I do live in Athens and I can assure you it's not heaven ... much better than Stuttgart though

P.S. certainly my vote went to Athens. The reasons are clear: democracy, philosophy, progress, arts, science... all Sparta had was an exemplar military system and an unparalleled ethos... too little to stand up against Athens.

bah, Is strongly doubt that!

I've lived in both and Athens beats Stuttgart with both hands tied behind the back

Post Olympics Athens is now my all times favorite, followed by Roma, Koln and Amsterdam.

Imperatore

Corinthian is correct.

Syracuse would never have defeated the Athenian army without Spartan help.

No, it offered ideals of government to our own modern world, help(for other Greeks) from the imperialistic Athenians(really, against any imperialistic power) and their often blood thirsty assembly, tactical advances, a way of life, etc.

This is very incorrect.  Sparta showed willingness to take on new roles many times.  Take, for example, their ever evolving military (as tactics changed, so did the Spartan military.  And until the 360s, it managed to remain the best), or their willingness to take on the roles of empire (which is the direct opposite of their former isolationist policy.  And on that note, let me point out that Sparta was hardly in isolation full time before the 4th Century.  They had, in fact, been very well aware and concerned with events even past the Aegean, as they showed by their letter in support of Asiatic Greeks furing the time of Cyrus II).

Yes, indeed, the Syracusans had been on the verge of negotiating with Nikias until they got word that Gylippos had managed to slip past the Athenian interception ships and arrived on the island.  And certainly, his genious of resourceful tactics was what brought victory.

I assume Sparta was just as imperialistic as Athens, but with one quite substantial difference: Sparta had a very small free citizen base. By not assimilating the helots and even the periiki, they rendered their society a great military camp, ensured that their armies a)were small and b)could only campaign away from Sparta for a very short period. Prolonged absence of the army (=the free citizen of Sparta) was a surefire way to allow the helots to revolt.

It was the social buildup of the Spartan society that denied them imperialistic "greatness" beyond the borders of Greece, not the lack of ambition or anything else.

But we still defeated you!

Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I But we still defeated you!

Who's "we"?

Originally posted by Yiannis Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I But we still defeated you! Who's "we"?

The Syracusans!

sparta's contribution to mankind= essentially 0

athens contribution to makind= unmeasureable

You have a point there, but one could argue that the buildout of the American political system (and to a greater extent, society - panem et circensis) is inspired mostly by Rome. Sparta sported racial purity, no intermixtures, was inwards-oriented, upheld customs against novelties and did not allow any assimilation - not to mention that it was never set to "dominate the world", quite unlike Athens which was set to become a major imperialist power before the Pelo war.

The similarities of Athens and USA are astonishing in the macro level, but minimal (or non-existent) in a micro level, be it socially or politically. On the contrary the Roman political and social structure has extremely many similarities with USA (representative republic, rule of the elites and not of "the people", social mobility, economic mobility, assimilation of foreign cultures and influences, culture export, non-political plebes, little respect to racial boundaries, imperialistic policy etc. etc. etc.) 

I think Sparta is greatly overlooked by History in a sense that it bestowed upon mankind a greater legacy that common sense recognizes.

But still, Athens was by far the greatest city state of Ancient Greece and the richest intellectual centre of the Ancient World throughout centuries. Be it for  democracy, philosophy, arts, theatre, sciences or athletics, the Athenian and Greek legacy to the western world is unsurmountable!

So my vote goes obviously for Athens. "The pen is mightier than the sword", though I strongly admire military might and skills.

What a compelling arguement you have...

Suggested reading on Sparta:

The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Greece by Paul Cartledge.

Nah, it came out early 2003.  I read it about a year ago.  Pretty good, but I thought he dwelled on the rights and roles of Spartan women a little much.

To Conon394

First off welcome to the AllEmpires forum. I must make clear that you might have slightly misinterpreted my language. I did not mean to condemn or discredit Athenian democracy, I just wanted to point out that it is not similar in the modern sense because it excluded certain groups. Athenian Democracy is not complete democracy, which has never really existed anywhere if I am not mistaken. However, what the Athenians achieved was the very principles that make up modern democracy today and are deserving of that recognition.

