Spartan Trivia. I hope I didn't make too much grammatical errors because english isn't my first language yadayada... I hope you enjoyed this... Spartans also didn't fight in their underwear, they wore proper armour.
x
Click to expand

Spartan Trivia

Spartan Trivia. I hope I didn't make too much grammatical errors because english isn't my first language yadayada... I hope you enjoyed this... Spartans also didn't fight in their underwear, they wore proper armour.

I hope I didn't make too much grammatical errors because english isn't my first language yadayada...
I hope you enjoyed this.

  • Recommend tagsx
+1261
Views: 62522
Favorited: 294
Submitted: 09/18/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to redblueyellow Subscribe to fucking-facts submit to reddit

Comments(309):

[ 309 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #60 - specialone (09/19/2013) [-]
The other reason for having two kings was so one could go off and lead the Spartans whenever they went to war whilst the other stayed behind and commanded the city.

Also, boys were trained from age 7 to fight, that was what the whole Spartan society was about. They were given one cloak, aimed to be too hot in summer and too cold in winter, and minimal food to force them to steal. If they were caught they were punished not for stealing, but for being caught.

There was a story that one boy, who had stolen and fostered a fox, upon being questioned by a leader let the fox eat his bowels before turning himself in.

The boys were trained in the "Agoge" which was essentially a military camp with boys ranging from 7 to 19. Upon their final year they were sent out into the wilderness to fend for themselves. Also, every Autumn Sparta declared war one their slaves. This ensured the slaves stayed in check and also taught the boys what it was like out on campaign, teaching them how to kill.

In addition, they were encouraged to sleep and love their fellow trainees as it was believed that if you loved the man next to you then you would fight better. The whole Spartan battle system relied on defending the man to your right and trusting the man to your left.

At age 20, upon the finish of training, they had to join a mess to become part of society. If they weren't voted in then they would try for another one. If after 10 years they were still unsuccessful then they were given a low citizenship rank.

The reason the ladies shaved their heads was that whole boy loving thing. Before the wedding the women would shave their head, and for the first year the husband and bride were only permitted to meet during the night. Even then, the men usually remained in the barracks and saw their wives very rarely.

In short, Spartans were born and trained tough. And they took it up the batty
User avatar #195 to #60 - imnotkickthecat (09/19/2013) [-]
That would suck for the guy on the far right and left.

You got nobody to look after on the right side. And you got nobody to trust on the left side.
#244 to #195 - barhah (09/19/2013) [-]
Exactly, which is why the king would always take the most vulnerable position in the Phalanx, the front right corner. He had nobody covering him with their shield, and his was covering the soldier on his left.
User avatar #112 to #60 - robertolee (09/19/2013) [-]
Sparta, where being gay is promoted and manly as **** .
#157 to #112 - sheiladikshit (09/19/2013) [-]
you can say they were sharing testosterone
User avatar #5 - YourLordAndMaster ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Spartans also didn't fight in their underwear, they wore proper armour.
User avatar #28 to #5 - brutusantony (09/19/2013) [-]
one of the many things that pissed me off about that movie
User avatar #21 to #5 - Rockaman (09/19/2013) [-]
Depends on the era and the battle - there are a few accounts of Spartans fighting with little on, mostly against majorly inferior foes, probably as a boast to play on the foes fears.
#87 - dcj (09/19/2013) [-]
300 doesn't mention how 90% of Sparta's population were slaves captured on campaigns. The full-time warrior class was supported by slave labor, but the movie railed on and on about FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM and 			****		.   
			*******		 hollywood, man.
300 doesn't mention how 90% of Sparta's population were slaves captured on campaigns. The full-time warrior class was supported by slave labor, but the movie railed on and on about FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM and **** .
******* hollywood, man.
User avatar #97 to #87 - malcolmcz (09/19/2013) [-]
******* gif I cant stop watching
User avatar #145 to #87 - goodcheese (09/19/2013) [-]
that's why they became a military society was to keep the helots in servitude and since they provided all the food and supplies needed sparta could focus on making everyone a warrior. but yea it did piss me off with all that talk about free men not being enslaved, i'm sure if any helot was around during a speech like that they would've rolled their eyes.
User avatar #245 to #87 - goblingang (09/19/2013) [-]
And funnily enough, the Persian empire didn't have slaves, as their Zoroastrian faith didn't permit it, and they were generally tolerant to their subjects, allowing kings to keep their positions and having a freedom of religion. Basically, Persia only attacked Greece because Athens was supporting rebels in Anatolia.
User avatar #250 to #245 - hudis ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Doubt that's entirely true. The Persian Empire was one of the largest empires that have ever existed, in a time long before infrastructure and communications were properly established parts of society. The vassals of Xerxes were likely very diverse in their ways and manners, depending on where they were, and it's a bit unrealistic to say that none of them had slaves in abundance or that they all treated their people well.
User avatar #258 to #250 - goblingang (09/19/2013) [-]
Cyrus the Great, when founding his empire, banned slavery and declared religious freedom. The Archaemenid empire also left the areas they conquered fairly autonomous as long as they paid taxes and paid taxes to the "King of Kings". Now while slavery was banned, there was most likely a system more closely resembling serfdom.
User avatar #260 to #258 - hudis ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, but that's the thing with autonomous vassals from right about then until the end of feudalism; their freedom and freedom to express their power means a freedom to do what they want. Some may have been loyal to the law, certainly, but men in power rarely are if they can get away with it.

