Sparta’s resurgence in Israel
It keeps returning in the Israeli public debate over and over again: Sparta. In fact, the discussion centers around “super-Sparta,” the comment made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year. It caused an immediate reaction, with markets responding negatively, pundits criticizing the rhetoric, and even a protest featuring Israelis wearing togas smeared with red paint to voice their discontent – someone should have told them that Spartans wore tunics, loincloths, and red cloaks, but not togas, though. However, if Sparta is to be used as a reference, then it is useful to look at what the ancient Greek city-state actually was.
The image of Thermopylae
Throughout the ages, Spartans have been admired and revered for their status as elite warriors. The most obvious example that continues to be referred to is the heroism of King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans who valiantly tried to resist a much larger Persian invasion force at the Battle of Thermopylae. They were defeated on the third day, when all of them perished. The appeal of this event is the Spartans’ honor, courage, fearlessness, and self-sacrifice. They were willing to lay down their lives to preserve Greek freedom. It has been the focus of praise in poetry and film. But the Spartans were not the only ones present.
On the third and final day Leonidas did not fight alone, as he was joined by Thespians and Thebans who fought and perished alongside of him, as explained by historian Andrew Bayliss in his recent book Sparta. And while Sparta did fight to preserve Greek autonomy and was considered the leader of the campaign by most Greeks, it was a monarchy with aristocratic and democratic elements, which made quite a lot of use of slave labor.
Spartan society in a nutshell
The Spartan constitution was seen as a balance of several political systems. As Donald Kagan explained in his book The Peloponnesian War, Sparta was ruled by a dual monarchy, that was supplemented by the gerousia, which was a council comprised of 28 men over the age of 60, who hailed from a small group of privileged families. This council sat with the kings in the highest court of the land, where kings could be charged – and several of them were. The democratic element was the assembly, where you would find male citizens over the age of 30. However, Kagan argued that the assembly had very limited power. Finally, the ephors held considerable power, a group of magistrates who were elected by Spartan citizens annually.
Spartans referred to themselves as homoioi or “similars.” Boys were taken into the agoge from the age of seven which, as explained by historian Paul Cartledge in his book The Spartans, was a system of education, training, and socialization that would turn boys into fighting men whose reputation for discipline, courage, and skill was unmatched. Upon reaching adulthood, they would have to apply for one of the communal messes, as Spartan citizens ate together – though, kings could choose their dinner companions and dine separately. If a Spartan was a member of a mess, that meant that each month foodstuffs needed to be contributed. Modern scholars argue that each member would need to have at least 15 hectares of land to sustain those contributions, as Spartan male citizens were not allowed to engage in trade or any other profession. In essence, that meant that each Spartan citizen was rich. Thus, while the gentlemen owned plenty of property and could perfect the art of war – as they were expected to – and engage in such other activities as sports – Sparta delivered quite a number of Olympic champions – and raising horses, women were surprisingly free, too.
What is interesting about the Israeli debate is that quite a number of critics pointed towards ancient Athens as the model to follow. However, while Sparta is usually reduced to the heroism of Thermopylae, Athens is mentioned favorably by pointing towards Solon’s laws and the creation of democracy. Indeed, such values as democracy, freedom, and individualism are cherished and lead to Athens being praised, understandably. However, in the Greek world, women were by and large considered inferior to men in a physical and mental sense. Therefore, it was judged that women should be subordinate to men both in the public and private spheres. The famous Athenian philosopher Aristotle was known to have a very low opinion of women. So, in the case of Athens, girls in general received smaller rations than their brothers; upon reaching puberty, their fathers or male guardians would sequester them in the house, until they were married off; they received no education, except how to do domestic chores; their husbands would try to keep them out of the public eye as much as possible; and Athenian women had no official say in politics, nor were they allowed to own any significant property.
