¹ cf. most recently. Cartledge, P. A.. Sparta and Lakonia (1979), 317Google Scholar.

² If the proportion of Spartiates to non-Spartiates in the λóχοι at First Mantinea was the same as that amongst the captives from Sphacteria, i.e. 120 to 172 (Thuc. 4.38 5), there were about 147; Spartiates in the λóχοι to which must be added the sixth sent home (Thuc. 5. 64. 3) and the 300 hippeis (ibid. ch. 72. 4) and certain officers etc., so that there were about 2,100 in all. If proportionately more Spartiates were killed on Sphactena than non-Spartiates. and if the Proportion of Spartiatcs to non-Spartiates had been in fact the same as in 479 B.C., a figure approaching 2,500 results. Cf. Busolt, , Hermes (1905). 403 ff.Google Scholar

³ Toynbee's, views were first stated in JHS 33 (1913), 246–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar and restated in Some Problems of Greek History (1969). 365–417. They conditioned , Wade-Gery's discussion in Essays in Greek History. 71 ff.Google Scholar

⁴ cf. Busolt, art cit. 418.

⁵ Andrewes, A., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides iv. 112Google Scholar. like many others (e.g. Forrest, W. G. History of Sparta. 132)Google Scholar. takes the contrary view. His presumption is that Thucydides' calculation at 5. 68. 3 was intended to account for every Lacedaemonian on the field of battle but he admits that the ‘few Lacedaemonians’ on the right wing (ch. 67. 1) were not included and debates whether the 300 hippeis of 72. 4 were included. Cf.Busolt-Swoboda, . Griechische Slaatskunde. 710Google Scholar.

⁶ 700 originally accompanied Brasidas (Thuc. 4. 80. 5). The number of the origin Neodamodeis. first met at Thuc. 5. 34. 1. is beyond conjecture. If there were troops of this class in the force that Ischagoras was to take out in 423 (Thuc. 4. 132. 2) or in the force that went in 422 (Thuc. 5. 12. 1), they may have been quite numerous (cf. 5. 31. 4, 49. 1). But Thucydides probably had not the necessary information to calculate their number in 418 B.C.

⁷ Herodotus would have it thought that the Spartans were waiting for the Isthmus wall to be more nearly completed (9. 7. 1), and the celebration of the Hyacinthia was only a pretext. But as Xen. Hell. 4. 5. 11 makes clear, if they had gone out earlier, the Amyclaeans would have returned. So the Spartans had to wait until the festival was ended to order out the army, which went out quickly and waited in Arcadia for the Perioecs, just as in 386 Agesilaus marched to Tegea and summoned the Perioecs thither (Xen. Hell. 5. 1. 33), at a time when it is sure that there was no separate brigading (pace Beloch, , Klio 6 [1906], 63 f.Google Scholar, who rejects the evidence of Isoc. 12. 271).

⁸ In Ch. 29 he speaks of the Ʃπαρτιατικ⋯ τ⋯ξις and then of οἱ Λακεδαιμóνιοι The word τ⋯ξις seems to be rather loosely used by Herodotus (cf. 6. 3. 3, 9. 31. 2, where it seems to be equivalent to ‘rank’), and here he uses the word as a means of marking the variation in the number of light-armed attached to the two types of Spartan hoplite. In his account of the battle itself there is no trace of different formations of Spartiates and non-Spartiates.

⁹ Busolt, , art. cit. 423Google Scholar. For the practice of always having the best troops in the front, cf. Asclepiodotus 3. 5, 6, and 10.14 (the Laconian counter-march). The famous single line at Dipaea (Isoc. 6. 99) should not be taken to mean that there was literally a single rank of Spartans facing the Arcadians; no matter how valorous the warriors, victory for such a formation would have been impossible in a hoplite battle. What Isocrates refers to presumably is that there were only enough Spartiates available to fill the front rank.