I'm not saying I'm well-read on Persian history by any means, I'm just chipping in with what I know about leadership and ancient kingdoms.
User avatar #155 to #87 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
They did have a voting system set up in 700 BC so its something.

However they were no different from any other city state at the time that enslaved the losers of war as slaves. Hell even the founding fathers supported slavery.
#1 - maxl (09/18/2013) [-]
The romans defeated them because they didnt have walls
#17 to #1 - waffie (09/19/2013) [-]
Not to mention numbers
#239 to #1 - worried (09/19/2013) [-]
i was thought that it was because of the V formation from the roman legions broke through the spartan walls of shields
User avatar #12 to #1 - balderdash (09/19/2013) [-]
You do realize it was the romans tactics in combat that allowed them to beat the greeks, the phalanx formation held by the spartans wasnt as flexible and adjustable as the roman legions and it meant on the battle field they were out maneuvered and eventually lost
User avatar #2 to #1 - neverborn (09/18/2013) [-]
The romans had cowardly things like seige machines, heavy armour and hygeine
#9 to #2 - gatorade (09/19/2013) [-]
Woah woah woah....   
   
Do you even know what the Spartans were like? They had solid bronze armor! Is that not heavy armor, the Romans at that time when they took(more of annexed they never attacked the city itself) Sparta had Lorica Hamata or Lorica Squamata. Hamata was a chain mail like cuirass, the squamata was a bronze scale armor.    
   
Sparta was on a decline at the point AND Rome was on a rise, and even if there was war where the two armies faced off. Sparta usually had about 10,000 soldiers max in their armies at their peak. At this time they'd be about 100,000 Romans(even more Auxilia) against about 4-5,000 Spartans. This is how the Romans defeated Epirus, Rome was defeated  by Epirus at a significant battle(Against the King of Epirus, Pyrrhus) Epirus lost a lot of men but Rome could replenish so much faster. This would happen with Rome v. Sparta.
Woah woah woah....

Do you even know what the Spartans were like? They had solid bronze armor! Is that not heavy armor, the Romans at that time when they took(more of annexed they never attacked the city itself) Sparta had Lorica Hamata or Lorica Squamata. Hamata was a chain mail like cuirass, the squamata was a bronze scale armor.

Sparta was on a decline at the point AND Rome was on a rise, and even if there was war where the two armies faced off. Sparta usually had about 10,000 soldiers max in their armies at their peak. At this time they'd be about 100,000 Romans(even more Auxilia) against about 4-5,000 Spartans. This is how the Romans defeated Epirus, Rome was defeated by Epirus at a significant battle(Against the King of Epirus, Pyrrhus) Epirus lost a lot of men but Rome could replenish so much faster. This would happen with Rome v. Sparta.
User avatar #34 to #9 - wrocky (09/19/2013) [-]
i stopped reading at Lorica Hamata or Lorica Squamata Hakuna Matata
User avatar #160 to #9 - foxxywithpaws (09/19/2013) [-]
He means the Romans had Tiger tanks, trust me, I was there.
User avatar #267 to #160 - intexuz (09/19/2013) [-]
He's right,i was the Tiger tank
#227 to #9 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account** (09/19/2013) [-]
Not to mention that the cohort formation the roman legionaries used was superior to the greek hoplite phalanx. The phalanx was heavy and barely flexible and most movements took several maneuvers to accomplish without disrupting the formation, while the cohorts were flexible, organised and still heavily armed.