The Spartans won the Peloponnesian War, although no one can say it was an outright victory. Athens never became a great power again but this war would come at a great cost to Sparta as well and likely aided their demise as well. The disasterous Sicilian campaign combined with Lysander's seige was the turning point of the war.

I'd have to disagree, Athens' imperial power was routed.  What do you feel would make it outright?

I wouldn't say that.  Events after the war(alienation of allies) and prio to the war(Third Messenian revolt and the great earthquake) had much more to do with Sparta's fall from glory.

After doing some research I found out that your response is factually wrong. The earthquake and Helot rebellion happened before the outbreak of the Peloponnessian war in 431, you are getting it confussed with the first war against Athens that happened around 464.

That's what I was trying to say.  Note that I said the revolt and earthquake were prior to the Peloponnesian war in my post (granted, I misspelt "prior").  Here was my post:

Winterhaze13

Thanks,

I did not mean to come across as strident. I just find that all too often people trot out that line about the limited reach of the Athenian Democracy, without much introspection as to just how recent a development  the very broad �modern democracy� really is.

You are right, I did misinterpret what you said. Also, the last Peloponessian war was in no way an outright victory for Sparta. It lasted for about two decades with no side ever far ahead of the other until the Sicilian Campaign which was a disaster for Athens. And, Sparta may not have been able to defeat Athens without aide from the Persians.

That's because Athens was the only real rival to Sparta, when they eliminated Athens they eliminated any contest to their Greek supremacy. I'm not saying it wasn't outright victory in the end, but it was in no way an easy victory for Sparta. 

This doesn't explain why the victory wasn't outright at all. 

How much more 'outright' could it have been?  Sparta and her allies crushed the power of Athens and her allies, and thusly accomplished their goal of ending Athenian power.

Once again I don't think you understand. The war was hard-faught and could have gone either way, but Sparta was able to capitalize on the Sicilian fiasco and win the war.

Why does that make the victory incomplete?  Besides, it wouldn't have been a fiasco if Spartan leadership hadn't arrived...

Suggested Reading:

Donald Kagan's The Peloponnessian War. A lucid and content filled book that will give you a very basic account of the war.

Lannes

Actually I�d say the Spartan intervention in Sicily was irrelevant to the campaign�s fiasco status.  Nicias alone was sufficient to ensure that. His blundering opposition in the assembly turned what Alcibaldes had envisioned as a mostly diplomatic venture into a potential nightmare (since Nicias lacked the courage to either correct the impression he wanted full scale invasion or to insist on more initial cavalry support). Once in Sicily Nicias essentially vetoed every militarily sound proposal put forward by either Lamachus or later Demosthenes. If Athens had been more fortunate Nicias not Lamachus would have been killed, clearing the way for a competent general to finish the investment of Syracuse and resolution of the siege, well before Sparta ever bestirred herself to action.

As for the debate on the completeness of victory, it was very complete victory, for. The Athenian empire was dissolved,  while Sparta was converted into her willing tool.

The problem with this is that the Syracusans would've entered into a treaty with the Athenians had Gylippus not arrived.  The only thing that dissuaded the Syracusans from entering into negotiations with the Athenians was the news of Gylippus' arrival (after he had dodged the interecption vessels).

Lannes

Gylippus, may have turned the tide for Syracuse, but had Nicias been even remotely competent, he (Gylippus) never would had the chance to. 

Aside from stopping Lamachus� rather sound plan of an initial surprise attack on Syracuse, he showed lassitude and indecision at every decisive moment.

For example, he was dismissive of Gylippus at first and diverted inadequate resources to catch his tiny flotilla, when he finally acted. 

Even when Gylippus finally appeared, Nicias, should have aggressively challenged his polyglot force (the army of Syracuse was predictably still in a state of poor order). Had he driven Gylippus back for even a day or two, the Athenians could probably have finished the circumventation, and sealed the fate of Syracuse. Also it�s hard to escape the sense that had Lamachus lived, double walls of encirclement would have been finished already. While he was alive the Athenians seemed able to finish siege works at rates that amazed the Syracuse. With Nicias in sole command not only does work seem slower, but the Athenians react without any vigor, often being caught off guard.

