The Spartan Way of Life

Ashley Hunter

In pondering ancient Greece, people generally think of Athens with awe because of developments, such as theater and democracy, which Athens is given credit for initiating. On the contrary, one may view the Spartans as the ruthless warriors portrayed in modern-day movies since their entire lives revolved around

military training and war. However, it is inappropriate to judge the Spartan way of life on modern terms, and even that of Athens; one must consider other aspects of Spartan culture and social systems because Sparta was a successfully functioning society in its time. The Spartan codification and refinement were adequate for their organization because Sparta maintained order, had a well-organized government, and allowed for the greater significance of women within the community compared to other Greek city-states. Nonetheless, every system has its flaws, and as for Sparta, theirs happened to contradict modern standards, which may cause some biased viewpoints when analyzing their way of life. The way they treated the helot population led to unnecessary internal conflicts.

The first component that positively contributed to Sparta’s success was their ability to preserve order among their citizens and unite the community under a strenuous, but unique ideology. Foremost, formal education was absent in Sparta, especially in contrast to other Greek city-states where citizens—specifically young males—learned to read and write and master other vital skills

of their time (Xenophon). Spartan citizens could not read or write, but adapted to the warrior culture surrounding their everyday lives through extensive and mandatory military training that began at a young age. The integration into their ideology and how the order was maintained started with their

education system and is outlined by Xenophon in The Constitution (Politeia) of the Spartans. The critical point that displays the influences of the education system is by the famous Spartan lawmaker Lycurgus. His regulations on “respect and obedience” that commenced for young boys established discipline, loyalty, and the capacity for boys to sustain themselves in harsh conditions on the battlefield. Males

were taken from their families around the age of seven to attend a military school and would eventually spend the rest of their lives serving the state.

Lycurgus also reshaped many Spartan customs and behaviors such as marriage

practices, food obtainability, physical fitness, and wealth (Xenophon). Marriage was highly endorsed in Sparta, even though men could not live outside of the army camps before the age of thirty. However, the Spartan state viewed marriage as a way to produce more male offspring who would grow up to serve in the Spartan army, and the practice of polygamy was allowed to influence this process. Spartan culture also centered around being physically fit and healthy, and Lycurgus recognized that too much food and alcohol could have

negative impacts on the body (Xenophon). Food availability was regulated throughout the community to prevent overeating and becoming sluggish, and athletic competitions encouraged exercise that was not limited to the men, but involved women as well. Lycurgus organized the entire monetary system to get rid of “inequalities and contrasts altogether,” as illustrated in Plutarch’s account of Lycurgus:

He declared that all gold and silver coinage was now invalid, and decreed that only iron should be used as currency, and then he assigned a low value to even great weight and mass of this.

Changing the currency system in Sparta eliminated the conflicts and wealth imbalances that come along with vast prosperity. As a result of his transformation of Spartan ways, Lycurgus created a well-structured society in regard to the performance of its citizens, and he was successful in maintaining order within the different Spartan communities and sustaining military goals.

The Spartan population lived by strict guidelines established to limit overall inequality and produce disciplined and healthy citizens who could survive on the battlefield

and benefit the state. All Spartans were on par, not only with their actions toward one another, but also through their access to resources and wealth. Additionally, Lycurgus’ movement was a success because the free Spartan people never revolted against the rigidly enforced laws and customs, which means that they trusted in the state’s ideology. Even the helots only revolted once. Women were willing to risk the well-being of their children to support this ideology. With continuing foreign occupations abroad, the soldiers came in contact with numerous cultures that could

influence their perception of their own society, but they remained loyal to the Spartan way of life. Sparta’s ability to maintain the social order and keep the citizens support for these social principles contributed to its success.

Secondly, the well-established government system of Sparta made the city-state prosperous because a smaller government

structure had less representation in numbers, but enough for making decisions in the Spartan interest, and the officials elected were wellexperienced and spent their lives participating in military affairs. The government of Sparta is described best this way: “The Spartan political system had several elements: monarchy (the kings), democracy (the ekklesia) and oligarchy (the gerousia)” (Dillon and Garland, 2010). The Spartan government was extraordinary because there was not one king who had full control over all the land, but two kings who were responsible for monitoring one another. Moreover, the two kings came from different families so one powerful family could not hold all the power. Next in overseeing Sparta was the council of elders, the gerousia, which was made up of 28 elder men, plus the two kings (Thomas, 1974). Once a month, the committee held an assembly, the ekklesia, that was open to the public, and was used to discuss and vote on matters concerning the state. In addition to the two kings and the gerousia, there was a board of five ephors who were elected annually by the citizen majority, and each ephor could serve only once during his lifetime.

