Misunderstood Moments in History - The Spartan Myth 

Out of all the misspellings of Thermopylae in the comments, Thermomonopoly is quite possibly my favourite.

so... are you suggesting that they DIDN'T dine in hell?

So the spartans didn't fight in leather underwear...

Meanwhile in parallel Earth: The visionary director Zack Snyder brings the much anticipated comic book adaptation - 400 Thebans - this fall

You are probably paid in Persian coin.

Wish we knew more about the Thespians. Their city state was small but they sacrificed 700 lives at Thermopylae which was probably most of their fighting force. Glad to see in recent times they got the recognition they deserve.

Who was the arch enemies of Corinthians? São Paulo.

The Athenians proudly sponsor this video

The Spartans just had the best PR team. :-) I mean, erecting a monument near Thermopylae, made the story of 300 timeless. Ancient authors were much more generous and praised military of the other cities, too.

“Their training wasn’t special.” 1 minute later: “Their unique training granted them superior discipline to their contemporaries which was the key to their dominance.” ??????????

As a Greek i found the video Extremely informative and very very well created, But i have to tell you this video is exactly what we are teached in school history , For some reason the movie Gave strangers and non greeks the spartan myth, It was never written or historically mentioned in any official history book. Now i have to tell you that you have some information wrong about this video. 1) Spartans and all greek city states had martian art training. (Pankration,Wrestling) 2) Spartans started Millitary training at the age of 16. 3) Spartans were not allowed to Surrender BUT that Doesn't mean they couldn't flee or retreat from the battle after realising they were losing. Also even surrendering was illigal for a spartan there was no punishment for doing so at all, Except the fact that most likely you would be spitted on, mocked, bullied, and sometimes even slapped by the people. 4) Most part of their millitary training was to hold formation and moving in phalanx. 5) Spartans invented the turtle formation Later known from the Romans as "Testudo formation" 6) In thermopylae, only Leonidas and his 300 Royal guard and 700 thespian veterans (Old men mostly) stayed to defend. There is no mention of Thebans, however Retreating army were commanded by Leonidas to leave. 7) Spartans were indeed better at phalanx formation than any other Greek because they could hold their ground, due to the fact that they were not wearing sandals while in battle, unlike most greek city states. 8) Battle of Thermopylae numbers at Rough estimates (8.000 - 10.000) Greek allies vs (150.000-250.000) Persians (Which 10.000 of them were the "Immortals"). 9) Sparta Had semi-proffessional army, The proffessionals and career Soldiers were mostly officers and would also "police" internally. This was common on all Greek city states. 10) Spartans had actually very good calvary. But in percentages 1 out of 10 would become a cavalry trooper. And he had to be rich and high class citizen to be able to own a horse.

"They were admired for political rather than military achievements." Tell that to the Athenians when Lysander came knocking.

[NOTE: The video does not argue that the Spartans were anything but top tier Greek warriors, just that they were better for different reasons than people think. Watch a more nuanced discussion with the historian here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aP-ipqWEAAE.html] Thanks to the support of our Patrons I was able to afford to not only hire a kickass artists but also pay for a PhD historian to advise on the research/script. From what I understand we have actually been able to reach the "cutting edge" of academic thought on this subject which is amazing! Again huge props go to Dr. Roel Konijnendijk! We have also been discussing the possibility of hosting a livestream event to follow up on the episode and answer community questions. Would you be interested in this and what sorts of questions do you want answered?

Spartans were the masters of psychological warfare - they understood propaganda better than anyone. The movie 300 can best be viewed as what the Spartans would have produced as a propaganda if they had movies back then. The Spartans knew branding!

Friendship ended with Sparta Now Argos is my best friend

One Group, the poor Germans trapped in Stalingrad, were insensed, most of them, when Goering told them they were like the Spartans.That did Not go over well with men knowing they were doomed!.