Had Nicias agreed with Demosthenes and withdrawn (at a time when the Athenians could have safely done so) after the failed attempt to secure the Syracusian counter wall, the Athenians might have a black eye, but hardly the disaster that followed.
And perhaps not even a very bad loss, the Athenians could have withdrawn to Thurii, had Demosthenes say stayed with only a part of new fresh reinforcing army he could most likely have prevented any aid to Sparta from Syracuse as well.

I find the question:  �which Greek-state was the greatest� misleading. In what area? Moreover, the question is potentially gender-relative.  I, as a woman, if I were to somehow �transported� back in time, in which of the two cities would I want to live? Athens or Sparta?

Taygeti

Athens, of course.

I can only assume you are  referring to the canard of women were better off in Sparta�

But how?  And which women.

Given that population estimates are necessarily imprecise, at around the 440 or 430 B.C. the total populations of Athens and Sparta were�

Athens

Citizen Population: ~150,000

Metrics (permanent resident foreigners): ~ 100,000

Slaves: ~100,000

Sparta

Spartans: ~ 40,000

Non-Helot, Non Citizens (mostly the periokoi): ~75,000 � 100,000

Helots: ~250,000

Now, the claim for women being better off in Sparta is usually predicated on the right to own property and the fact that like men, women underwent a compulsory �education� (This mainly to make them physically fit to bear strong children, period. Don�t imagine the state cared if they could read or what their personal desires might be).

But lets step back a bit which women, not helots and not the periokoi, so a tiny percentage of the overall population. In what context did these supposedly privileged Spartan women live, a totalitarian society that makes Stalin�s Russia look tame: Freedom of travel, no: Freedom of speech, no; Occupation, no: State directed Eugenics, etc�

Only something like 10 percent of women in Sparta even had the chance to enjoy this lovely freedom within a totalitarian context. Certainly helot women got none of these benefits (and a lot of bonus negatives), the periokoi women probably resembled the Greek norm (but still within a framework of relative servitude to the Spartans).

In contrast the slave population in Athens is roughly 28 percent. So the hypothetical time traveling women (assuming a random chance placement) can opt to either shoot for the 10% of women in Sparta who are privileged within a totalitarian society or Athens, where she only has a 30% chance of ending up a slave (in the Greek state most notable for it�s leniency toward slaves) .

But then is the whole secluded women thing about Athens�  For now let me just point out that the paradigm of oppressed women at Athens is largely based on the works of aristocrats writing for aristocrats (maybe Plato can afford to keep his wife in seclusion all day, but I can�t see how the mass of Athenian living day to day can, Oh but of course in Plato�s view they don�t matter anyways) I am not trying to say women enjoyed equal rights in Athens, they did not (nor in Sparta nor in Victorian England nor in 15^th century Spain, etc.) But, I do think that in general women were no worse off in Athens then any other Greek State. Better off in fact because of the various legal protections extended by the Democracy at Athens to all of its citizen s and even it metrics and slaves.

Spartan women also had to do hardly a fraction of the homemaking work that women in other cultures slaved their lives away on.  Meaning, a woman was not just a house slave in the world of the Spartans.

Surely Hipparete could tell us how glorious life was for an Athenian woman...

Lannes has a point. Spartan women, in comparison to women from other Greek cities, were spared some of the everyday menial chores. Therefore, Spartan women were �better off� than other Greek women�at least on this field. Having said that, the �menial everyday chores� were done by helot women.

 chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

Which brings me to the rather significant point made by Conon394, namely,  "which women?" The helot women, the periokoi women, or the Spartan women? In light of this question I would have to admit that my initial question was rather  na�ve. While I tried to narrow the subject "Sparta vs. Athens" along the lines of a gender perspective, I must now concede that I overlooked the �class� perspective�a rather important one.

