You did not mention the one aspect that I had previously learned. With two General-Kings, one could lead an offensive assault (ex. Battle of Thermopylae) while the other defends the city. In addition, because they were two dynasties, the Kings were not always constantly the same age. One might be far senior to the other, so in theory, the "senior king" could guide the "junior king" during its upbringing.
My history teacher once told me this: "The kings were warriors. They often died on the battlefield. There were two kings, so the Ephors wouldn't abuse their power after one of them died. That is why one of them was leading a military campaign, and the other one stayed in the palace.
Both kings used to go on campaign until near the end of 6th century BC one of kings disagreed with the other and retreats with half the army causing an embarrassing situation. Since then only one could go on campaign. I think their names were Cleomones and Demaratus but don't trust me on that.
@@flynn659 yeah but at that time kings had to be warriors since directing your army to be lead by a general meant exposing your position as a king and being defenseless. Although kings usually didn’t participate in the battlefield and observed from a safe spot. With no real long-range weaponry and a horde of soldiers to guard them, instance of kings dying on the battlefield were spares.
Not related to the video but If I had a dollar for everytime Sparta got mad at Athens for allying with Argos, I'd have 2 dollars, which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice.
@@dlugi4198 I think the reason Athens and Argos didn't become Allies a lot was because Athens taxed the Greek city states a lot to "protect them from the Persians" while in reality they were using it to build temples, and Argos saw it as kind of a dick move. I know Athens kept this a secret but who knows how many spies Argos had in Athens.
This comment is two years old but I'll still leave it here: this is also where the word "archon" comes from. Generic Greek name for a ruler although now it's probably more famous for being the name of a Starcraft unit.
U know why i love your channel? Because of the topics. All these "little" topics that most History Lovers dont know. Why and how Russia sold Alaska. Why it owns Kaliningrad, Why Spain never concuered Portugal. Why Canada didnt join the American revolution etc. Very interesting unknown topics that i was always qurious for. Thanks and happy new year from Greece
My favorites are the ones that almost sound like an accusation: "Why does Luxembourg exist?" (two people in the thumbnail throwing accusatory stares at Luxembourg)
@@hugomlpaixao I guess you could say that. Technically a good amount of ppl were skipped over to claim that inheritance, but you're right, there only seems to have been one battle and that was it for King Phillip to take control of Portugal
You forgot to mention that the five “rulers” of Sparta had to answer to the next five rulers for all their actions at the end of their one year term. Not really a system that you can abuse too much for your own benefit and power because if next year people get in who don’t like you they can find you guilty for trying to mess with them the previous year.
@@rifasclub take that attitude to court and tell me how it works out for you SPOILER ALERT! Badly, the onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of their assertion
I assume you're referring to the fact that women ended up with the lion's share of any inheritance? Yeah they basically became their own political power base as a result of that.
@@ChrisDyn1 I think they're both great channels. I'm just suggesting that if y'all wan't more on the subject go there, it's really good too. Don't be a chode Chris.
I'd like to learn more about why Sparta declined the way it did. From what I understand they never fell from war, calamity, or strife, but more from an atrophy over the centuries until the Romans noted them as being an antiquated backwater.
The Spartan system required citizens to pay for their military equipment, supplies and a host of other things out of their own pockets from their serf-run (Helots) land holdings in order to participate in society and run their army. They did not however take the steps necessary to keep the wealthiest most connected aristocrats from gobbling up so much of the land that not enough people were left who could afford to serve in the Spartan army. The Athenians avoided this by making sure they kept a flatter distribution of wealth while the Romans under Marius had the government pay and arm their soldiers out of the public treasury.
Kinda late but the spartans declined because their government was totally unable to reform. The 5 ephors had lots of power but they could never use it. 1 the next 5 ephors could always undo the previouses changes if they didnt like them and 2 the gerousia had the final say on laws ultimately. Ephors would propose a law then people would vote and then the gerousia which was in another building would announce the winner based on who made more noise. The gerousia could also take legal action against both the king and the ephors. The gerousia (word translates the best as senate) were a council of 30 elders plus the 2 kings. Most of these guys were major landowners, old, and extremely conservative. So yeah sparta could lead armies and could function as a state but it was unable to do any reforms at all. When the romans came to sparta they found a small village with extremely alien to them laws filled with extremely bitter old people and thats because the laws were 400 years or so out of date. Imagine an alt history austria where they never evolve past feudalism. Its 2023 and wien looks like shit and has literal peasants and nobles walking around
The Peloponesian War put them in charge of Greece but they were absolutely thrashed by the Thebans afterwards. The Thebans went on to liberate Messenia (the land directly west of Laconia). The loss of that many Spartiates, territory and helots put them into a permanent decline. By the time of Rome they were a tourist trap. They basically fell from a combination of war and low citizen birth rates but there were a lot of factors. Had the Spartans defeated the Thebans at Leuctra I still doubt they'd have held hegemony over Greece for long.