You've made some good points here, but I think that you and the PHD historian have been so over-zealous in your attempt to debunk the myths that you've become a part of the equally bad trend in academic history of revisionism for the sake of revisionism. Is the "Spartan myth" over-romanticized? Yes, but the fact that they bred capable soldiers and strategists, probably to a greater degree than most of their neighbors still remains. A few examples from later in their history: - Xanthippus, a Spartan mercenary commander largely credited for reforming the Carthaginian army and leading the Punic forces to victory at the Battle of Tunis - 272 BC Siege of Sparta: a small force of Spartans (including women and those not yet of age) held off Phyrrus of Epirus (one of the best commanders of his day) long enough for Spartan reinforcements led by Areus I and their Macedonian allies to relieve the city - After initial victories against the Macedonians, Agis III of Sparta was heavily outnumbered by the general Antipater at the Battle of Magalopolis, and despite inflicting heavy casualties was defeated. According to Diodorus, Agis III, having been badly wounded ordered his men to leave him behind so that he could die in battle I also fail to see how the fact that practiced poetry, danced sang and pursued other academic and leisurely activities detracts from their soldiery. Alexander the Great of Macedon was tutored by Aristotle after all. Moreover, a cautious approach to committing one's forces is not necessarily a bad thing and can indicate a good grasp of strategy considering the Spartans lacked manpower. No one is saying the Spartans depicted in the movie 300 are in any way realistic, but to depict Sparta as just another Greek city state seems a little too dismissive. Soldiery was not their sole and only purpose and they were by no means invincible; indeed they suffered a number of defeats and their restrictive citizenship is the most likely cause o their downfall. However, for a time, the Spartans did possess an edge in military matters and to entirely dismiss this is not a convincing argument.

1:00: Those hardened elite warriors staring at an obvious rain of arrows coming, and they're like, "Should we raise our shields?" "Eeeeh no let's stare at it for a few more seconds just to make sure"

Doesn't the high discipline and ability to perform complex maneuvers hint that they were very well trained? That doesnt just come out of nowhere, that kind of stuff alone requires a shit load of practice. Also, marginally better is about as good as it gets when putting similarly equipped soldiers against each other.

You insult my queen. You threaten my people with slavery and death! This is Sparta!!!

"No sources mention Sparta having an abnormally martial culture" Plato's republic does

SPARTANS! WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION/ THE CHEMICAL SYMBOL FOR GOLD? AU! AU! AU!

This video is brought to you by: the persian & athenian gang

“They weren’t trained from birth to be warriors” ... “by 7 years old they were expected to join the Agoge and become warriors by 20”

The myth has become so romanticized, that I saw someone arguing in a comment section below a video why the Spartans should have defeated German Wehrmacht soldiers. Since guys with spears always beat guys with guns.

While this video i reasonably correct there is a slant which may give people the wrong impression. We know that Thucydides wrote in his Peloponnesian war that when the Spartans surrendered after the Battle of Sphacteria all of Greece was shocked, so that by 425 BC most of Greece considered the Spartan war machine as supreme. Thucydides was Athenian and was contemporary, so even if assume Herodotus was bias, Thucydides was certainly not. While the date is in question and may have occurred after Sparta lost a battle against Argos, the Spartans basically created a professional military, which no other Greek city possessed until the end of the Peloponnesian war. It was only at Leuctra that the Thebans, using a phalanx 50 men deep, managed to defeat the Spartan army. The slave state Sparta created required a permanent standing army in order to retain power, which gave it’s a military force no other city state could match. Unfortunately for the Spartans it was also a force the Spartans could never risk, which is why they declined after Leuctra. It should also be noted Spartan women had rights and privileges no other Greek city gave their women, so it was not all bad at Sparta. Spartan women also worked out and were considered to have rather appealing hard bodies.

I remember hearing that Spartans were banned from competing in the Pankration tournament in the ancient olympics because of their tendency to eye-gouge

They marched in complex, flexible and effective formations -- but didn't have group exercises? I call bullshit. There's no doubt that the Spartans didn't live up to their reputation. Nobody could. However, when newer historical and archeological research is popularized, there's a strong tendency to over-correct, emphasizing the significance of new findings and dismissing even those older findings that haven't been refuted. In this case, one significant omission is Aristotle's view that the Spartan education turned their youth into animals. This matches very poorly with the video's claim that no contemporary sources described Spartan education as much different from that of other Greek cities.