The romans would start by throwing their pila, killing some hoplites and making others' shields useless as the pilum bent it's tip when it hit so it was no longer possible to remove during battle. The front lines of the cohort would then engage the phalanx from the front and be slightly pushed back, taking minor casualties as their large scutum provided them a good defense. The cohort's reserves would then move to the sides of the phalanx to flank them and engage in close combat making the phalanx drop their pikes and draw swords. Once the pikes were gone, it was just a matter of time until the cohort defeated the phalanx as the legionaries' equipment and training were superior with swords.
User avatar #19 to #9 - thatguyinabox (09/19/2013) [-]
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
User avatar #61 to #9 - neverborn (09/19/2013) [-]
As easy as it would be to shrug this off under the clause of 'it's a joke, so whatever' I'll admit I didn't know spartans had progressed from just having a bronze breastplate.
I did know they were outnumbered though.

Anyhoo, thanks for the info,
User avatar #174 to #2 - viscerys ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Well, there were no walls. The siege machines were a bit excessive.
User avatar #175 to #174 - neverborn (09/19/2013) [-]
Romans used formations that made use of trebuchet (or some other form of catapult) and probably ballisa to thin the enemy out before they charged into combat.
the versatility of the roman legions was a huge factor in their ability to win battles.
User avatar #291 to #175 - gatorade (09/19/2013) [-]
You are partially right.

Though the use of Onagers(the catapult) were usually never used in open field combat since most were built on the spot of the siege, the Scorpion was used which was a 2 man machine that was basically the first field artillery. Ballistas were ******* huge multi-person team operated machines used in sieges, as well, just like Onagers.

Romans rarely charged into combat and would attempt to lure the enemy into attacking them first, using light cav or skirmishers. Roman armies would march in one solid block of metal and man and would basically be a sledgehammer if they were to attack, they'd maintain formation and use the "Roman saw-blade" which is just a wall of shields with gladius armed legionaries stabbing out.

You are right with how flexible the Romans were and would've easily smashed Sparta but they actually never fought and Rome just used words.
User avatar #177 to #175 - viscerys ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Making sense is something your comment is good at. Thanks for clearing that up, and reminding me that I'm getting Rome 2 in a few days.
User avatar #179 to #177 - neverborn (09/19/2013) [-]
ah, I really want Rome 2.
I'll have to content myself with shogun 2 till then
User avatar #180 to #179 - viscerys ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
I've yet to play Shogun. As good as Medieval 2?
User avatar #185 to #180 - neverborn (09/19/2013) [-]
I thought so, but I'm pretty into the setting as well as nostalgia'ing everywhere thanks to playing the first one.

having the proper assassination cutscenes made me so happy
User avatar #186 to #185 - viscerys ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
I might get it. I hope it comes up for sale on Steam soon.
User avatar #188 to #186 - neverborn (09/19/2013) [-]
it usually does, along with the DLC it has (warrior nuns are possibly the most amusing unit ever)
User avatar #192 to #188 - viscerys ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Awesome. This conversation has been fruitful. Farewell, fan of Total War.
User avatar #193 to #192 - neverborn (09/19/2013) [-]
you too, fellow fan ^ ^
User avatar #330 to #2 - miscarriage (09/19/2013) [-]
whoa, so many toomblz
User avatar #331 to #330 - neverborn (09/19/2013) [-]
thanks
User avatar #333 to #331 - miscarriage (09/19/2013) [-]
YAH
User avatar #334 to #333 - neverborn (09/19/2013) [-]
do I win anything?
User avatar #341 to #334 - miscarriage (09/20/2013) [-]
noh
User avatar #159 to #2 - thepollock (09/19/2013) [-]
It's the Hygeine that got them the spartans.
User avatar #222 to #2 - traelos ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Don't forget discipline, endurance and organization.
#187 to #2 - Rascal (09/19/2013) [-]
******* romans, hygeine is for pussys
User avatar #53 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
As long as everyone else is doing it:

To die in childbirth was the women's equivalent of dying in battle. Women were valued above men in the spartan society.

If a Spartan dropped his spear, he would be given another by the man behind him. If he dropped his shield, he would be pushed out of line to his death. This was because not only did his shield protect him, it protected the man next to him.
#31 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
>Sparta
~Tiny Nation (Basically a city-state)
~Small, simple, strong army
~Never conquered much land
~Can barely defend against Persia
~Now Called: Spartans or Sparta


>Macedonia
~Relatively large nation
~Large, strong, complex army (once again, relatively)
~Created largest empire at the time second only to the empire they ****** up
(Persia)
~Persia was their bitch
~Now called: Greeks or Greek Empire

In addition:
Greece's attitude towards Macedonia before Macedonian Empire: Non-Greek barbarians from the north
After Macedonian Empire: Macedonia = Greece, Macedonian is a dialect of Greek!