 >>

Along these lines one could argue, that a Periokoi woman was better off than a Helot woman, but that a Spartan woman was better off than a Periokoi woman. Not to mention that a rich Spartan woman was better off than a poor Spartan woman. Same argument could apply to their   Athenian counterparts.

 >>

For the sake of our argument however, lets focus only on aristocratic women; aristocratic Athenian women vs aristocratic Spartan women. Which of the two were �better� off�?

 >>

I would argue that Spartan women were better off, on the basis---and here I would quote Conon394---- "women being better off in Sparta is usually predicated on the right to own property"

 >>

Own and  inherit property.  Economic power. A very significant, solid, power that should not be so easily UNDERESTIMATED, (especially because of its potential to evolve into political power)

As far as Plato�s supposed indifference towards women�. I would vehemently beg to differ but lets not go there.

Taygeti

�Own and  inherit property.  Economic power. A very significant, solid, power that should not be so easily UNDERESTIMATED, (especially because of its potential to evolve into political power)�

But of course it (apparent property rights) manifestly did not evolve into any political power for women at Sparta at any time from the archaic classical era to dissolution of Sparta as an independent political entity. The property right such as it was, I would note was still a property right inside of a totalitarian context. The Spartan state allowed only a very narrow range of economic activities for Spartans to undertake.  A Spartan women, unlike her Athenian counterpart would also have to face the day to day uncertainly that she was part of a tiny click that ruled over a vast pool of resentful slaves and near slaves (Athens noted during and for centuries after the classical period for it�s liberal; treatment of slave never faced the potential slave rebellions of Sparta or Rome or Chios) In any case the overall evidence is thin, and late. I find the current trend has many modern historians bending over backwards to read into the evidence support for strong independent women at Sparta, but at the same time bluntly asserting the closeted oppressed Athenian in the face of any opposing facts.

A good example is Sue Blundell �Women in ancient Greece�. She is ready to reject the ideal that Aristophanes as a useful source for woman in Athens. So we mush reject his tendency to suggest women were anything but closeted or meek, his suggestions about the lives of Athenian women are mere comic devices and such. But when it comes to Sparta suddenly Aristophanes is a solid reference for assertive, athletic Spartan women?

It seems to me a quick review of the historical record shows women at Athens wielded as much if not more political power then those at Sparta. Pericles pleaded with them to be restrained in the face of casualties as a result of his controversial policies during the Peloponnesian War. Demosthenes on several occasions harangues the assembly by asking what their wives will think of them if they vote this way or that (suggesting of course they took an interest and were aware of the politics of the day).The priestess of Athena play a pivotal role in supporting the arguments of Themistocles on how the �wooden wall� should be interpreted and what actions to take as a result of that interpretation.

I stand by my assertion the standard view of women at Athens is largely built out of the works of aristocratic men like Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle and a bit of Thucydides. All of whom share the common characteristic of being ideologically biased against and frankly detached from there own state (excepting Aristotle of course a non-native).  Yes, I realize Plato elaborated a functional role for women in his ideal state (and at least some academics have felt this is the result of, not in contrast the Democracy at Athens)  But like Sparta it is within the context of an ideal totalitarian state (I realize I am perhaps being unfair to Plato, but he happily served with thirty and seems largely to have left his pro-women ideals safely in the realm of theory). 

�For the sake of our argument however, lets focus only on aristocratic women; aristocratic Athenian women vs. aristocratic Spartan women. Which of the two were �better� off�?�

Perhaps the wives of the bluest blooded Athenian aristocrats were secluded, but I seriously doubt they lived oppressed lives, or slaved away at weaving. More likely they supervised the household tasks much as their Husband supervised the external estate. More importantly just don�t feel it a fair point. It�s rather like suggesting women were well off in Elizabethan England because a woman was the ruling Monarch. I prefer to see which state provided the better life (more equitable and more fair) for the most people man or woman. Based on that I think there can be little argument that the answer is Athens. 