17:18 "...they were strong men that couldn't take a punch when it finally came..." I mean I understand all these myth around the Spartans but don't you think you're going a bit to far with that line?

It would be awesome to see a video from you about Sparta's tourist economy under Roman rule! Romans loved coming to Sparta to see the famous warrior culture even though Sparta was irrelevant by then. So Spartans kept up appearances with the training and barracks life. Even built a theater outside the temple of Artemis so tourists could watch the cheese-stealing initiation.

An interesting take, although I think it goes rather hard attempting to remove a perceived bias and instead applies a separate one entirely. Simply put, we do have historical evidence that Sparta as a whole was a remarkably effective military power. More than a century undefeated frankly speaks for itself given the time period. And I think it fairly safe to say that one needn’t explicitly mention weapons practice when in the context of a society that relied upon those same weapons to keep their helots in line. It is for all intents implicit. Where I think this interpretation fails is that it fails to apply the reasons for the primary downfall of Sparta. Their policies made for a very rigid and unfavorable system for expansion. Athens major success were due almost entirely to economic factors. Naval warfare is essentially a money fight, after all. What had been shown in both ancient and modern warfare is that the side who can economically and industrially sustain a war often becomes the winner. This is where Sparta failed, their military power was indeed formidable at their peak, but it was a slow system and could not easily be replenished from a defeat. They, much akin to Germany in the early 20th century, could only win a war that was fought relatively quickly and with overwhelming success. If it became a war of attrition, they simply could not sustain themselves as well as their opponents. A single spartan took more than a decade to train, and while that produced remarkably sturdy professional soldiers at a time where the majority of their neighbors were fielding what amounted to a militia, the simple fact was they lost a logistical war if the conflict could be spread over many years. This is compounded by the records indicating men in the army were spending less time producing children, which would later be sustaining that same army. Furthermore, it was argued that early Sparta's successes were derived from the novelty of their military structure, as well as the relative inexperience of their opponents. Early Sparta was very wise then to refuse conflict unless absolutely critical, and to at all costs ensure their opponents never could study their movements and strategies lest they form effective countermeasures. What was seen with Phillip of Macedon was this exact thing playing out for all of Greece to see. A fully staffed Spartan army could be defeated if one refused to fight the Spartan's dominant side and instead engaged from an oblique angle. What made Sparta strong was that they were functional in military organization as well as psychological warfare. Having a deserved reputation for tenacity goes a long way in convincing ones opponents to be willing to accept defeat, rather than pursuing a long and exhausting war. Where they failed however was a failure to adapt to the changing battlefield, and ultimately dwindling into irrelevance. An army made to enforce the compliance of their helot slaves, yet too hemmed in by powerful neighbors to ever expand and achieve the same dominance they maintained in their past. However, I should note, this is not to say they were overblown in their prowess. Even in decline, Sparta was not sacked until after the fall of the Roman empire, and that is frankly remarkable.

Sparta had no training, but had better tactics, better officers and could outmaneuver their opponents. The beat Corinth, Athens and intimidated Alexander the Great into leaving them alone. I smell a heavy does of iconoclasm in this narrative.

"the Spartans, while they continued to practice the rigors of discipline, were superior to all others; but now, they are regularly beaten in actual war. Their previous superiority was not due to the training they gave their youths, but because they alone had discipline and their enemies had none." from Aristotle's Politics Book 8

You should bust the Viking myth next.

*298 of the 300 surviving Spartans. Two were missing from the last stand at Thermopylae. One was injured and couldn’t fight, and the other was sending a message to allied troops and didn’t return in time for the fight.

I can only think of "meet the spartans" when he shows movie clips

Yes, many facts about Sparta are nothing but Myths. Yes, the movie 300 is a Hollywooddrama. Still, there is a reason why Sparta and Athen were the greatest powerhouses in ancient Greece, both in society and military perspectives.