I like the idea that the Ephors were all pretty chill with each other as they abused their positions for personal gain. Like one’s walking down to the street to tell some guy who had called the system corrupt that he and his family are banished, and waves at another walking the other way, carrying a bag of coins taken from the treasury for “reasons”
Wait, isn't this is because of their fear of Helots revolting? There are two kings because when one of them is on campaign other one stays at Sparta to keep them in order.
Oh huh this makes a lot of sense. Granted there can be several reasons or advantages to having two kings, the real question if you look at other monarchies throughout history is how neither of the kings wound up murdering the other- the Romans tried things like this several times and it always ended badly. "The Ephors held the real power" is the key explanation
I heard the explanation for the two kings was that Heracles had two sons and these two sons founded the city of Sparta. The line of these two brothers would be the dual kings, as a way to keep in touch with the gods.
I always considered that having a duel monarchy was a good insurance policy. If one king led the military, the other could govern from home, and if the king leading the military were to die in action, his colleague could assume sole command until the military crisis passed. This is effectively what happened in 480-479, in the aftermath of Leonidas' death, since his co-monarch Leotychidas immediately led the campaign against the Persians at Mycale, whilst the regent for the dead monarch, Pausanius, led the Spartan forces at Plataea. The dual monarchy was an effective instrument for a state designed for war.
It's fascinating to me how, despite all the bluster about Spartan warrior pride or the paranoia of the helots one day rising up and putting an end to Sparta, what actually led to their end was simply time, and eventually conquest by a much more powerful Rome. Sparta, by that point, due to their rigorous lifestyle, had actually withered to become a rather small and insignificant Greek village, with their glory dying in a slow whimper rather than a quick bang.
Romulus *(founder and 1st King/Rex/ of Rome)* & Titus Tatius *(the king of the Sabines from Cures and Romulus' joint-ruler of Rome)* : *"ARE WE A JOKE TO YOU??"*
Sparta: Yes (A few Centuries Later) Roman Republic: I’m back baby! Sparta: Help Us! (Population Decline, refusal to change, weird practices) Roman Republic: What happened! Sparta: I don’t know!
The Spartan diarchy was resurrected by Jerry Pournelle in his "Mote in God's Eye"/Falkenberg's Legion universe. I think the book "The Prince" covers it in more detail than any of the others.
I appreciate a video like this... It's not something I ever thought about but RU-vid shows it to me and I'm like "Yeah? how?" And then I see the video is 3 minutes long and I click on it knowing I'm not going to get a lot of build up or filler, just an an answer to the question. Thanks History Matters for grabbing my interest and satisfying my curiosity in less than 5 minutes.
Actually it is kind of simple. You would ALWAYS have a "Spartan king", even when at war. 1 to lead the military effort while the other keeps the country United in regards to society and laws.
Something not mentioned here: while it is true that the King had practically unlimited authority while on militray campaign, said King would be overseen by two Ephors. Two Ephors on their own could do nothing to veto a King's orders but as soon as that army returned to Sparta, the two attending Ephors could issue a full report to the full college who would then decide if the King partook in any unethical activity. Even the 'limtless' power of the King was checked by the very existence of the Ephors.
In the current system there are similaritys from my point of view: Chancellor and President, prime minister and king/queen, religious leader and a political leader, etc.
@@teodorghinea425 It was a dual Monarchy. An Emperor of Austria and a King of Hungary. Different military Diffrent prime Ministers Diffrent foreign affairs.
There is a hot debate on the most powerful position in Sparta. My take is that events in the sources suggest that it mostly depended on the individual on how powerful they were. The ephors were put on trial after thier term ended meaning they could not do anything that was too controversial. The king's were also mostly just military and religious leaders. They didn't have much authority in Sparta but did have absolute authority on campaigns. There was also the probuletic function with the gerousia and the ecclesia to pass the legislation which is also arguably a powerful position.