The recent surge of interest in Greek religion and Greek magic has seen several books published detailing Greek �curse tablets� (often strips of lead with curse inscribed on them directed against rivals in love or business etc). The ones from Athens show a surprisingly different place then the Athens as seen by Plato, or Xenophon (Perhaps because they often involve the lives of the mass of non �aristocrats, metrics and slaves of little interest the aforementioned pair). Most interestingly one can find references to Athenian women (based on their names as typical of citizen women) as tavern owners and gold smiths, brothel operators, pot painters, etc.  These hoi polloi women of democratic Athens would never be respectable in the eyes of Plato, and might never enjoy the benefits of Spartan totalitarian luxury, but I willing to bet they might have been just as satisfied with their lives.

As a complete aside: You might suppose that the �oppressed� women of Athens or of Greece generally might resent their lot in life vs. Spartan women. But when push came to shove it�s notable that women in Athens and other misogynistic backwaters like Argos and Plataea turned out to defend their cities. In contrast the supposedly privileged Spartan women did little if anything to aid in the defense of their polis when Epaminondas attacked Sparta in the 4^th century. What does this mean idunno, just thought I chuck it in�

"But of course it (apparent property rights) manifestly did not evolve into any political power for women at Sparta at any time from the archaic classical era to dissolution of Sparta as an independent political entity. "

You are right to point out that their economic power did not evolve into a political power for Spartan women and that is why I had written it had the �potential�. Unless of course you are willing to concede to me the argument that women can exert indirect political power. By  this  I have in mind the mother of Agis IV, the biggest landlord in Laconia c.240 BCE. If we are to believe Plutarch, her son King Agis IV and her brother Agesilaus attempted to persuade her to join their land reform efforts. A perceptive reader should note here that �persuasion� by words is required when force is not an option. In other words, she was in control of her own property and no one (not even her brother and son) could belittle her. According to the same author, once his mother was "turned over" to her son�s cause she actively lobbied other rich landowning Spartan women on the premise that they traditionally had great control over their husbands. Supposedly, it was these  women who were the biggest obstacle to Agis IV, because any land reform would have diminished their power. Of course you could always argue   that my timeframe (245-241 BCE) is not the same as the period that we are discussing, mainly 4^th century. Impasse!chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

>>

 �But when it comes to Sparta suddenly Aristophanes is a solid reference for assertive, athletic Spartan women? >>

True >>

 >>

�I realize I am perhaps being unfair to Plato, but�. seems largely to have left his pro-women ideals safely in the realm of theory�.  >>

Hmmm�and what is one to make of the two women, Lastheneia of Mantinea and Axiothea of Phlius, who were reported to have been Plato�s disciples alongside the likes of Aristotle?  (Diogenes Laertius �Plato� 45-46)  (something tells me that you will come back to me with the argument that Lastheneia and Axiothea were also said to wear men�s clothing, and therefore���)>>

 >>

 I prefer to see which state provided the better life (more equitable and more fair) for the most people man or woman. Based on that I think there can be little argument that the answer is Athens. >>

I suspect that when examined in depth, the question Sparta vs. Athens becomes exponentially complicated. Mostly,  because the comparative lines (I suspect) are drawn between political ideologies. Totalitarianism vs. democracy; communality vs.   individualism, equality vs. liberty, and unwittingly the measuring stick is a modern one (not long ago Athens was compared to the US, (still is) while Sparta to Nazi Germany and later USSR)>>

 >>

As a complete aside: You might suppose that the �oppressed� women of Athens or of Greece generally might resent their lot in life vs. Spartan women. But when push came to shove it�s notable that women in Athens and other misogynistic backwaters like Argos and Plataea turned out to defend their cities.

Taking into consideration that defeat meant the death of males (i.e. fathers, brothers, sons) and the rape and enslavement of females (i.e. daughters. mothers, sisters) I suspect fear and self-preservation was �right up there� alongside patriotism.>>

 � privileged Spartan women did little if anything to aid in the defense of their polis when Epaminondas attacked Sparta in the 4^th century. What does this mean idunno, just thought I chuck it in��>>

Neither do I..

Did I mention those things specifically? I was thinking more of the Athenian debates, but ok 

A few of the arguments in paticular which illustrated the lack of distinction for Athenians between fighting for "democracy" and fighting for Athens own benefit were interesting.