An also: The Macedonians never attacked the Spartans, Sparta attacked Macedonian-controlled Greece, and lost, despite there being 5,300 Spartans and allies vs. 3,500 Macedonians and allies


TL : DR Macedonia is better
#67 to #31 - Rascal (09/19/2013) [-]
Nationality of Macedonians: Some people post comments claiming that Macedonia was a separate country from Greece. This is totally out of line, because there was no Greek state back then. If we try to identify their nationality by modern sense of nationalism, then we would end up claiming that there were no ancient Greeks and no ancient Greece. Borders and passport do not make a nationality.
Ancient Greeks had a different way of identifying their nationality than some countries do today. Roots, language, culture were some of the criteria and not the administrative divisions.



User avatar #73 to #31 - alfjnn (09/19/2013) [-]
Macedonia today is Slav.
Macedonia then was Greek. (Or At-least wrote all of its records in Greek.)

People Migrate, and the Slavs used to be pros at migrating.
User avatar #131 to #73 - mephiblis (09/19/2013) [-]
Also, they wrote their official records in Greek because at that time Greek was what Latin was 5-10 centuries later.
User avatar #130 to #73 - mephiblis (09/19/2013) [-]
>Macedonia today is Slav.

>Macedonia then was Greek.


Much implying. Macedonia then and Macedonia now was a separate entity. And to say it is Slav now is implying 100% purity of Slavic blood. Which is untrue for Macedonia or any other nation that the Slavs immigrated Like with all big migrations, the Slavs intermixed with the local populace which i'm 100% sure mixed with the people who were there before them and so on and on. But as a nation, Macedonia was established long before Greece so it can't be Greek in any logical way. Was it Hellenic? Sure, most likely. But if that makes Macedonia Greek, then **** , we should all be anexed by Italy, were we not all of us here under Rome's rule for quite a while?

User avatar #74 to #31 - alfjnn (09/19/2013) [-]
>Greek Empire.

***** Puh-leeze.
The Greeks Just wanted to defend their Peninsula from from the east.

It was Alexander who took it to a whole other level.
(Persepolis etc)
User avatar #321 to #74 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
Perhaps you don't quit understand, I was saying that modern people sometimes refer to Alexander's Empire as the Greek Empire, which apparently I wasn't clear enough in pointing out that I think is wrong
User avatar #342 to #321 - alfjnn (09/20/2013) [-]
Culturally, the Macedonian was Greek, it wasn't some profound independent culture different from the Greek city states.
User avatar #125 to #31 - sonarfaces (09/19/2013) [-]
Where are you from dude?
User avatar #140 to #31 - DaBullshiter (09/19/2013) [-]
Silly fyrom citizen.
#241 to #31 - rakoom (09/19/2013) [-]
Sounds like comparing a nation to a city.

Sparta's fame isn't really all that grand due to what they achieved or what greatness they had and what impact they had on the world.

Their fame (and fanbases) are based upon the fact that they were truly epic in what little size they had in numbers, compared to what might they had in battle-prowess and style. That, and the one thing 300 so perfectly managed to focus on which made the Spartans an epic part of military history: The war where they held their stand surprisingly successfully, using only 300 soldiers. They all died, but what other army could've succeeded in such an amazing feat using so very few men?
User avatar #298 to #241 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
~Sparta was a nation and a city, hence City-State

~Most movies do a horrible job at historical accuracy (action movies especially)

~You're pulling your facts from a movie, yes, there were 300 Spartans, there were also about 7,000 other assorted Greeks fighting alongside them
#318 to #298 - rakoom (09/19/2013) [-]
Nono, I didn't include the details because the details are redundant to my point.

The spartans faced exctintion (sorta) in the face of a spectacular army. And what did they reply with? 300 soldiers. The 7000 was a lovable addition to their efforts, but in the end it was a battle between Leonidas and his men versus Xerxes and his army, not Xerxes versus the greeks and spartans. Though the greeks played a grand, important role in the battle, they're still redundant to the main point itself: The spartans were good at what they were doing. Few armies would be as afficient as them if put into an equally large army. The spartans weren't flawless, but they were damn sure one of the greatest army-troops any army could ask for.
User avatar #324 to #318 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
So you're saying that 300 Spartans are as a military force more powerful than 7,000 soldiers from any other nation of the time period?
#326 to #324 - rakoom (09/19/2013) [-]
No. I'm saying that 300 of their men would likely be more significant of an army than 300 men of most other armies in the world of that time period.