Fatal casualties on the field of battle were light and confined to those who withstood the first shock, but there may have been ample wounded amongst the non-Spartiates. (The cenotaph of the Aeginetans at Plataea about which Herodotus was scornful (9. 85. 3) may have been set up to commemorate men who later died of their wounds.) For the vulnerability of hoplites, cf. , Xen. Anab. 3. 4. 30, 32Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ad. Thuc. 5. 68. 3, written before the publication of Toynbee, Some Problems.

¹¹ , Plut. Pel. 17Google Scholar, Diod. 15. 32. 1.

¹² cf. , Forrest, op. cit. 132Google Scholar.

¹³ For the term, cf. Wade-Gery, , Essays, 83 n. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Toynbee, Some Problems, frequently speaks of the ‘Inferiors’ as Spartiates; cf. 310, 343, 346 n. 2. Since, in the one passage where the term is used (, Xen. Hell. 3. 3. 5 ff.Google Scholar), they are plainly treated as not being Spartiates, it is hard to see why.

¹⁵ Also discussed by Toynbee, , Some Problems, 400Google Scholar.

¹⁶ He makes clear that it is earlier than 424 B.C. (cf. κα⋯ τóτε, 4. 80. 5), but is not precise. Ἐν τ&ogr;ῖ&sfgr; π&ogr;λ⋯μ&ogr;ι&sfgr; (§3) suggests the troubled period, 480–460 B.C.

¹⁷ cf. Bolte, , PW III A. 2, cols. 1283 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For instance in Book 8, Thucydides describes seven persons new to the History as Spartiate, in addition to the four he names as nauarchs; then four are described as ‘Lacedaemonian’, one as ‘Lacon’; ten lack any designation. Four Spartans receive patronymics, nineteen none. On two occasions he names two Spartans, one with patronymic, one without.

¹⁸ cf. Wade-Gery, , art. cit. 76Google Scholar.

²⁰ See the table in Pritchett, W. K., Ancient Greek Military Practices I (Berkeley, 1971)Google Scholar; republished as The Greek State at War I (Berkeley, 1974), 135Google Scholar.

²¹ cf. their development of a corps d'élite (Thuc. 5. 67. 2, 81. 2; Diod. 12. 79. 4; Paus. 2. 20. 2).

²² , Andrewes, op. cit. 126Google Scholar, states that 5. 74. 1 ‘clearly demands that exceptional numbers of troops were engaged’, but Thucydides constantly (and curiously) resorts to superlatives and he may mean no more than that the battle was very great in the sense that it was of very great importance.

²³ , Toynbee, Some Problems, 349 f.Google Scholar, unwisely follows Ziehen, L., ‘Das spartanische Bevölkerungsproblem’, Hermes 68 (1933), 231 f.Google Scholar, in taking Diodorus’ figure of 20,000 casualties (11. 63) literally, but clearly the earthquake had very serious demographic effects, to judge by Sparta's reaction to events on Sphacteria (cf. also n. 9 for the shortage of Spartiates at the battle of Dipaea).

²⁴ The Athenians built a fort in Laconia opposite Cythera in 413, which they had to abandon after the Sicilian disaster but which was intended as a haven for deserting Laconian Helots (Thuc. 7. 26. 2, 8. 4). , Xenophon (Hell. 4. 8. 8Google Scholar) records the occupation of Cythera and the installation of an Athenian as harmost in 393 B.C.; the fact that Xenophon makes no mention of unrest and desertions on the mainland proves nothing. The only record of desertion in the Hellenica concerns Corcyra (6. 2. 15), but it was a fact of Greek life which Xenophon saw no reason to mention or else preferred not to mention.

²⁵ , Cartledge op. cit. 47–56Google Scholar has a useful collection of evidence.

²⁶ Diodorus 15. 65. 6 alludes to the ‘recent freeing’ of the Helots and gives the figure of 1000, but, if that is the figure he actually wrote and if it is correct, the argument is not basically affected.

²⁷ Thuc. 2. 56. 6, 3. 16. 2, 4. 56. 2, 7. 18. 3, 26. 2. Cf. Hampl, F., ‘Die lakedämonischen Periöken’, Hermes 72 (1937), 24Google Scholar.