According to The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece by Josiah Ober Sparta was a dominant military force in ancient greece until ~400 BC and widely known for being "undefeatable" in an open field land battle. Also their men were not 'bread' to be warriors, but they were trained more and better then other greek polis citicens, since their massive amount of helots allowed them to not be farmers and forced them to be well trained to keep them under control.

So what's next? A video about the absurdity of round earth?

*"Argos was an enemy of Sparta."* *Me, a Brit: **_confused shopping noises_*

I don't think anyone was under the impression that Spartans were immortal super soldiers that never knew defeat. But Spartan military prowess has been impressive nonetheless. Sparta took over neighbouring territories through war, subjugating its people (helots). They forced the rest of their neighbours to join the Pelopponesian league, where Sparta was the leading state. Sparta had solidified their position as the leading Greek state, and became the supreme leader in the Greco-Persian wars. In the The Peloponnesian War they defeated Athens and the Delian league. I don't think they could have achieved all that without having a military that was better than other nations at the time of their dominance. All these achievements is what made them stand out. In Spartan culture suicidal fighters were looked down upon, as you were supposed to want to survive the battle. But at a certain point it must have been apparent to Leonidas that he would not survive at Thermopylae, and yet he stayed behind instead of retreating. I don't see how the fact that he didn't intend it as a last stance from the beginning changes anything. And the 300 movie was a retelling by a Spartan, it was not suppose to be historical accurate.

It’s interesting that no ancient sources mention martial training. Yet, in the segment immediately following that statement, the video details their development of a command structure, and how efficient they were in battle from being able to move together as a unit. Surely, being that disciplined and effective in the ways of war didn’t come naturally. They must’ve trained for weeks on end don’t you think?

Rigorous Spartan training: drinking, dancing, singing, sleeping around...They were the envy of the ancient world

Hmm... Herodotus wrote his "Histories" around 50 years after Thermopylae. He was born in 484 bC (Thermopylae was 4 years later in 480 bC) and died in 425 bc. About the rest, you are primarily referring to historical hypotheses on the training given in "Agoge".

“There is no evidence that it was intended to be a suicide mission except that dying for glory was kind of a thing for the Greeks and choosing to stay was pretty suicidal but we’re not sure why he did it but it wasn’t a suicide mission.” I get the Spartan myth is overblown but it really seems like you’re reaching on this one.

the myth of the spartans greatly enhance by people that learn their history from movies

So, if you're a Carthaginian, looking at the Romans coming at you during the first Punic War, why would you hire a Spartan mercenary (Xanthippus) as Polybius mentions if they're more known for their political prowess over their military dominance? Sometimes, I think historians seek relevance in todays world by theorizing against known histories. But, I could be wrong.

You skipped the "invaders from Crete" ... you know, like the whole beginning!

Excellent clip. What must also be remembered was that each Spartan soldier had a Helot server and a slave who fought alongside their respective masters in any battle, so that the 300 Spartans where actually 900 in number.

I get it Disprove Plutarch and Herodotus because they aren't Good Sources but what about Lycurgus's reforms to make Sparta a military state? Sure they may be Biased but what about Xenophon? He has shown almost no Falsehoods in his writings about his own Campaign in Persia aswell as the subject of Sparta and he lived Amongst the Spartiates for Seven years??

You speak of the way their phalanxes could move across the battlefield and maneuver without seeming to understand the training required to accomplish this.

I'd wager that military practice and warfare study from the age of 7 is the most realistic approach we'll ever get to try and make super soldiers....

Not a military power are you kidding? During the Peloponnesian War Perikles refused to fight a land battle against them knowing they couldn't match the military might and training of the Spartan forces

also the Athenian weren't fighting for everyone freedom but themselves they subjugated others too

This guy was definitely called a beta at school and took it personally!