I can think of no finer warriors than them in sheer skill, efficiency, indimitation and impact, but it's debatable. If you know of some other more efficient breed of warriors then pray do tell though. Always interesting to hear about.
User avatar #327 to #326 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
Ah, the way you said it first made me think that, I apologize.
#328 to #327 - rakoom (09/19/2013) [-]
No worries.
User avatar #35 to #31 - johnnybtrollin (09/19/2013) [-]
The former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia is Greek!!!
User avatar #43 to #35 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
No, just no
User avatar #45 to #43 - johnnybtrollin (09/19/2013) [-]
but makedonija is of greek and alexander the great ;-;
User avatar #46 to #45 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
You had me for a while there, and then I read your usename
#139 to #31 - pandahuggrstabbr (09/19/2013) [-]
And nobody ever mentions how the Athenian navy was the real reason the spartans won the battle of Thermopylae (where the movie takes place). There was no ************* storm, that was the Athenian navy crushing them against horrible odds.
User avatar #204 to #139 - specialone (09/19/2013) [-]
Nobody mentions Marathon either, which was where the real **** went down. That's the whole ******* reason Thermoylae happened, to buy the other cities more time.
User avatar #50 to #31 - specialone (09/19/2013) [-]
There was no such thing as the "Greek Empire".

Ancient Greece, as we know it as, was simply a collection of city-states that were pretty much always at war with one another. There are only two recorded occasions when the "Greek" cities came to fight as one.

The first was the battle of Troy when Sparta asked for the assistance of the other cities to get Helen back.

The second was the Persian Wars which was deemed as such a threat to all of the city states that they agreed to come together and fight.
User avatar #51 to #50 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
Did you read or just pick and choose words?
User avatar #52 to #51 - specialone (09/19/2013) [-]
I'm saying there's no such thing as a Greek Empire.

I was adding additional information that I thought was pretty neat.
User avatar #57 to #52 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
Yes, i guess I forgot to add the fact that there never was a Greek Empire, however I have hear Alexander's Macedonian Empire called that, hence why I put it there
User avatar #58 to #57 - specialone (09/19/2013) [-]
Fair enough.
#39 to #31 - dickleberry (09/19/2013) [-]
then again it even says in most history books that greece wasnt even a nation due to its mountains so they couldnt communicate so it is a city state and alexander the great was from a city state in northern greece so without alexander macedonia wouldve most likely not of done as well
User avatar #42 to #39 - unclaimedusername (09/19/2013) [-]
Alexander was from the Macedonian Capitol of Pella and Macedonia wasn't a Greek City-state, if they were a city state they would have been called Pella and the Pellan(?) Empire and the various Greeks city-states made it very clear to the Macedonians that they were not Greek, such as when the Spartans fought against the Macedonians, they considered themselves to be fighting for Greece, not just Sparta.
#70 to #42 - Aglarod (09/19/2013) [-]
Macedonia was a hellenic kingdom, inhabited by one of the hellenic dorian tribes, the macedonians. Like the kingdom of cyprus or epirus (where alexanders mother is from - and no i dont mean illyria albanian fellows)

Yes, Spartans did say they do what they do for everyone else ( is it surprising they would try to pass it over as such? , they needed people to defect from the union ), but also Spartans were getting money from Persians to betray everyone else.
User avatar #64 to #31 - hawaiianhappysauce (09/19/2013) [-]
Sparta didn't have a strong navy either. An important factor in that whole battle between Greece and Persia was the Athens navy.

#66 to #31 - infiniteduress (09/19/2013) [-]
Greece's attitude towards Macedonia was well founded. The Macedonians weren't from Greece, they were from the Ancient Near East (Middle East).

Also when you say Macedonia=Greece, I don't understand what you are trying to say, when an area is conquered and becomes part of an empire it loses its identity for the most part.