Each legislative branch was important and each had a marked effect on internal

and external policies, as well as political and social affairs. The most influence in the

Spartan government lay “with the elders and the ephors” (Thomas, 1974), and Plato remarks that the representation of the elders in political affairs “provided stability and common sense” (Dillon and Garland, 2010). Granting the elders of the executive council an equal say-so in state decisions took away the possibility of abusing power from the kings, which otherwise could have led to unpredictable outcomes, and would have given more influence to the gerousia and the ephors who, through experience, could better assess matters of Spartan interest. Sparta therefore benefited from its political system in two primary ways. First, by combining three different types of political mechanism into their political practice, Sparta profited from the advantages each political mechanism provided. The monarchical portion allowed for a stable and loyal ruling base which fit Spartan interest perfectly because of their involvement in military affairs. The democratic piece of the government provided the wisdom of experienced voters who made skillful determinations, were well-informed, and limited the powers of the kings. Lastly, including oligarchic principles gave authority to a smaller, dominant group, the ephors, and restricted the government from growing too broad which could delay governing and create internal disputes.

This system worked for Sparta because the delegated authority supported the Spartan way of life. Preventing younger males from

serving in political affairs limited the likelihood of corruption driven by personal profit and from influencing the outcome of state policies over time. The elders of the community would have undergone the hardship of serving in the military and would have had a lifetime of exposure to the responsibilities of leadership. Throughout their military careers, they would have faced many obstacles, grown humble, and better understood the value of life out of

remembrance of the comrades who once stood

beside them in the ranks, but lost their lives in battle. They would have felt every emotion known to man and experienced fear in a way that they never knew existed. They would have looked at every situation and notion in an entirely different way from the crude young man whose self-interest and ego blinds him from proper reasoning. Moreover, one could make the argument that Sparta’s lack of interest in providing aid to the other Greek states was wrong, but Sparta’s determination to approach external matters with

caution and only get involved if it is in the interest

of the state is

an exceptional foundation for this

proper reasoning. Although Sparta had a strong military organization, that alone did not justify them in distributing their army around the Greek world to act as some global police force in every engagement. The Spartan officials were right to make decisions that revolved around what benefited the state. Subsequently, the political system in Sparta and the requirements established for competent participation in the government were an advantage of the Spartan way of life.

The last pro of the Spartan way of life was the significance women had in society, especially compared to the treatment of women in other Greek city-states. In other Greek communities, women did not have any direct voice in public matters, and their purpose was to be silent and unopinionated

and to tend only to household tasks (Dillon and Garland, 2010). However, women were quite the opposite in Sparta and had far more rights and responsibilities compared to other Greek women of that time. The role of women

in Sparta was beneficial because the women provided an active overseer of the men’s families and property while they were attending to military or political circumstances, and giving more freedom to women helped the society uphold the robust state ideology. The reforms of Lycurgus recognized the importance that women played in the community, in the reproduction of Spartan babies, and in their households. He imposed physical exercise on young women to build their strength so the women would produce many strong children that would grow up to make well-built Spartan soldiers.

Women even competed in athletic events, and some went on to win Olympic games in chariot racing (Dillon and Garland, 2010). Also, physical fitness would help provide women with the strength to face the difficulties of childbirth (Plutarch) and motherhood. Spartan women were to be tough, sharp-witted, and direct so they could operate the business in the homeland while men were playing their part in state and military affairs. When the men deployed for months and years at a time, the Spartan women had to manage the resources, properties, and occupations at home, and to do so, women had to be well-educated in the ideology. Giving more rights to women was a favorable outcome for Sparta because the men’s involvement in the military and policies eliminated them from the workforce and the

economy in Sparta, and allowed women the right to own property and administer business which reinforced an orderly economic system. As a military-centered society, Sparta needed every man to be engaged with military training and daily operations. Thus, handing the responsibility of property to women not only helped this arrangement, but also promoted healthy lifestyles. Allowing more liberties in marriage and child-rearing norms was a major factor in maintaining the number of men. Sparta’s treatment of women helped to preserve their culture and ideology which influenced their prosperity because— by handling business in the household and community—the women freed the men for service to the state.

Among the positive features of the Spartan political system and cultural standards, there were also negative aspects of the Spartan way of life that hindered them in their success.

