The Spartan Myth

[Mister D]

Sorry, you'll have to be a lot more specific than just "What?", a question even I could ask.



In other words, you got nothin'. It's okay, no need to get all snarky about it.

I can't be more specific because I don't understand what you're trying to say. Apparently, you don't either.

Does anyone have a serious critique?

[Rooster]

And the queen said BALLS...if I had two I'd be king. And the king laughed, not because he wanted two but because he had two.
Apparently, you seem to cherry pick negatives out of a pile of pluses. Do you think the Greeks invented that? Do you think your ancestors, and everyone else's, down to cave men, were not plugging each other?
Besides, they contributed much to western civilization so why denigrate them so harshly?
You should be thanking them instead of berating them.
Another thing that Greeks did was they only taught their ladies to be good housewives, as in cooking and the things they would need for that endeavor. They were never given a full education like the men. Education was given to the ladies who consorted with men so as to be conversational, for a fee of course.

[Mister D]

And the queen said BALLS...if I had two I'd be king. And the king laughed, not because he wanted two but because he had two.
Apparently, you seem to cherry pick negatives out of a pile, of pluses. Do you think the Greeks invented

What?

[Peter1469]

I think we can say Spartans were not the extreme martial power they are made out to be. Athenian phalanxes won battles against them at times. And Athenian navies ruled the Med.

[Mister D]

I think we can say Spartans were not the extreme martial power they are made out to be. Athenian phalanxes won battles against them at times. And Athenian navies ruled the Med.

This isn't to rag on the Spartans. They just weren't super soldiers as per the OP. I think it's a good argument. Our only "traditional" source is Herodotus. I mean...I don't know, man.

[Peter1469]

This isn't to rag on the Spartans. They just weren't super soldiers as per the OP. I think it's a good argument. Our only "traditional" source is Herodotus. I mean...I don't know, man.

Herodotus may be the "father of history" but he wrote in a narrative style. I read him the same way I read Caesar in his Commentaries.

[Mister D]

Herodotus may be the "father of history" but he wrote in a narrative style. I read him the same way I read Caesar in his Commentaries.

Quite frankly, that's the way all history should be read. History is always more than facts. It's also the selection and interpretation of facts. It's necessarily a narrative because it's ultimately about meaning in the present not about what happened in the past. There is no science of history. That's liberal, Victorian nonsense. That said, history should also be plausible and appropriate.

[Peter1469]

Quite frankly, that's the way all history should be read. History is always more than facts. It's also the selection and interpretation of facts. It's necessarily a narrative because it's ultimately about meaning in the present not about what happened in the past. There is no science of history. That's liberal, Victorian nonsense. That said, history should also be plausible and appropriate.

Yes, I read a couple of books by Eric Cline. He could really bring history to life without threatening to bore you to death.

1177 BC The Year Civilization Collapsed

Jerusalem Besieged (The is the best book to read if you want to understand the current issues in the Levant and Middle East.)

[Mister D]

Yes, I read a couple of books by Eric Cline. He could really bring history to life without threatening to bore you to death.

1177 BC The Year Civilization Collapsed

Jerusalem Besieged (The is the best book to read if you want to understand the current issues in the Levant and Middle East.)

I read the first one. I know that guy's face because he's TV all the time. lol

[Peter1469]

I read the first one. I know that guy's face because he's TV all the time. lol

I have listened to some of his lectures. I have the ability to take a criminal case and turn it into a "story" for the jury. But that doesn't, at least for me, translate into teaching history the way Cline does.