The story was very different for Spartan women. They received a public formal education, dressed in revealing tunics – which earned them the epithet “thigh-flashers” – engaged in sports, such as running, wrestling, and jumping, and were known by other Greeks to tell their men what to do – unheard of at the time. Indeed, Spartan women were very outspoken and Cartledge argued that reliable evidence showed that they could read and maybe even write. In addition, Spartan women could and did own considerable property, including land. Bayliss adds that Spartan women apparently did not have to engage in domestic maintenance as was expected of other Greek women. However, some nuance is necessary here, too. Spartan women were not to be found on the battlefield, as that was a male affair. A Spartan marriage ceremony was initiated by a rape, which Cartledge argued was purely symbolic and ritualized, though the symbolism did show the potential for masculine violence and violation. Moreover, Spartan men could “lend” their wives to unmarried men who desired to continue their bloodline. Cartledge argued that Spartan women seemed to welcome this practice, as it enabled them to manage more than one household. However, Bayliss argues that it remains unknown if women had any say in this practice – and it clearly showed that men decided if this could be possible or not.
So, Spartan citizens owned plenty of land and were considered rich – though, some Spartans owned much more wealth than others; they were not allowed to engage in any professions; and Spartan women came much closer to gender equality than any of their other Greek counterparts. But who was responsible for harvesting, child-rearing, and trading? This is where the Spartan hierarchy comes into play.
Below the Spartans stood the Greeks who lived in their vicinity, the so-called perioikoi. They were allowed to trade and provided Sparta with the materials it needed. Indeed, Bayliss argues that they probably brought in the tin and iron Sparta needed to forge the bronze armor and weaponry for their warriors. These Greeks were free, but could not determine their own foreign policy and were bound to follow the Spartans in war.
But the most important workforce consisted of the helots – slaves. They needed to farm the land and were used in domestic chores and even child-rearing. Now, slavery was of course common in the Greek world, but most slaves were foreign and in Athens there were many citizens who could not afford them. Helots, however, were fellow Greeks – Laconian and Messenian – and each Spartan citizen owned several of them. While helots could be freed through manumission – as happened to helots who fought in the Peloponnesian War, the so-called neodamodeis – it was quite clear that the number of slaves eclipsed the number of Spartans. In fact, the last Greeks to be enslaved by Sparta, the Messenians, would revolt on several occasions. Sparta was perfectly aware that its slaves could instantly rebel against them, which is why the ephors declared war on the helots every year.
A model for Israel?
These examples do not do justice to Spartan history, as there is much more that has been uncovered by modern scholars, yet it shows the difficulties of using this particular analogy. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Sparta as a model, it was in the context of Israel’s growing isolation. He was clearly referring to arms and used the example of “super-Sparta” to boost the expansion of the domestic defense industry. In general, the idea holds merit as local production could lower costs if economies of scale can be realized. But when Netanyahu spoke of an economy with “autarkic features” that made it more problematic. Self-sufficiency has clear limitations, which already appear when you look at the M16, the standard rifle used by the IDF. That weapon alone is forged out of several raw materials, such as iron and bauxite, which Israel would have to import, should it decide to produce a similar domestic alternative. Also, in the case of Sparta, it has already been mentioned that it needed to import the materials for its own weaponry. And while Sparta was self-sufficient in terms of food, Israel is, in fact, a net importer of food, as was shown by a study last year.
When it comes to the Spartan political system it was very different from Israeli democracy. As mentioned before, Sparta was ruled by monarchs such as Leonidas, Cleomenes, Pausanias, and Agesilaus. It constructed a hierarchy, where the percentage that called themselves citizens or homoioi constituted only a fraction of the people that lived within the territory that Sparta ruled. And while some affectionately refer to Netanyahu as “King Bibi,” the modern state of Israel, of course, does not have any monarchs.
In terms of women’s rights, Sparta comes much closer to Israeli society than Athens. But even in this case, some nuance must be applied, as the dual kingship, the gerousia and the assembly were populated by men. Ancient Spartans would probably be surprised if they saw the number of female politicians in Israel, both as government ministers, as well as in parliament. Moreover, I imagine that they would be shocked if they saw Israeli women serving in the IDF, from tank crews to the infantry of the Carracal Battalion.