The Peloponnesian war was (is?) being tought in US military academies.

Athens being the "good Nato" and Sparta being the "bad undemocratic USSR".

History repeats itself, either as a farce or as a tragedy!

In regards to the argument whether or not there are any parallels between Thucycides account of the Peloponnesian War and the Iraq War, here is a thought�

 chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

 On June 7, 2003 an article appeared in the newspaper the New York Times. It was by Leo Strauss daughter, Jenny Strauss Clay, a professor of classics at the University of Virginia. She writes:  �Recent news articles have portrayed my father, Leo Strauss, as the mastermind behind the neo-conservative ideologues who control United States foreign policy. He reaches out from his 30-year-old grave, we are told, to direct a "cabal" �of Bush administration figures hoping to subject the American people to rule by a ruthless elite. I do not recognize the Leo Strauss presented in these articles. My father was not a politician.�>>

 >>

  Leo Strauss, for those not familiar with the name, was a Political Theory professor best known for the "resurrection" of  ancients scholars, namely, Thucydides and Plato. Some "anti-Straussians" have gone as far as to that claim he advocates  a Thrasymachus-like wisdom  (e.g. Plato�s Republic) and that the present-day war in Iraq is the indirect result of his disciples (the likes of Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Abram Shulsky of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, and Richard Perle of the Pentagon advisory board, to name just a few) >>

 >>

Personally, I don�t believe the above-mentioned are acting out any of Strauss� teachings, but like I said above, its just a thought�.>>

 >>

Well I'm torn between Sparta and Athens, so I will base my decisions of these criteria:

Political: Edge (Athens), the first true democracy was surprisingly transparent, although at times unstable. But, autocratic Sparta just can't compete.

Culture: Edge (Athens), Greek culture is Athenian culture, while Sparta had little or no culture of its own.

Military: Edge (Sparta), Sparta was the land power, while Athens was the sea power. However, Sparta won the peloponnesian war in decisive fashion and deserves the credit.

Economic: Edge (Athens), Athens was superior in this regard, they had a larger trading system. While, Sparta relied on the helots for economic prosperity.

Athens wins 3-1

Winterhaze13

I'd give Sparta an addition -.5.
They went to war with the slogan 'Freedom for the Greeks', but only won because they sold out to Persia.

That's a great point. But Athens also reached out to the Persians for help.

True Winterhaze 13 �

But Athens certainly never consummated an alliance with Persia during the Peloponnesian war. I would also point to the Corinthian war, where Athenians may have allied with Persia out of desperation, but alone among the combatants aided Evagoras (of Salamis on Cyprus) in his rebellion from Persian and resisted a peace that would reconfirm the Great King as suzerain over the Greeks of Asia Minor.

Athenian actions were certainly driven by a healthy dose of self interest, but I think it is also fair to say that seem to have had a greater sense of pan-Hellenism than most polis, and certainly more than Sparta.

And why is that?  Sparta's government was stable and strong.  What more do you want?

Lannes
How about freedom of speech...
to paraphrase of Demosthenes a person was free to criticize Athens in both Athens and Sparta, but was not free to criticize Sparta in Sparta.

"Sparta's government was stable and strong."

True, but inflexible.  It couldn't adapt very well to changing conditions and the culture was worse in that when changes needed to be made they couldn't do so.  Stability is one thing but you need to be innovative and when your telling most of your people to shut up your going to have problems.  The fact is that even though they defeated Athens they couldn't hold them because of this and the fact that their economy needed the helots to survive.  In the end Athens rises again from the dead.   This is one thing about democracies, they bounce back well after disaster.  Sparta was kicked out and when they lost some parts of their lands to helot revolt -- they couldn't recover becasue their system was ridged. 

Athens was unstable at times but its economy could create wealth and it political system allowed people with skill to rise to the top.  True their were some people of questionable character, but they were skilled.  Sparta had good character, but skills were lacking because of lack of imagination and competition to be in leadership.

In a ground battle-- bet on Sparta, but for a long standing system of government and economy and culture -- Athens wins in the long term.  At least until they run into another democracy called the Republic of Rome. 

