
with other men (Boardman et al 1988:203).

It was of utmost importance for boys to be accepted into the ‘syssition’, a 15-member
dining group consisting of fellow soldiers, as it indicated their entrance into adulthood

3
 (Pomeroy et al 2008:160). This traditional bond between males was so strong that its
cohesion was defended at all times (Finley 1984:26). Each man brought food and wine
produced on his ‘kleroi’ to the ‘syssition’ and disobedience of this obligation resulted in
a Spartan losing his citizenship (Buckley 1996:79).

2.3. Marriage and sexual relations in Sparta

Marriage and sexual relations in Sparta was very different to modern practices: Spartans
were forbidden to marry foreigners; marriage was mostly for reproduction purposes
rather than emotional attachment; homosexual relationships were rife and men and
women partners had to secretly engage in intercourse (‘sacred marriage’) in order to
control the man’s sexual desires (Pomeroy et al 2008:164-167). Spartans also took part in
‘aristocratic endogamy’, randomly selecting spouses who were all seen as equal to each
other and ultimately satisfying not just individuals but also Sparta’s approach to
determine who is deemed fit to become parents. Women married at the age of 18 whilst
men, spurred on by an incentive to produce warriors, married at the age of thirty. Also,
sexual relations between teacher and pupils were encouraged.

2.4. Other inhabitants of Sparta

The combination of various states ensured that Sparta society consisted of a blend of
ethnic differences, namely the Spartan aristocrats, and the inferior masses, known as the
servile ‘helots’ and the ‘perioikoi’ (Boardman et al 1988:21; Buckley 1996:78; Pomeroy
et al 2008:169).

a. The Perioikoi

The ‘perioikoi’, free class neighbours from Messenia and Laconia, formed an integral
part of the Spartan economy as they engaged in manufacture, farming and trade (Buckley
1996:66). Although inferior to the Spartan ‘polis’ and having no say in policy-making,
they independently engaged in their own domestic affairs (Alcock 2002:152). Sparta
protected the ‘perioikoi’ and in return expected them to engage in military service when
required to do so (Pomeroy et al 2008:520).

4
b. The Helots

The Spartans, who used iron money instead of silver and gold, did not engage in trade
and commercial activities (Pomeroy et al 2008:169). Rather, they relied on the labour-
force of the ‘helots’, the conquered Messenian and Laconian people who belonged to the
Spartan state, to remain economically independent (Buckley 1996:79). In order to
maintain the Spartan hold on the ‘helots’ and to refrain from engagement in agricultural
activities, the Spartans introduced the ‘institution of helotry’ (Alcock 2002:135-141;
Pomeroy et al 2008:169). In this practise Spartan land was divided into 9,000 portions
(‘klēroi’) and together with a family of ‘helots’ a ‘kleros’ was allocated at birth to each
Spartan boy. When the boy passed away, his ‘kleros’ was returned to the state. The
‘helots’ were obliged to obey their Spartan master, to work on the ‘kleros’ and to provide
the owner of the land with food. The ‘helots’ were stigmatised and identified by the
humiliating outfit they had to wear and were forced into drunkenness for their masters’
amusement (Alcock 2002:135). They were subjected to an annual beating, sometimes
even death, to ensure they know their inferior place in Sparta. Thucydides wrote about
the violent massacre of ‘helots’ in 425 BCE during a vulnerable period for Sparta during
the Peloponnesian War (Alcock 2002:157).

Consequently, the ‘helots’ experienced a strong sense of resentment towards the

Spartans. Aristotle pertinently noted in Politics that “...the helots are like an enemy
constantly sitting in wait for the disasters of the Spartans” (Alcock 2002:137).
Accordingly, the Spartans formed a secret police (‘krypteia’) which consisted of young
Spartan men who had the power to murder ‘helots’ who rebelled against Spartan
authority (Pomeroy et al 2008:517). An earthquake in 464 BCE however exposed
Spartan vulnerabilities and provided an opportunity for the ‘helots’ to regain their
freedom and following a disruptive period at Ithome, in 445 BCE the helots revolted and
Sparta set them free (Pomeroy et al 2008:169).