As to the fighting between Sparta (King Agis III) and Macedonia (Phillip II, Alexanders father), Macedonia took/allied itself with all the lands surrounding Sparta, and Agis III started feeling the pressure and attempted to capture Crete, which belonged to Macedonia. Macedonia counter attacked with a massive force. The Spartans were in fact outnumbered in that battle, the numbers you give are actually casualties not army sizes.
#69 to #66 - Aglarod (09/19/2013) [-]
Some facts about the Greeks:
Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, Achaeans were the 4 major tribes into which the Greeks considered the population of Hellenes to have been divided.
You need to login to view this link

Macedonians were a Dorian tribe. Same as Spartans.
source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorians

Macedonians spoke a Doric Greek dialect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language

Ancient Greece was an area with many city-states and Kingdoms. During the history of Ancient Greece a total of 1,500 to 2,000 city-states - Kingdoms were established. Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, Epirus, Macedonia, Eretria, Chalkis were some of them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_countries_and_regions

The idea of a Pan-Hellenic (Greek) country, was expressed by the Athenian Isocrates, who also wrote a letter to King Philip.
You need to login to view this link

Only Greeks had the right to participate on the Olympic games. Macedonians took part on them.

Alexander: but I am myself a Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slaver. Herodot Book 9,45 (KALLIOPI)

----------------------------------------­-------------------------------------- --­-----------
But after all, did Alexander the Great consider himself a Greek?
Alexander the Great quote:

Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves. There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay and not much of at that; We, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it. As for our foreign troops, Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes, they are the best and stoutest soldiers in Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia.
#234 to #69 - gerfox (09/19/2013) [-]
The mother of Alexander was Greek, from Athens if I recall correctly.
User avatar #76 to #69 - infiniteduress (09/19/2013) [-]
You bring up some interesting points. But the Macedonians weren't a Dorian tribe, they were of the Makednoi Tribe. Macedonian invaders began moving south, when they got to the peninsula they settled down, intermarried with the locals, and were renamed the Dorians. 300 years later when Phillip conquered Greece, they didn't identify with each other.

If you read the article on Ancient Macedonian language, you will find that it was an Amalgam of many ancient Greek dialects, not specifically Dorian at all.

Alexander the Great was first and foremost a Macedonian. He was King of Macedon, while merely being General of Greece. Greek wasn't a race or nationality it was a region that Greeks only identified with when they were unified (during the Trojan war, and under Macedonian rule).
#310 to #66 - namdrut (09/19/2013) [-]
also of note, during Xerxes invasion during the second persian war, the macedonians were defeated pretty quickly and easily because their cavalry got ****** up. and that was because the persians used camels which apparently scare horses.

anyway, i'm pretty sure we can all agree that both macedon and sparta were equally awesome in their own ways.
#146 to #31 - Mynameismario (09/19/2013) [-]
Stop being so butthurt you fags!

Can't we just all be happy?!

Half Macedonian-Greek here.
The whole world hates us both as it is.
#68 to #31 - plaguehammer (09/19/2013) [-]
Romans were better than all the others. Rome conquered Macedonia and Sparta. The Greeks/Spartans/Macedonians used the phalanx which was this really tough, unflexible spear armed shield wall. The Legion's shield wall was much more mobile and powerful, to the point where the legion defeated the phalanx while fighting UPHILL!

You guys can wax pretty about Spartans and Macedonians all you want, but the Macedonian empire was **** , it fell apart the second Alexander died and the only amazing thing about it was how much was conquered. The Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years, if you count it until the byzantine empire's fall, then 1500 years,

Sparta, Alexander, Ramses. All bitches compared to Rome. Rome is best ancient civilization.
User avatar #201 to #68 - specialone (09/19/2013) [-]
I take your point but what about Hannibal? He defeated the Romans every time he faced them and would've smashed Rome had he not been too self-conscious.

I do agree though that the Romans, as a population, had an uncanny knack for just dealing with **** and moving on. I mean they created their capital in a ******* stupid place with no harbour to speak of with a river that required dredging every now and then just to ensure it was still open to trade.

Then whenever they got invaded the people fought back, forcing the conquerors to leave.

Romans were badass.
#207 to #201 - plaguehammer (09/19/2013) [-]
Hannibal fought against consuls. Fat politicians elected to be "commander-in-Chief" and had no real background as soldiers. When FINALLY the senate got their heads out their asses and appointed a REAL general, Hannibal got smashed by Scipio's forces and Carthage was sacked, burned, razed and the earth was salted so that nothing may grow on that soil for centuries.

That's not the only time this happened either, around 115 to 108 BC, three german tribes wreaked havoc on the italian homeland and the senate kept appointing more and more inpet politicians as consuls to go and fight and lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers until FINALLY they recalled Gaius Marius who ******* SMASHED the germans.

The Romans were insanely good at warfare, for example, Boudicca destroyed a legion, what happened? the Romans sent a real general and destroyed her army that outnumbered the Romans 2 to 1. There's a very famous battle in Germania, the battle of Teutoburg Forest, it's supposed to show that the germans couldnt be conquered and **** . That's all that people remember, teutoburg, teutoburg.