The conduct towards the helot population in Sparta gave rise to avoidable rebellions and additional issues between the helots

and the Spartans. The helots were “property of the Spartan state” (Talbert, 1989), and since the Spartan men attended to their

military careers and the women managed the business affairs, the helots were used for the manual labor throughout the community. The helots became useful to the state after

they were subjugated by the Spartans in the conquering of Messenia and were required to work the fields and perform other duties that the Spartans did not care to do. The Spartans ensured the helot population was healthy and physically capable of carrying out their role, but made sure the helots remained controlled

and fearful. To do so, groups, known as the Krypteia, were instituted to terrify the helots by randomly massacring some of them in hopes of preventing them from revolting (Dillon and Garland, 2010). According to Richard Talbert, the helot population outnumbered that of the Spartans, attaining between 170,000 and 224,000, while the Spartan male headcount was around 8,000. Also, an abundance of helots regularly fought for the Spartan army, but the Spartans would implement traps that would set the helot soldiers up for failure. Talbert presents one example:

They announced that the helots should choose out of their own number those who claimed to

have done the best service to

Sparta on campaign, implying that they would be given their freedom. This was, however, a test conducted in the belief that the ones who showed most

spirit and came forward first to claim their freedom would be the ones most likely to turn against Sparta. So about 2,000 were selected, who put on garlands and went round the temples under the impression that they were being freed. Soon afterwards, however, the Spartans did away with them, and no one ever knew exact

ly how each one of them was killed.

If accounts such as this are true, this sort of arrangement against the helots was unnecessary because, up to this point, the helots were devoted to the Spartan cause since they willingly served in life-threatening conditions with the Spartan army. On that assumption, if the helots wanted to turn against the Spartans, they would have coordinated that opposition by then, and with the declining population of the Spartan males, it would have been more beneficial for Sparta to grant the helots their freedom. Talbert claims that the treatment of the helot

people and the rebellions that rose from it was inconsiderable in regard to the basis of Sparta’s “downfall” (Talbert, 1989).

Rewarding the helots with independence for their loyalty to the state would limit unnecessary conflict and allow for the number of soldiers to increase. However, these revolts, although minor, consistently kept the Spartans paranoid when they could have been focusing on foreign affairs and building their declining Spartan male population.

In conclusion, Sparta’s philosophy and goals do not fall in with modern-day goals and are viewed today as abusive toward their people, but this notion is quite the opposite of what the Spartans thought. For their time, Sparta’s political system and cultural practices are well demonstrated in its citizens’ loyalty and willingness to support a firm sociocultural foundation. The mixed constitution of a

democratic, monarchical, and oligarchic governmental elements allowed for a better systematic decision-making process as a system of checks and balances of each branch of officials and prevented the government from growing too complex which leads to the possibility of widespread corruption. Also, Sparta’s potential to put aside the common ancient viewpoints on the responsibility of women and adapt to a more resourceful way for their women to act within their community was the best course of action for Sparta’s overall objectives. Although Sparta’s dealings with the helots and other Greeks were not always appropriate, Sparta served its citizens well through regulations and standards that created a sense of pride to be a Spartan and focused on matters that the community rather than the individual could profit from. On the other hand, one should not entirely romanticize Sparta’s way of life because—as with any system—this constitution had its flaws as well. Spartans were always overly suspicious and fearful of the helot revolts, which to some extent took Sparta’s focus off other significant matters, but this distraction was preventable if only the Spartans had issued freedom to the helots for their devotion to the army. Overall, this ruthless society of professional soldiers has inspired and sparked the imagination of many throughout history, and it continues to impact contemporary thought through their unusual way of life. n

Ashley Hunter is a student-veteran at East Carolina University. Before attending ECU she served four years in the Army, where she was stationed at Fort Bragg and deployed eight months to Kuwait. After serving, she decided to continue her education and is currently triple majoring in Anthropology, Classical Civilizations, and History.

Works Cited

Dillon, Matthew, and Lynda Garland. Ancient Greece: Social and Historical Documents

From Archaic Times to the Death of Alexander the Great. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2010.

Plutarch. Life of Lycurgus. pp. 3–38.

Richard J. A. Talbert. “The Role of the Helots in the Class Struggle at Sparta.” Historia:

Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte, vol. 38, no. 1, 1989, pp. 22–40. JSTOR, www.jstor. org/stable/4436088.

Thomas, C. G. “On the Role of the Spartan Kings.” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte

Geschichte, vol. 23, no. 3, 1974, pp. 257–270. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4435402.

Xenophon. The Constitution (Politeia) of the Spartans. pp. 75–92.