"Couldn't take a punch?" "Never lost a pitched battle in 150 years..." yep. Love your stuff but really contradicting statements in here and alot of comments point out the lack of sources

You just ruined by childhood

At the end of this episode you say that Sparta won an empire based on the myth from the Persians at Thermopylae. actually they won that empire by defeating Athens in the Peloponnesian war. Also you the Persian money you mention at the beginning of the episode was needed because Athens had become a thalassocracy and the Spartans being a land power had no way to react to this. Its worth thinking of a navy back then like aircraft in WW2, just changed the shape of warfare in general with the swift movement of troops and control of supply lines. If I remember correctly Athens spent the war hiding behind her walls until defeated. You also seemed to have totally missed the battle of Plataea, perhaps it didn't fit your argument?

maybe Invicta should do one episode about Janissary, another big myth of the history.

A great shoutout for these modern historians who used time machine to go back in time and see what really happened!

I mean, that's nice, but Athens was built on the back of slavery as well, and the Athenians forced independant Greek city states into the Delian league just the same.

Misunderstood only by people that only know about Sparta from the movie 300

I really appreciate the research and presentation. My question is low priority as it seems largely irrelevant to the argument presented in this video, but what about Bronze Age Sparta? What about King Menelaus and Queen Helen, and the Bronze Age Spartan kingdom?

So the spartans were not strong brutes but smart people who protected themselves by making up legends. I don't think if this is a bad thing

Basically what you've told us is: While you cannot prove that the 300 spartans went into the battle at thermopylae intending to die, all surviving spartans including one of their kings intended to stay, and while individual spartan soldiers were not especially notably, they had an extremely disciplined army that while was very rigid, was extremely effective. You just came into this video intending to paint the spartans in a negative light without actually dispelling any popular opinions of them beyond the people who did nothing but watch the movie 300. Anyone who has done a modicum of research is fully aware they had an entire slave population and did monstrous acts towards them, but every spartan male was expected to serve in the military and were very well drilled. You say "it cant be proven that they spent their time off campaign training" but then also admit that they performed phalanx tactics flawlessly in battle. Get your story straight.

300 was based on a dramatic comic that was not meant to be historically accurate

Sparta was the 'Uncle Rico' of the Mediterranean.

This video seems to just say “The Spartans weren’t invincible” which everybody knows as logically, there is no military force in history that was undefeated in any war. Arguably except for Alexander the Great, though so much of what we know about him and his exploits may be largely based on myths, and people argue over whether he may have lost the battle of Hydaspes. But yeah, Napoleon (even at his height) wasn’t invincible, nor was Frederick the Great, nor Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan, or Richard the Lionheart etc. Not even the greatest military power in world history (the modern US military) is invincible.

Basic military maneuvers. Cover your brothers retreat. There's almost no actual idea better to explain why leonidus stayed behind. The larger number retreated and he had a duty to protect them. Sparta was actually ruled by 2 Kings. Which is why he was somewhat expendable.

I don't think there is any 'myth' that the Spartans were particularly aggressive, it has been put into popular culture perhaps, but the 'myth' of the Spartans is that they were stoic (in attitude, not philosophy ofc), and especially skilled warriors, which seems to be borne out by the evidence, in actual fact. It does not follow that they would therefore be aggressive or that they would win more battles, since so many other factors come into play in warfare. Anything else may have arisen in popular culture through developments from these facts.

This video reminds me a lot about psychologies history. You have people who have a strong belief in psychoanalytical psychology and people with strong beliefs in behavioral psychology. Both are psychology but have very distinguishing differences when it comes to treatment, causes, and importance. I have professors that praise Freud as a god of psychology, which is somewhat fair seeing how he is the father of psychoanalysis. Then you have professors that really hate him and claim most of his ideas were quite over the edge which I also agree with. But in each case the professors never discounted the contribution of both psychologies. You think that since there is this imagery of Spartan discipline, immortality, and military prowess that the best thing to deny any of it. I don’t know enough about Spartan history to argue with you or your source but your wording is quite troubling. As mentioned by others you seem to only include parts of the story and only sources that agree with your perspective. If you want to make a completely unbiased video then you would show evidence on both sides and then critique the reliability. Many psychologists may not like Freud but none of them would ever deny his contribution. Just as people will never deny the contribution of Watson and Skinner. There is a middle ground, something this video does not have. And to anyone who says I’m butt hurt over this imagery of the Spartans not being some bad ass warrior culture. I don’t give two shits about the Spartans or the Athenians. The only Greek civilization that ever really peaked my interest were the Macedonians. I don’t think the Spartans were immortal, since you know they don’t exist anymore. Honestly I think a lot of you that are against the notion of Spartan romanticism are just people who like to be apart of the counter culture. You think that disliking popular things makes you appear cool when no one really gives a fuck what you or I think. If you want to be apart of the counter culture so be it, but if you’re doing it just because you want to seem “unique” and think it makes you appear as some sort of intellectual then I have to shatter that idea with the reality that it makes you look more like an attention seeking hipster