No one remembers that after that battle, Rome was pissed, sent legions and absolutely MASSACRED the germans in retaliation, and Roman retaliation was not something you wanted, when a town in Gaul rebelled once too many times, Julius Caesar had the right hand of every man and male child was cut off and people were amazing at how lenient Caesar was.

TLR
I love Roman history, the Roman Legion was ******* badass.
User avatar #212 to #207 - specialone (09/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, but Scipio essentially copied Hannibal's battle plans. Hannibal by that point was absolutely ****** after suffering from an infected wound and was commanding an army of mercenaries who hadn't been paid in a very long time.

Also, the fact that he went overland in winter to try and conquer Rome shows just how much extra weight in his pants he must've been lugging around due to his huge balls.

I agree with you though, never mess with Rome. Although I did prefer studying Ancient Greece.
#215 to #212 - plaguehammer (09/19/2013) [-]
ah, you are perfectly right about Scipio copying Hannibal, but that's what made the Romans so terrifying. They invented nothing, they took all the best tactics of their enemies and created the perfect army for the time. They stole their helmet design and their chainmail from gauls. They stole their shield design from the Etruscans. They just copied tons of stuff and thats what made them the best.
User avatar #216 to #215 - specialone (09/19/2013) [-]
True that.

Gotta love a guy who's passionate about his history.
#218 to #216 - plaguehammer (09/19/2013) [-]
thanks ^^ same to you. It's an injustice I never got Roman History in school, I'd have gotten straight A's lol

I read some of Suetonius and Plutarch. But my favorite has to be the commentaries on the Gallic War by Julius Caesar
#266 - scapegrace (09/19/2013) [-]
Spartan Fact: when Spartans play gay chicken, they play for keeps.
#115 - Loppytaffy (09/19/2013) [-]
Women dressed like men bacause men were more used to men? That is the ultimate "it's okay to be gay"

Spartan women were pretty badass, too.
#84 - Tazdingo (09/19/2013) [-]
There are people on this Earth that didn't know about Spartans until 300?
User avatar #281 to #84 - FairyGodParents (09/19/2013) [-]
Why does this surprise people, where do most people find out about spartans? I don't find war and empires terribly interesting so I don't research it, idk.
User avatar #332 to #281 - Tazdingo (09/19/2013) [-]
Greek city-states are part of basic education, you learn about those in 5th grade history class, literally the first year history class is introduced into your education, to not know about them is like not hearing about the roman empire or the vikings or the crusades.
User avatar #339 to #332 - FairyGodParents (09/20/2013) [-]
Where are you from? In Canada we only really focused on recent history and modern geography.
#181 to #84 - yetiyitties (09/19/2013) [-]
Yes. Most people don't know **** .
#108 - motherfuckingkenji (09/19/2013) [-]
Contrary to popular portrayal, Spartans never fought in their underwear.
They wore incredibly powerful, expensive (each suit cost about as much as the average cruiser due to the underlying crystalline matrix) and complicated power armor made of Titanium-A.

They lost to the Persians because they didn't have energy shields at the time. It was only after they lost one of their best soldiers named Sam that they developed them.
User avatar #118 to #108 - hiyorin (09/19/2013) [-]
No, just... no.
#124 to #118 - motherfuckingkenji (09/19/2013) [-]
How about yes.
How about yes.
#133 to #124 - kaiferin (09/19/2013) [-]
Lol'd.
#165 to #108 - imaweshume (09/19/2013) [-]
No they didnt.
User avatar #163 to #108 - DontDeleteMeAgain (09/19/2013) [-]
oh the references
the references i tell ya!
User avatar #197 to #108 - imnotkickthecat (09/19/2013) [-]
Rip in peace Sam. The first member of blue team down.
User avatar #203 to #197 - ZakisBak (09/19/2013) [-]
Rest in peace in peace? And I don't think 343 is the devil, although they made halo 4 to compete with CoD, which is a fatal flaw. I think Bungie back stabbed everyone.
User avatar #240 to #203 - thelastelephant ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Bungie wanted Halo to end. Microsoft thought otherwise, resulting in the lousy "Call of Duty: Space Edition" that is Halo 4.
#275 to #240 - mcnizzlezz (09/19/2013) [-]
Since when did Bungie want Halo to end? They were originally planning on making Halo 4 but they instead made Halo: Reach.
User avatar #279 to #275 - thelastelephant ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I dunno. All I know is that Bungie probably would've made Halo 4 far better than what it is now.
#282 to #279 - mcnizzlezz (09/19/2013) [-]
Probably
User avatar #283 to #282 - thelastelephant ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
I know that story-wise Halo was supposed to end at 2, but it was split into 2 and 3. And Bungie did debate developing 4 but settled on Reach instead.