²⁸ Thuc. 1. 18, , PlatoLaws 712dGoogle Scholar, , Arist. Pol. 1294b 14 ff.Google Scholar, Polyb. 6. 10. 6–11.

²⁹ The various appearances of the Neodamodeis are listed by, Toynbee, Some Problems, 380 n. 1Google Scholar. For fuller discussion, see Ehrenberg, V., PW XVl. 2, cols. 2396–2401Google Scholar. Cf. Willetts, R. F., ‘The Neodamodeis’, CPh 49 (1959), 27–32Google Scholar. It is to be noted that the one thousand Neodamodeis of , Xen. Hell. 3. 1. 4Google Scholar are referred to in Diod. 14. 36. 1 as πολῖται, and that Pausanias the Regent is said by Thucydides (1. 132. 4) to. have offered the Helots ⋯λευθ⋯ρωσίν τε…κα⋯ πολιτείαν. Hampl, F., art. cit. 26 f.Google Scholar, argues that the Neodamodeis were Helots promoted to the same status as Perioecs.

³⁰ The class of freedman called δεσποσιονα⋯ται mentioned by Myron F 1, to judge by the name, probably came into existence as Sparta concerned herself more with the sea, another instance of promotion to meet the needs of the Peloponnesian War.

³¹ The reading of one manuscript, τ⋯ν Εἱλώτων ⋯ν⋯ δουλε⋯ειν, at Isoc. 4. Il l is normally preferred and reference to Lysander is presumed (cf. Bommelaer, J.-F., Lysandre de Sparte [1981], 38Google Scholar); in which case it is notable that Isocrates finds such a role for a Helot conceivable. But the right reading may be ⋯νίοις, and provide confirmation of the statement in the Theban speech quoted in the text.

³² There is no explicit evidence that Eteonicus was a Spartiate, save Pausanias 10.9.9 f., which may be doubted; Pausanias may simply have presumed that the subordinates of Lysander at Aegospotami were both Spartiates, though §10 suggests that the inscriptions on the statues at Delphi described them simply as Λακεδαιμóνιοι Thucydides (8. 23) refrained from social designation. At Hell. 1. 1. 32 Xenophon describes him as ⋯ Λ⋯κων ⋯ρμοστ⋯ς. If he was not a Spartiate, he had a very striking career, for which see Poralla, , Prosopographie der Lak, 53Google Scholar. (Xenophon's use of Λ⋯κων is an uncertain guide. Chirisophus is Λ⋯κων at Anab. 2. 1. 5, 6. 1. 32; Λακεδαιμóνιος at Anab. 1. 4. 3 – cf. Diod. 14. 27. 1; Anab. 4. 6. 14 makes it probable if not certain that he was a Spartiate.) Charminus and Polynicus (Anab. 7. 6. 1, 7, 39) may not have been Spartiates. , Busolt, Gr. Ges. 3. 2. 1532 n.Google Scholar, may not have been right to presume that Pasippidas (, Xen. Hell. 1. 1. 32Google Scholar) was nauarch, which would require that he was Spartiate.

³³ FGH 81 F 43.

³⁴ Conveniently set out by D. Lotze on p. 426 f. of his article ‘Μóθακες’, Historia 11 (1962)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Callicratidas and Lysander were certainly, as nauarchs, Spartiates, Gylippus probably (Thucydides never says as much, but it is probably Gylippus to whom he refers at 7. 58. 3, and not Ekkritos, the Spartiate commander of 7. 19. 3; cf. 6. 91. 4, 93. 2, 7. 2. 1). But that does not reflect on whether they were promoted μóθακες Nothing is known of the youth of Callicratidas, but the discrediting of Gylippus' father (, Plut. Per. 22Google Scholar) may have down-graded the son, and Lysander is explicitly stated to have been ‘brought up in poverty’ (, Plut. Lys. 2)Google Scholar. Bommelaer, J.-F., op. cit. 36–8Google Scholar, for no good reason rejects the evidence of Phylarchus.