I remembered listening to this video a couple years back and it stuck with me. I've now read a fair amount on the Spartans and much of this video now seems biased and too reliant on hostile sources and historians

I thought you already made this but clearly there was a misunderstanding.

It took an embarrassingly long time for me to realize you were saying "Spartiates" and not "Sparshits" the whole time...

I'm not so sure about the accuracy of this video. What's next? Are you going to try to tell us that Spartans didn't go into combat wearing only a helmet and airbrushed abs?

300 was a comic where the narrator was a survivor telling the story the reason things are so inaccurate was the story tellers exaggerations and lies

Feels like this video tries too hard to swing back the other way and downplay everything.

do one on william wallace

The Thermopylae was infact about Leonidas decided to hold in order for the majority of the others to retreat, since they have been backstabbed. Leonidas realised they could not be able to retreat all intact, so he put a small force to slow the Persians, and decided to join this stand.

I feel like this video tries to pander to both the 'spartans were invincible' side and the 'l0l spartans were nothing special' side and ends up pissing off both groups whilst being contradictory multiple times.

1) There is good revisionism and bad revisionism. Good revisionism is when we have new sources or finds, we study them and change our former assesments even if that means that we have to go against the established academic consensus. Bad revisionism is when we have no new finds, no new sources, no new radical discovery, but the new generation of academics feels that has to do something to make their name heard and stop living in the shadow of previous generations that got all the glory and... money/positions. 2) There is what we know of the Spartans through the ancient sources and then there is hollywood, comics, popular myth. The sources make clear that the spartans were not some kind of undefeated war machines, neither robots without feelings. But they also make clear that they were very peculiar, their political system was unique and they gave great emphasis to their military training. Not as individuals, but as units. This video says something and in 10 seconds contradicts it.

Big problem in your video. You cannot say that spartans did not have significant martial training while then saying they were exceptional in military organization. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Anyone with any military experience can tell you it takes training to learn logistics and tactics. Non or near non trained personnel cannot accomplish that. What wasn't covered but only illustrated, were hoplites have a particular armor of the region. Not near naked as depicted in the movie. Athens was a large city state and could draw upon a larger untrained population. Further Athens (the home of democracy) had much more political infighting. This led to internal wars, which bled over into using Spartan mercenaries. So Athens fighting other Athenians was somewhat common. Which means they did fight more. Sometimes amongst themselves. The bigger picture of Thermopylae is a significantly smaller fighting force against a larger (largest of its time) army. Stopping them almost cold. Greecian city states held off the invasion of both Darius and Xerxes. Much of antiquity is handed down orally. With the desruction of the library of Alexandrea we loose much of the writings of that time.

Spartans: Commit to an unnecessary battle in which they fail all objectives and suffer 100% fatalities, including half of their high command. Pop history: "Thermopylae was a great Spartan victory that allowed Greece to resist the Persians."

We’ll never know why Leonidas elected to stay? Because retreats are one of the most dangerous maneuvers in warfare and a rearguard is usually a good idea

History major here. Good job at preseting an objective look at the spartan myth. It's fun seeing internet historians blow their gaskets.

🤔 I will hold the pass, bring backup as soon as you can. 😲 Wow thanks for sacrificing yourself for us. 🤔 wat.