/end rant
#284 to #283 - mcnizzlezz (09/19/2013) [-]
How do you know it was supposed to end at Halo 2/3?
User avatar #288 to #284 - thelastelephant ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Podcasts. Jason Jones originally intended for the series to end at 2, but because of time constraints the story was split in half and extended to 3.
User avatar #142 to #108 - avatarsarefornoobs (09/19/2013) [-]
i thought it was clever, what everyone suddenly hates halo now?
User avatar #196 to #142 - imnotkickthecat (09/19/2013) [-]
its the "DAE think 343 is literally the devil" circle jerk on the internet now.
#143 - lawander **User deleted account** (09/19/2013) [-]
Tell me more about your funny trials
#98 - nextnextnextnext (09/19/2013) [-]
"Sparta and it's citizens are today best known because of movie 300"
User avatar #178 to #98 - yetiyitties (09/19/2013) [-]
It's true. Facepalm about the people who never heard abt Spartans until 300
User avatar #198 to #178 - imnotkickthecat (09/19/2013) [-]
Ima give you a list of places where the average modern day citizen never cared about ancient Sparta before 300.

-Everywhere outside of the Balkans.
User avatar #251 to #198 - hudis ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
We read about Sparta extensively in school in Sweden when I was a kid, before 300 was a thing. The film may have boosted Sparta's popularity but it's not like no one knew who they were before its release.
#100 to #98 - scruffyguy (09/19/2013) [-]
Its not like he's wrong, most people couldn't give two ***** about ancient Sparta until that movie came out.
#102 to #100 - nextnextnextnext (09/19/2013) [-]
we definitely live in different places, man.

Cheers
#4 - stupu (09/19/2013) [-]
You forgot to mention that contrary to the movie, 300 spartans did not attack tens of thousands of persians alone. Instead it was an army of thousands made up of spartans, thespians, and thebians. When the persians outflanked the Greeks, 300 spartans - 400 thebans - and 700 thespians stayed behind and were killed while they covered their comrades retreat.
#210 - girloninternet (09/19/2013) [-]
the amount of spelling errors...give me herpes
User avatar #224 to #210 - richardwidgen (09/19/2013) [-]
are you asking for herpes?
User avatar #225 to #224 - girloninternet (09/19/2013) [-]
do you have any to give?
#233 to #210 - mswisher (09/19/2013) [-]
Gave me AYDS (you shoulda spelled herpes incorrectly... adds to the funny) KEEP IT GOING BOYS AND GIRLS!!!!!!!
User avatar #235 to #233 - girloninternet (09/19/2013) [-]
i spelled it the same way you did :S so either we both spelled it right...or we're both wrong
#156 - crazycowhimself (09/19/2013) [-]
english teacher's FW
english teacher's FW
#148 - Rascal (09/19/2013) [-]
This is almost as inaccurate as the movie 300
User avatar #182 to #148 - yetiyitties (09/19/2013) [-]
But not as entertaining.
User avatar #96 - shinigamigod ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
The right of passage for a boy into manhood in Sparta was to sneak out of their training camp, find a slave and kill them without being spotted.
User avatar #13 - evilsqueakers (09/19/2013) [-]
First, Spartan children were actually forced to leave home before they were teenagers, i think 10-12 years of age. Parents would often leave food around the villages in place they knew their children would look. Most parents didn't want their children to starve. If a family had enough money, they would also leave coins so the children would have be able to buy shelter for the night.

Second, yes spartan women were trained. They were trained so that they were able to fend off the spartan men they didn't want for marriage or a lover. If a woman were to beat a spartan man in battle she was allowed to choose her own husband. The women were also left alone most of the time, hence why they were trained, and were often the caretaker and provider for their families when their husband went to battle.

Third, From what I read about Spartans fighting. They usually were sneaky about it. Usually planning days in advance for a battle. They were silent because they wanted to have they advantage on their opponents. From a few battles I have read they attacked at night on their unsuspecting enemies, cause death and chaos making it harder for the opposing side to fight back.

In other words, Spartans kick ass, take names and showed no mercy.
User avatar #304 - georgiohill (09/19/2013) [-]
nothing about the fact that spartan warriors had to have homosexual experiences as part of their training, full on gay sex
[ 309 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)