Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History 1300-362 BC [Paperback]

Paul Cartledge of the university of Cambridge is arguably the foremost authority on ancient Sparta in the entire world. His erudition of this culture is unmatched and the bibliography of this book is quite a read in-itself.

In this work Cartledge undertakes the massive task of tracing the history of Lacedamon from 1300-362BCE. In other words, right around the time of the mythical / quasi-historical Trojan war (1283BCE) down to the time of the decisive Spartan defeat @ the battle of Leuctra (371BCE).

The reader should be advised that the opening stanzas of this book are difficult to follow. Cartledge casually alludes to endless archeological digs all over Laconia at such a rapid pace that it's apt to make the reader feel like it's information overload. While grad students in archeology and anthropology might feel right at home, the rest of us may feel a bit lost.

When Cartledge arrives in the more familiar historical territory of Herodotus and Thucydides the book seems to improve a great deal. At least for me, anyway. The exegesis of historical records has always been easier for me to comprehend than the interpretation of pre-literate societal structures.

One of the highlights of the book is Cartledge's discussion of the 3 classes of Spartans (Homoioi, Perioikoi & Helot). I had some degree of knowledge of the Homoioi & Helots before reading this work, but virtually no understanding of the Perioikoi. Thanks to his chapter on these people I now have a much better comprehension.

I would recommend this book only to those who have an ambitious yearning to understand the history of the Spartans. For those who would rather have a more concise and slightly more reader-friendly work I would recommend A HISTORY OF SPARTA 950-192 by W.G. Forrest (ASIN: 0393004813). Forrest's book also goes a few hundred years past Leuctra while the present book does not.

Also, it is imperative that prior to reading the present text that the reader first peruse Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon & a little Plutarch mixed in wouldn't hurt. I do not think it prudent for someone to undertake the present work without at least a working knowledge of the primary sources.

First posted on Amazon.co.uk on 31 December 2011

This book was first published in 1979, with a second edition in 2002 (when I bought it and first read it). It was, and remains, THE best book on Sparta and Lakonia. It stops just after the battle of Mantinea (362 BC) but a second book by Cartledge and Spanwforth was published in 1989 (with a second edition in 2002) on Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, with Paul Cartledge doing the Hellenistic piece (the most interesting of the two, in my view).

Anyway, I was very much surprised to discover that there was no review of this book on Amazon.co.uk, and decided that there needed to be one. As Paul Cartledge acknowleged some 30 years ago (perhaps with a bit of exageration), two books on Sparta are published on average every year. This one, however, is apart from almost all others, and is probably among the best of all (together with Cartledge's book on Agesilaus, which is perhaps even better).

Readers should be aware that this IS VERY MUCH a scholarly book, but of the highest quality. It is a very well structured book which starts with a clear presentation of the geographical context (together with climate and boundaries). There are masses of well-drawn maps and very useful annexes.

However, and above everything else, the main strongpoint of this book is the explanations it provides on Sparta's strengths and weaknesses which were the two sides of the same coin
- Sparta had the largest territory of ANY Greek city, including the very rich Syracuse. This was because it add annexed Messenia and enslaved its population - the helots - virtually doubling the size of its territory in the process, and giving it the means to sustain a large number of hoplites who could spend their whole life (or at least had the means to do so) training and fighting
- the associated weakness was that the helots, who were Dorians just like the Lacedemonians, retained their identity and never fully accepted their status as slaves, so Sparta always had to be on the look out and ready to put down as quickly as possible any revolt whereas the Helots would take advantage of any Spartan weakness.

Several additional features for which Sparta is known in Ancient Greece are direct consequences of this:
- Sparta had little need to trade, or only for specific items, and used no currency (coins of bronze, silver or gold) for a long time, simply because the size of its territory meant that it was largely self-sufficient. Unlike Athens, for instance, it did not need to import most of its food
- The conquest of Messenia made Sparta self-sufficient but it alsol lead to a major reversal in its foreign policy. While Sparta had been expansionist before this conquest, simply because, with an expanding population, it needed to be, it became the most isolationist of all Greek cities once it was self-sufficient. It was always afraid of a Helot uprising as soon as its army left on campaign. A related point was that part of the army almost always had to be left at home, just in case...

As Cartledge shows so clearly, drawing on Aristotle, the crisis of Sparta came because of oliganthropia: the number of full Spartans - full-time professional warriors - that the city was able to field declined almost constantly from 480 to 362. However, this was not strictly because of demographic reasons. Indeed Spartan families continued to have children, but inherintances were partible and social and financial unequalities grew so that fewer and fewer had the means to qualify as full Spartiates and casualties could not be entirely replaced. Spartans were aware of this, and tried to limit its effects as much as possible, but then they were beaten at Leuctra, lost Messenia and were never able to reconquer it...

A fantastic book and a MUST READ for anyone interested in Sparta...