So spartans where basically knights from the sounds of things

I think one of the greatest misunderstanding about Sparta regarding their "Military Proficiency" is the fact that their education was mainly focused in the creation of a "spirit de corps" in their ranks, which was essential for maintaining the formation of the phalanx. The spartans were harsh in social punishments for perceived cowardice in battle. But, it's not that they were "super men". In fact, Thebes was able to defeat Sparta when Theban reformers were able to instill the same tenacity in their ranks. I think the roman army is a good example of creating a far better army of semi-militia citizens (in their first incarnation), simply because they were much more flexible in social mores.

God some of the "people" in the comments are saltier than the fields of carthage 😂🔥

11:45 -- "Neither Plutarch nor Xenophon make mention of martial arts..." -- *HANG ON,* you should be very careful about distinguishing the difference between a Spartan occupation force *residing in Athens* and one which is at home, in Sparta. The Athenian contingent is *far* more likely to engage in behaviours *impossible* in Sparta, itself, if only because there was no easy access to gold and silver. Xenophon, especially, should be considered as an historical source who couldn't see some of the relevant details for historical pursuit, in large part due to the impression of the Spartans he took when they were far afield from Sparta, itself. He doesn't discuss martial arts training, but he *does* discuss the actual army, in the field; the fact that they're mercenaries is largely unimportant. This raises another interesting issue with the Spartan System after Lycurgus -- while it was enduring, so much so that the Romans were able to treat Sparta like a theme park, it wasn't Reformed enough to work when the Spartan armies left Sparta. That is to say, the political pressure inside of the civic boundaries of Sparta kept the Austerity ideal in check; the moment the army marches to the field or to an enemy city, Austerity at an individual level is thrown out of the discussion.

This kind of a classic example of making a point and then taking that point far past any reasonable case for it. Sparta and Athens were the two superpowers of the ancient world with Sparta’s military having the most fearsome reputation. That it might have been blown out of proportion is a fair point, arguing there was no basis for it is ridiculous.

I just read up on the battle of champions, it seems that you have left out a big chunk of the history behind the battle. After the battle of champions, Argos launched the attack with the remaining hoplites which matches the size of Sparta's forces, the Spartans then took a decisive victory. By claiming Argo is matched evenly with Sparta without telling the remaining story seems somewhat misleading. I have a rough theory on why the battle of champions went out that way, if we think of modern military, a country with great military might (such as USA), compared to a country with relatively less military power (Such as Canada), In an all out war its rather one sided, but if we only compare their elite (Aka their special operations units, USA's CAG and Canada's JTF2), I assume they would be similarly matched> What I'm trying to say is, the battle of champions is equally matched is because both sides are hand picking their elites and thus are similarly matched, however, in an all out battle where tactics and discipline play a bigger part, Spartans won.

I generally enjoy your videos but this one lost me. You can’t claim “the ancient sources don’t mention any training for war” then minutes later discuss the Spartans unique chain of command, discipline, logistics, drill formations and ability to efficiently manoeuvre on the battlefield. None of the above would be achievable without regular, sustained training. I mean, look at the pre-Marian Roman Army - it wasn’t staffed by professional soldiers, but they spent considerable time training (route marches, individual fighting drills, large scale formation attacks) prior to major campaigns and battles. If they didn’t, Rome would never have survived long enough to be worthy of historical memory. Why would the Spartan military be any different?

Do you just pick and choose what facts you miss out and what facts you use?

RIP to the 700 actors who decided to stay...

A life of leisure with hard exercise, moderation, and sleeping around... Sounds good.

I fear Xerxes has weighed this one's purse with Persian coin.

Please can you inform us of your source/s for your material? I am well learned in much of Greek history and find some of your information very contradictory to mainstream thought. Just a thought, but to suggest the Spartans did not knowingly go on a suicide mission is fine, but to suggest that staying, when they could have left, was not a heroic act of sacrifice/suicide is to damn their memory Sir...

More and more beginning to make sense why they didn’t last as a state

Just like at the Alamo battle, where almost 1/2 of the garrison, about 125 defenders, jumped the east walls of the mission compound, only to be cut down by Mexican cavalry! But then came heroic PR, lies, tales and legends, that gave them more credit than they deserved from history!