In the end, the best example Sparta can offer was the heroism of Thermopylae. Indeed, that bravery, that willingness to self-sacrifice clearly came to the fore on October 7th, from soldiers rushing to the Gaza border from all across the country, to the courage shown by the members of alert squads who tried to defend their communities. But, perhaps, Sparta can offer other knowledge. For that, it might be useful to look at Sparta’s fall from power.
A short-lived hegemony
During the Persian invasion, Sparta fought for more than its own interests, it fought for the Greek mainland. It was then that Sparta was respected as the leader of the other Greek city-states, with even Athens accepting its role. But Sparta would do much to damage that reputation by its own actions.
It won the Peloponnesian War by enlisting the financial backing of Persia; it would later embark on a war of liberation for the Greeks of Asia Minor who were still ruled by Persia, yet would finally betray them as it negotiated a peace agreement with the latter, the so-called King’s Peace; and while that agreement stated that all Greek city-states were autonomous – which served Spartan interests, as it prevented Athens from building another empire – Sparta would end up violating that principle itself. When its commander Phoebidas occupied the Cadmea – Thebes’ acropolis – Sparta sanctioned him, but would maintain a garrison there; and when another commander, Sphodrias, decided to take initiative and hatched a plan to seize the Athenian harbor of Piraeus – which was exposed prematurely – Spartan corruption allowed Sphodrias to go unpunished. All of this led many Greeks to see Sparta in a different light. The supposed defender of Greek freedom, was showing that it cared about Spartan interests, first and foremost. In the end, the Battle of Leuctra and the subsequent Theban invasion which led to Messenia regaining its freedom, effectively broke the reputation of Spartan military prowess as well as the economic backbone of much of its wealth. It would never recover its former status.
But even during the Theban invasion, Sparta could still count on allies such as Corinth and Pellene coming to its aid. Sparta, in fact, was never truly isolated, as it was the leader of the Peloponnesian League and forged ties with Persia when it suited its interests. As for Israel, it would be erroneous to overstate its solitude in the world. Granted, there has been serious political fallout over the past three years, but India kept supplying Israel with munitions during the war; the Abraham Accords have held steady, while ties with the United Arab Emirates have deepened even further; Israeli defense exports have continued, with companies selling air defense systems to countries, such as Germany and Finland; and cooperation with Greece and Cyprus has intensified as well. Despite serious challenges, it must be reiterated that Israel is not isolated.
Our versions of Sparta
Ancient Greek history remains interesting. The diversity, the culture, the politics complete with its intrigues, the geopolitics of the era, and the physical remnants that can be observed to this day. But while it continues to be interesting to debate the history of Sparta, it becomes problematic when it is used as a model. The same goes for ancient Athens. Whether it is a 2006 Hollywood blockbuster called 300 that borders on fantasy or conjuring up an image of a “super-Sparta,” it reduces hundreds of years of history to the image we like to use. It does little justice to the topic of Spartan history itself.
Yet, the success of Spartans’ creating an image of fearless warriors – who, in fact, were capable of surrendering as they did to Athens in Sphacteria during the Peloponnesian War – continues to outlive them. That reputation has affected Jewish history as well, for instance when in the third century BC the High Priest of Jerusalem tried to enlist Spartan support against the Seleucid King Antiochus, by claiming that Jews and Spartans shared common ancestry – for which there is no evidence, as explained by Cartledge. Yitzhak Tabenkin, one of the founding fathers of the Kibbutz movement, was influenced by Spartan society. And now, Sparta continues to enter Israeli public debate.
Whatever happens, we will probably keep debating Sparta and using it as a reference in the future. From admiration to vilification, from praise to scorn, Sparta will remain part of our world – and that, perhaps, might be the greatest success of this relatively short-lived ancient superpower.