2.5. Spartan art, literature and architecture

Limited sources exist for Spartan art (Osborne 1996:180-185). Terracotta face-masks,
found at the sanctuary of Orthia, could have been used as ceremonial objects to indicate
the passing from one life stage to another. Sparta also had simple pottery, borrowing
motifs and techniques from other Greek states and combining it into unique Spartan
shapes. Sparta was most more famous for its music and poetry during the seventh

5
 century (Pomeroy et al 2008:156). This included the songs and lyrics of Tyrtaeus, poems
by Alcman, Sparta’s female choirs, the Comedy ‘Lysistrata’ and the seven-string lyre
invented by Terpander (Finley 1984:101-102; Sowerby 1995:36). However, following
the Lycurgan reforms in the sixth century the artistic state ceased to exist and art were
then depicted in an abstract manner with no focus on individualism (Pomeroy et al
2008:156; Sowerby 1995:180). Sowerby (1995:180) notes that the focus on minimalism
was also evident in architecture and anyone would “...find it difficult to believe that this
place had really been as powerful as it was presented to be”. Also, Sparta lacked a city
centre and only had basic buildings, such as the government buildings, the temple and
the gymnasium evident in Sparta (Pomeroy et al 2008:152-153). Tombstones and
epitaphs were reserved for women who died during childbirth and soldiers who passed
away during war.

2.6. Sparta’s strategic approach

Due to Sparta’s fear of ‘helots’ mayhem, they never engaged in territorial expansion far
away from home (Pomeroy et al 2008:174). Chilon, an ‘ephor’, realised that expansion
by diplomacy rather than colonisation was much cheaper and resulted in Sparta rather
focussing on conquering immediate neighbours or signing treaties with aristocratic allies
(Alcock 2002:158; Boardman et al 1988:30). This was evident in the establishment of the
‘Peloponnesian League’ in ca.510-500 BCE, a partnership of states of which Sparta was
the main member (Sowerby 1995:47). Sparta agreed to provide military expertise in the
form of hoplites in return for the other states’ military support when required (Boardman
et al 1988:30-32; Sowerby 1995:47). The relationship between Sparta and the
Peloponnesian League however started deteriorating in ca. 460 BCE and in ended in ca.
360 BCE when Sparta was defeated by Thebes, resulting in the members of the league
quitting their membership.

3. Sparta’s constitution

Fundamental to Sparta’s success was the radical Lycurgan political, social and
economical reforms that took place in the seventh century (Buckley 1996:69-70;
Osborne 1996:178-179; Pomeroy et al 2008:170). This resulted in the creation of a

6
 monarchical, democratic and oligarchical mixed constitution, evident in the four
institutions that characterised the Spartan government, namely dual kingship, the
Gerousia, the Ephors and the Assembly. This multi-layered constitution allowed Sparta
to maintain its power whilst exploiting the indigenous people of Laconia and Messenia
(Green 1973:68).

3.1. The Great Rhetra

The ‘Great Rhetra’, written ca.699-600 BCE, informed the military and political issues in
Sparta (Pomeroy et al 2008:158). It depicted the powers of, and the inter-relationships
between, the Gerousia, the Ephors and the Assembly. The Great Rhetra gave absolute
power to the hoplites, providing the first written hoplite constitution and ultimately
assisted in creating a unique warrior elite (Buckley 1996:77; Osborne 1996:178).

3.2. Dual Kingship (‘basileis’)

Sparta was ruled by two hereditary kings, such as Cleomenes (Buckley 1996:83) and
Pleistoanax (Green 1973:141). One king was from the Agiads family and the otherfrom
the Eurypontids family. The kings, who were in constant competition with each other,
were military commanders and relied on omens to guide their decisions for territorial
expansion (Pomeroy et al 2008:171). In order to avoid anarchy, one king always stayed
at home whilst another went to war. The kings had judicial and religious powers and
provided a good example of moral behaviour to their people. They were also excluded
from the rigorous ‘agoge’ training, enjoyed positions of admiration during games and
received elaborate funerals which all Spartan families had to attend (Osborne 1996:306).

3.3. The Gerousia

The aristocratic Gerousia, more powerful than the Assembly, constituted the oligarchic
component of Spartan government (Pomeroy et al 2008:172). It consisted of two kings
and 28 wealthy aristocrats over the age of 60 who were chosen by the Assembly and held
office for life following the conclusion of their military service (Buckley 1996:72). The
council acted on behalf of people who did not hold the power of discussion (Sowerby
1995:35); it conversed about various bills before it was brought before the Assembly and
dealt with criminal matters and punishment of more serious crimes, such as murder and
treason (Pomeroy et al. 2008:172). The Gerousia had the power to influence policy-

7
 making, seen in the prosecution of the king Pleistoanax in ca.446 who accepted bribes
from, and exercised leniency towards, its enemy Athens (Buckley 1996:72).