I think that during the Pelopnesian war Athen had the better millitary pretty much right up to the end. In pitched battle the Spartans generally tended to have the better of things, but the Athenians generally had a better respect for strategy. Also the Spartans religious disposition tended to handicap them, reading Thucydides they never seemed to get favorable sacifices. Unfortunatly for Athens, the democracy there tended to drastically over-estimate their own strength making it inevetible that Athens would eventually overstep its bounds and come to its downfall.

Athens did have an ego problem, but in the end they were humbled by Sparta.  But then again Athens kicked Sparta out and rebounded. 

This debate would not even exist if Athens had won.  But because Sparta won the war and Athens rebounded so the question is asked.

The Spartans certainly have a reputation for excelence in that area, however it begs notice that Athens won nearly as many land battles as Sparta did during the war. Sparta was even more dependent on its slave class than Athens, so that is not a very good argument.

'The Spartans certainly have a reputation for excelence in that area, however it begs notice that Athens won nearly as many land battles as Sparta did during the war.'

True, but there is a reason for this -- when the Athenians won land battles they were fighting Spartan Allies not the Spartians themselves for the most part.  At least that is what I have read so far.

"Sparta was even more dependent on its slave class than Athens, so that is not a very good argument"

Very true.  The fact is the Athenians did not have a economy based on slaves so much.  The Spartans absolutely depended on the Helots so all of them could remain soldiers, they contantly feared slave revolts because it would ruin their economy -- this was not true of Athens.  Athens had freemen at it oars of its navy as well.  this was not always true with the Spartans or their Allies.  

Idanthyrus

What makes you say the war was lost for Athens?  Athens lost her best ships, sailors, and crews, thousands of her first rate Hoplites, and a huge investment of money, but still fought on for 10 years.  The simple fact is that without Persian money, and Persian support in Asia Minor, Sparta still could not have won by itself. Thus the Spartans had no choice but to enter into a humiliating agreement with the Persians, and sell out the Ionians (and other Greeks of Asia), for Persian coin.

On a more general note, everyone tends to toss out the reflexive Athens erratic Sparta stable contrast. I am interested if anyone can suggest a set of contrasting examples that really demonstrates the validity of assertion.

Conon,

You make a good point as well

The fact is that the Spartians need Persian money to build a fleet or they would have never won the war. 

I too have trouble the the argument -- Sparta stable/Athens erratic.  But let me play devil's advocate for a minute.  Case A -- The fact is the Athenians changed their overall strategy for winning several times, but the Spartians basically had the same plan 1) limit the Athenian navy's effect on Pelponessians  2) Invade Athens and he allies and bring them to battle. 3) get more ships from Persia  Case B -- Leadership in the Athen democracy changed fairly often mostly based on emotional popoularity, but in Sparta it followed a line of progression fro mtheir very stable system.

These are the most often used cases for Spartian stability and that Athens was not.   

I struggle with this.  Do not forget to take into account the significance of the permanent Spartan base in Dekeleia. 

From their base in Dekeleia, the Spartans could (and did) make nearly constant raids all through Attika, forcing the Athenians dispense much of their already weakened military strength to deal with these constant threats.  Furthermore, due to the constant threat of a Spartan raid after the setup of this base, much Athenian farmland was rendered too vulnerable to farm, so the Athenians came to rely largely on foreign supplies.  True, the Athenians had dealt with this problem before, but this time, they would be prevented from using the overland rof Oropos to bring supplies in from Euboia (this passage had been key in allowing the Athenians to last as long as they did).  Thusly, nearly all Athenian supplies now had to be brought in through the harbor at Peiraieus.  Additionally, Thucydides tells us that the permanent Spartan presence encouraged Athenian slaves to escape (to Dekeleia).  He goes on to estimate that at least 20, 000 slaves escaped from the various Athenian towns, farms, and silver mines.

