Cloaking ability

Originally posted by Penguin
StarLight: The Greeks definitely didn't have an army numbering 100,000 at the Battle of Platea. I don't know how many helots the Spartans had but there's 1 problem in your reasoning concerning the helots. They're slaves. The Spartans used the helots to do all the non-military work. And by that I mean ANY form of work NOT pertaining to the military. The Spartans were the only Greeks with helots & the reason they had helots was so that they could spend ALL their time training for war.
Click to expand...

ah..."the ephors took the warning...and...deispatched a force of 5000 spartans troops, eahc man attended by SEVEN helots." herodotus the histories

that would make 8 times 5000 = 40 000 already...helots not fighting??? how the heck do you think there where "the inferiors??? they were freed helots! the inferiors consisted of partheniai - illegitemate children, mothoces - adopted helot children, tresantes - spartan cowards and NEADAMODES - helots, who for some courageious act of or service to the state were given freedom

rmember that some where freed from slavery, and that time where there was a war where the helots fought WITH the spartans and there were so many to free that it is believed they attended some ceremony and soon were never heard of again...the helots where used to fight...

one role of the helots was to as as a servant to spartan soldeirs during war and they also acted as light armed skirmishes in battle...


so...in otherwords, i think ur wrong, no offense
 
Err... keep in mind that while he is considered the first historian, Herodotus was not a proper historian. His work contains more than a grain of fiction :). Certainly, most - if not all - of his numerical estimates are wrong.

I have no idea where you got the concept of Helots fighting alongside Spartans. The Spartans did not arm their slaves. They were harsh, militiaristic, et cetera, but they were not stupid.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Err... keep in mind that while he is considered the first historian, Herodotus was not a proper historian. His work contains more than a grain of fiction :). Certainly, most - if not all - of his numerical estimates are wrong.

I have no idea where you got the concept of Helots fighting alongside Spartans. The Spartans did not arm their slaves. They were harsh, militiaristic, et cetera, but they were not stupid.
Click to expand...

it is believed that while herodotus may have exagerated quite much the persian force in the second invasion with Xerxes at the head, he has given quite accurate numbers for plataea...120 000 is much more realistic than 5 000 000

whilst learning about the class structures of the spartans, we were told that one of the roles of the helots was to fight...a very minor one as it does make sense if they were LIGHTLY armoured and were only for skirmishes...remember there weren't that many spartiates and if they were to take battle they would need as many people as possible, that's why the perioeci were made to fight, in addition as well as the helots...

and IF they DIDN'T arm the helots, how would they get freed then? and can you give an answer to that of thuycdides account of the helots who had been singled out for bravery...how would the helots prove their "bravery" unless they had fought in a war WITH the spartans...if they fought against, they would have been killed...so they must have fought with the spartans with "bravery"
 
Originally posted by Penguin
Stuff like Mark Hamill acting in both is probably a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I always thought that it's cool for him to be the hero of the two best sci-fi universes! Yeah, I know everyone has different opinions, don't start on me.

Can't believe that I didn't notice having Aaron Allston involved in both adds to the connection.
 
**it is believed that while herodotus may have exagerated quite much the persian force in the second invasion with Xerxes at the head, he has given quite accurate numbers for plataea...120 000 is much more realistic than 5 000 000**
They can believe what they want, but if he exaggerated the second invasion, then he probably exaggerated the first one too.

**remember there weren't that many spartiates and if they were to take battle they would need as many people as possible**
You forget one crucial point. If the Spartans armed the Helots, they wouldn't even have to leave their homes to find battle.

**and IF they DIDN'T arm the helots, how would they get freed then?**
Freed? Freed? Why would they get freed? :)

**and can you give an answer to that of thuycdides account of the helots who had been singled out for bravery...**
Well, Thucydides is more accurate than Herodotus, granted, but I'm still sceptical. I've read quite a few history books, and I've never seen a mention of armed slaves fighting alongside their masters.
Of course, one must keep in mind that there are always exceptions to the rule, so I suppose a few Helots might have been allowed to fight... though what would be the point?
 
StarLight: "120 000 is much more realistic than 5 000 000."
These 2 numbers refer to separate Persian forces - 5,000,000 was an estimate of the original Persian army in 480 BC. 120,000 is the force that was left in Greece after the Persian defeat at Salamis.
"and IF they DIDN'T arm the helots, how would they get freed then?"
The point of a slave is cheap labor - you don't get slaves so you can free them.
"ah..."the ephors took the warning...and...deispatched a force of 5000 spartans troops, eahc man attended by SEVEN helots." herodotus the histories"
OK let's see if I understand this - 7 slaves for every Spartan. Add the fact thay they're now armed. Hmmmm. Does the word INSURRECTION jump to mind? Think about it this way. If they're slaves they probably don't like their Spartan masters. So why not mount a rebellion, overthrow the Spartans then make peace with the Persians? Lots of Greeks had already surrendered to the Persians & their cities didn't get sacked contrasted with the cities of those Greeks that chose to resist.
"and can you give an answer to that of thuycdides account of the helots who had been singled out for bravery..."
I believe that Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian Wars - he hadn't yet been born at the time of the Persian Wars.
 
Err... wasn't the Peloponnesian War *after* the Persian Wars? Or am I confused? That is the one with Athens vs. Sparta, n'est-ce pas?
 
StarLight: Having just consulted some history books I'm forced to retract my previous insistence that the Greeks didn't have an army of 100,000 men at Plateau. They did. The book does not state the exact composition of the force but it does mention that the force was commanded by the Spartans.
Yes you were right but I'm still sceptical about the helots. Can you please supply some quotes backing this, preferably from someone other than Herodotus.

Quarto: The Persian Wars was a series of military campaigns occurring on & off from 499-448 BC.
The Peloponnesian War lasted from 431-404 BC. It broke out due to Spartan fears of the Athenian expansionist policy & was spurred by Athens' only confidence. Thucydides lived from 455-396 BC - pretty much after all the major campaigns in Greece had ended. He'd have been in his prime during the Peloponnesian War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top