3.4. The Assembly (‘ecclesia’)

The democratic Assembly comprised of Spartans over the age of 30 years and remained
intact throughout Sparta’s history (Pomeroy et al 2008:173; Sowerby 1995:35). The
council met at regular intervals to dissolve or terminate decrees as well as to listen to,
and never debate, proposals (Buckley 1996:73; Sowerby 1995:35). This led to the
formation of the English term ‘laconic’, which refers to an individual who does not talk
frequently (Pomeroy et al 2008:173).

3.5. The Ephors (‘Council of Elders’)

The five Ephors, the democratic and oligarchic component of Spartan government, were
the judicial supervisory body and supervised the Assembly and the Gerousia (Pomeroy et
al 2008:172). During the fifth century the Ephors, whose origin is unknown and who
were not mentioned in ‘Great Rhetra’, were constitutionally the most powerful but also
the most corrupt public officials (Buckley 1996:75). Members of the Ephors, 30 years of
age and over, were chosen by applause (Pomeroy et al 2008:172). Duties of the Ephors
included supervising and accompanying the king on his campaigns; managing the
rigorous training (‘agoge’) of the Spartans; dealing with civic matters and foreign
embassies; handling private as well as royal law suits together with controlling the
‘krypteia’ (Pomeroy et al 2008:172; Sowerby 1995:35). The power of the Ephors was
reflected in two spheres: firstly, in the annual practise of using one Ephor’s name to
indicate the year (Pomeroy et al 2008:172) and secondly in the justification of
eliminating any intimidating helots (Alcock 2002:135).

4. Decline in Spartan population

According to Pomeroy et al (2008:178) the Spartans associated any type of ‘change’ with
‘decline’ and as a result, in 404-323 BCE Sparta was seen as an isolationist, autocratic
and old-fashioned power petrified of overseas commitments (Green 1973). Numerous
reasons had been put forward for the Spartan population decline which by 244 BCE was
only 700 Spartans (Pomeroy et al 2008:168): the Spartans did not have an
entrepreneurial mindset as they thought that what their grandparents were satisfied with
should also be good enough for them (Boardman et al 1988:25); the practice of male

8
 infanticide in order to produce physically strong hoplites ensured that women far
outnumbered men (Pomeroy et al 2008:168); homosexual rather than heterosexual
intercourse was rife and some women refused to give birth due to their access to
contraceptives (Pomeroy et al 2008:168). Also, men’s emigration due to military
responsibilities ensured that most women only married years after they became fertile.
Lastly, in the fourth century BCE Epitadeus changed the Lycurgan ideology allowing
private property to be passed on to anyone the owner saw fit (Pomeroy et al 2008:175).
This resulted in a poor majority and wealthy minority of Spartans, obliterating the
Spartan doctrine of ‘men of equal status’ (Pomeroy 2008:175).

5. Conclusion

It is clear that Spartan society was very different from not only other Greek states but
also from modern societies. The consequences of the Lycurgan reforms ensured a strong
foundation for any culture to thrive on, however Sparta’s aversion to inevitable change
resulted in the deterioration of her power. It appears that the same Lycurgus ideology
that made the Spartans famous, was the same dogma that caused its downfall.

9
 References

Alcock, S.E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek past: Landscape, monuments, and memories.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boardman et al., J., Griffin, J. & Oswyn, M. 1988. The Oxford illustrated history of Greece
and the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buckley, T. 1996. Aspects of Greek history 750 – 323 BC: A source-based approach. London
& New York: Routledge.

Finley, M.I. 1984. The legacy of Greece: A new appraisal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Green, P. 1973. A concise history of Ancient Greece to the close of the classical era. London:
Thames and Hudson.

Osborne, R. 1996. Greece in the making 1200 – 479 BC. London & New York: Routledge.

Pomeroy, S.B., Burstein, S.M., Donlan, W. & Tolbert Roberts, J. 2008. Ancient Greece: A
political, social and cultural history. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sowerby, R. 1995. The Greeks: An introduction to their culture. London & New York:
Routledge.

10

View publication stats