Lannes,
What you say is true, but if they had no support from Persia the war would have been longer and I an not sure at that point they would have won.  Possible but more improbable  

Slavery losses were problems on both sides.  For Athens the reality of it caused problems but for Sparta the threat of it paralized a lot of thier troops keeping an eye on those crazy Helots.  I think this cancelled out the effects

The fact that the war continued so long after the destruction of the Silician expedition was due more to Sparta's lack of decisiveness than any paticular instance of Athenian resiliance. The Spartans were allways too cautious, often missing oppertunityes because of precieved risks, this was something that was definatly less of a problem for the Athenians.

Yes and as a result of Spartan indecisiveness the war was not lost for Athens when the Spartans began recieving support from the Persians.

Yes all Athenian supplies came via the sea which made Persian support that much more vital for the Spartans.  Without the Persians Sparta could do little more than burn farms and scratch at the walls of Athens.

Personally, I would say the continued effects of the problems I mentioned above would've resulted in the Athenians looking for a treaty.  Let's keep in mind that Athens was very fragile at this point in the war.

If I'm not mistaken, Spartan slave losses became less and less freqeunt as the war went on.

If I'm not mistaken, Spartan slave losses became less and less freqeunt as the war went on.

Yes. but the threat of it and what it would mean if they left kept them constantly watching it and making sure it didn't happen robbed them og manpower and energy.  They knew if the helots revolted it would make them very vulnerable.

Helots escaping isn't the same as Helots revolting.  Maybe I'm just not understanding your point clearly?

Lannes

To step back a bit, I am not really confident on Thucydides� numbers with respect to the 20,000 escaped Athenians slaves. In the first place, Thucydides is completely silent as to how he arrived at such a figure. Second, the evidence from the Hellenica Oxyrhnchia provides a contrasting perspective. That historian suggests rather then escaped slaves, the Peloponnesian forces (mostly the Boeotians) captured large numbers of persons both during the Decelea occupation, who were carried off to become or remain slaves

More generally the whole ideal does not quite add up. Athens was notorious as the most lenient of cities toward her slaves. At no point did Athens face the kind of slave uprising that Sparta, or Rome faced, and that Chios and 4^th century Megara feared. Rather, the Democracy seems to have commanded a fair amount of loyalty from its slaves. Slaves at Athens seem to be ready to step up to it�s defense again and again (Marathon, Arginusae, The civil war, Chaeronea) and never offer a fifth column to be feared as at Chios or Sparta. Why flee bondage in liberal Athens for bondage in conservative Sparta or Boeotia?

Further, Thucydides suggest the slaves that escaped are not the one population who might have been willing to trade up in the slave category (the mine slaves) but �craftsmen�, slaves who Athens would be about as well off as many poor freemen in most Greek states.

Finally While Thucydides has justifiably earned his reputation as the most austere and accurate of ancient histories, he should not be blindly trusted. A good example is the slight of hand he demonstrates in Book One. His goal here is to defend his assertion that the Peloponnesian War is truly the greatest war in Greek history. To this end he attempts to show how past wars either real (Persian wars) or even the mythological or semi mythological ones his audience would know about (Trojan War, for example) were petty.  At 1.10 Thucydides does a really fine bit of fast talking. He quickly notes the total number of Greek ships Homer gives in the cataloged of ships (1200) and moves on to a discussion of crew size. Why, well because in his day the ship of the line had 200 men (or as many as 240), a fact his audience would almost certainly know. So he focuses on how Homer says the biggest ship was only crewed by a 120, while the smallest by 50. Thucydides further suggests an average crew size be adduced at 85. Thus he then says it�s self evident that not many men when of the invasion. However do the math and you see Homer is if fact by, Thucydides reckoning suggesting over 100,000 men (Quit a bit bigger that the Attack on Syracuse).

Very true.

I've never heard this.  It is indeed highly possible.  Does the author give any estimates as to how many persons were abducted like this?

>I've wondered this myself.  A very good point.  But let me just say that the effects the runaway/abducted slaves may've caused for Athens were surely not the most significant of effects Dekeleia caused.>

Nevertheless, he must be regarded as the authority on the Athenian War.

Mod Edit (Lannes):  Don't flood the board; once will suffice