The Spartan ‘mirage’: Everything you think you know about ancient Sparta is wrong

These are some of the questions that historians have been asking for centuries, and they have given rise to the concept of the "Spartan mirage".

This term, coined by the French scholar François Ollier in the 1930s, refers to the idealization of Sparta as a model of virtue, discipline, and simplicity that was projected by ancient writers and adopted by modern ones.

According to Ollier, the Spartan mirage was a distortion of reality that obscured the complexity and diversity of Spartan society. 

But what was the basis of this distortion? And how did it affect our understanding of Sparta?

To answer these questions, we need to examine the sources that inform us about Sparta, and the motives and biases that influenced them. 

One of the main sources for Sparta is Thucydides, the fifth-century BC historian who wrote about the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens.

Thucydides admired Sparta for its stability, order, and resistance to change. He contrasted it with Athens, which he saw as more innovative, democratic, and ambitious, but also more prone to corruption, factionalism, and instability.

Thucydides presented Sparta as a conservative and harmonious society that followed its ancestral laws and customs without question.

He also praised its military system, which trained its citizens from childhood to become loyal and disciplined warriors. 

Another important source is Plutarch, a biographer and moralist who lived in the first and second centuries AD.

Plutarch wrote about the lives of famous Spartans, such as Lycurgus, the legendary lawgiver who established the Spartan constitution; Leonidas, the king who died heroically at Thermopylae; and Agesilaus, the general who led Sparta to victory over Persia.

Plutarch used these examples to illustrate his moral lessons and to inspire his readers to emulate their virtues.

He also depicted Sparta as a utopian society that valued equality, frugality, courage, and patriotism above all else. 

However, both Thucydides and Plutarch had their own agendas and limitations.

Thucydides was an Athenian who had a negative view of democracy and a positive view of oligarchy.

He also had limited access to information about Sparta, since it was a secretive and isolated state that did not welcome outsiders or record its own history.

Plutarch was a Roman who lived centuries after the decline of Sparta. He relied on earlier sources that were often unreliable or contradictory.

He also had a nostalgic and idealistic view of Sparta that reflected his own dissatisfaction with the decadence and turmoil of his own time. 

Therefore, we cannot take their accounts at face value. We need to be aware of their perspectives and purposes, and to compare them with other sources that offer different views or details.

For example, we can look at the writings of Xenophon, a Greek soldier and historian who lived in Sparta for many years and had a firsthand experience of its culture.

We can also look at the archaeological evidence that reveals aspects of Spartan life that were not recorded by literary sources, such as its economy, religion, art, and architecture. 

By doing so, we can discover that Sparta was not as simple or uniform as it seemed.

It was a complex and diverse society that had its own contradictions and challenges.

It was not immune to change or conflict, nor was it always successful or virtuous.

It had its strengths and weaknesses, its achievements and failures, its admirers and enemies. 

Therefore, the Spartan mirage is a useful concept that helps us to question our assumptions and to critically evaluate our sources.

It also reminds us that history is not a fixed or objective reality, but a dynamic and subjective interpretation.

By looking beyond the mirage, we can gain a deeper and richer understanding of Sparta and its legacy.