³⁶ cf. Ehrenberg, , PW VII A. 1, cols. 675 f.Google Scholar

³⁷ cf. the law of Critias (, Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 31Google Scholar) and , Xenophon's criticism of sophistic education (Cyneg. 13)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Wüst, F. R., ‘Laconica’, Klio 37 (1959), 53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, unconvincingly argued that the treatise belonged to the period of Cleomenes III, but I follow Chrimes, K. M. T., The Respublica Lacedaemoniorum ascribed to Xenophon (1948)Google Scholar, in rejecting Xenophon as the author. Ch. 14 appears t o have been written in the 390s, to which the remark about those wanting t o be continually abroad as harmosts seems more appropriate than later, and indeed in 395/4 B.C., a year to which the statement that ‘now many are summoning each other to prevent them (sc. the Spartans) getting empire again (π⋯λιν)’ seems especially suitable, the danger in that year being that Sparta might set up decarchies again. It is most unlikely that at the very time that Xenophon was with admiring eyes serving under Agesilaus in Asia and before he had experience of Spartans in Sparta, he would have written such a chapter. (Cf. Chrimes, 24–8 for other strong arguments.) If Ch. 14, as it seems to be, is a (misplaced) postscript, the treatise must have been written at a time when it was even less likely that Xenophon was in a position to describe so fully the Spartan system. (The date of 387 suggested by Delebecque, E., Essai sur la vie de Xénophon, 194–9Google Scholar, is, to my mind, wholly unsatisfactory.)

³⁹ e.g. by Bommelaer, J.-F., op. cit. 231Google Scholar. Contra, Cartledge, P. A., op. cit. 316Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ cf. , Plut. Lye. 30Google Scholar.

⁴¹ cf. Posidonius ap. Ath. 6. 233 f–234a (= FGH 87 F 48).

⁴² Hdt. 3. 148, 5. 51, 6. 72. 2; Thuc. 2. 21. 1, 5. 16. 3; Diod. 13. 106. 10; , Ephorus (FGH 70)Google Scholar F 193.

⁴³ cf. , Plut. Lye. 21. 2Google Scholar, Tyrtaeus 11. 14. The sole survivor of the Battle of the Champions, who had been left in victorious possession of the field, committed suicide, rather than return to Sparta alone (Hdt. 1. 82. 8).

⁴⁴ The last clause of the first sentence of , Xen. Hell. 5.3.9Google Scholar is to be taken with all three categories.

⁴⁵ Agesilaus in 378 B.C., with five ‘divisions’ of the Spartans, had a larger army under his command than the presumably full force army of Nemea (Diod. 15. 32. 1, , Xen. Hell. 4. 2. 16Google Scholar, though it should be noted that Xenophon omitted to count in the Tegeans who took part in the battle).

⁴⁶ There is no formal conflict between , Xen. Hell. 5. 2. 21 ff.Google Scholar (of 382 B.C.) and Diod. 15. 31. 2 (of 378 B.C), but Xenophon may have misremembered the date of the institution.

⁴⁷ None of the bits of evidence about dress or hair distinguish between Spartiates and non-Spartiates; cf. Hdt. 1. 82. 8, [, Xen.] RL II. 3Google Scholar, Arist. frag. 499. Thucydides surprisingly was not exact about the number of Spartiates captured on Sphacteria (4. 38. 5) as he would have been if their dress and hair had been distinctive; he did not deal in round numbers for the total. There may have been some distinguishing marks, but not so obvious as hair and dress, to judge by [, Xen.] RL 11. 6Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ cf. W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War II, Ch. 11.

⁴⁹ cf. , Xen. Hell. 7. 5. 19Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Note the use of trenches and palisades (, Xen. Hell. 5. 4. 38Google Scholar).

⁵¹ Diod. 15. 37. 1 is the merest notice, , Plut. Pel. 17Google Scholar very imprecise.

⁵² cf. CQ n.s. 22 (1972), 260–2Google Scholar.