Talk:History of Sparta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greek history. | ||||||
| If you would like to participate, you can improve History of Sparta, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | |||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) | ||||||
| High | This article has been rated as a High priority article | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
Wikinfo:Cretan/Spartan connection FYI. (Deleted by Wikipedians on 6 Mar. 2006.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WHEELER (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 March 2006.
Contents |
[edit] Spartan phalanxes met and defeated a force of raiding Visigoths?
"The city was something of a "tourist trap" for Roman elite to observe the "unusual" Spartan people. Following the disaster that the Roman Imperial Army suffered at the Battle of Adrianople, Spartan phalanxes met and defeated a force of raiding Visigoths in battle. That was the last noteworthy Spartan victory." /\ This I find HIGHLY dubious. How could the Spartans maintain their military tradition for 600 years under Roman rule? It makes no sense, even if they were kept as a living museum as suggested above. SOURCES, hombre, sources. D.E. Cottrell 06:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest the inclusion of something of the Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal First book of the Macabees, which records in its twelfth book a letter between the Jews and the Lacedemonians (Spartans) in which their brotherhood was announced - of the Spartan descent from Abraham, and a form of alliance between the two, acknowledged by both. Should this be recorded in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.27.52.149 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 February 2006.
I too would like to know about this last Spartan victory over visigoth raiders. I wouldn't say such a feat was impossible, the city may have maintained a few spartiate wannabees to please roman benefactors but we need source evidence. BV 23.2.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.222.85 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 February 2007.
[edit] her sole claim to lead the Greek race:?
"Her military greatness and that of the states under her hegemony formed her sole claim to lead the Greek race: that she should truly represent it was impossible." This is pure opinion and conjecture and has no place anywhere but a discussion page. You are presenting your opinion as fact without even attempting to disguise it, but at the same time saying your work does not need verification because it is so obviously true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.83.104 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007.
"Yet, in spite of the heroic defence of Thermopylae by the Spartan king Leonidas, the glory of the decisive victory at Salamis fell in great measure to the Athenians, and their patriotism, self-sacrifice and energy contrasted strongly with the hesitation of the Spartans and the selfish policy which they advocated of defending the Peloponnese only."
OK this is just nonsense and is not supported by military historians or common sense. Without the defense of Thermopylae the Atheneians would have been overun and would not have been able to mount a naval campaign.
- Actually, it's a fairly good summary of Herodotus. And there is no indication the Athenian evacuation was pressed for time. Thermopylae was heroic, but it only lasted a few days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I seem to have stepped into a mini-war going on about this battle on all the pages refering to it because of the movie. Pages are being vandalized right and left 300 (film), 300 (comic), Leonidas I. This is one of the milder comments:
"Only a fool who lacks comprehension of numbers would believe the hoaxes of herodotus." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon1190 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
I'll wait until the hype dies down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.83.104 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 February 2007.
Removed some defacement of the '5th century' section. 64.81.160.29 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Era
This has been BCE for about two years now. It is true that occasionally someone has tried to change it to BC. No one till now has pressed the point so to all intents and purposes it has been stable as BCE. If that were not so the The 5th century BCE section would not have been linked from the Peloponnesian War Since the 11th of August, however, anon user 206.174.79.86 has been constantly changing this page to BC. The argument that this page initially was BC doesn't hold water unless we accept the principle that the first author of the page has some level of ownership of the page. This is especially so given that this page started out as a scan from the 1911 Britannica -the author has presumably long ago had his obituary written. None the less user 206.174.79.86 has got the right to put the question of the Era on the table (though not to insist on overturning the current stable state as he is doing). I am curious as to why he is so concerned to change the era of the Sparta page. Every time this has been debated those convinced that BCE is the more NPOV form and those who have been convinced that the BC form is more NPOV have been about equal. A glance at the redirects to any BC/BCE date will show that currently the number of BC to BCE pages doesn't remotely reflect this balance of opinion. This is not a strong argument for changing pages that are currently BC to BCE but it is an argument against eliminating the few BCE pages that exist - unless the view is that BCE should be excluded completely from Wikipedia.Dejvid 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BCE
I think that all of Wikipedia should be consistent, and anything going against the grain like that should be elimenated. I believe that all BCE's on this website should be elimentated. Does Wikipedia not deserve to be completely in sync? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgul66 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
