Kate Narev - 220090979 1

The city of Sparta was essentially socially, politically and culturally

dysfunctional. Discuss.

Introduction
Sparta, unique even among Greek cities of its time, sought to create a utopia of good
order and a military body to surpass all others. To these ends, the city developed social
institutions that saw family ties and individual interests subordinated to the interests of
the state. The drive to create a community of perfect soldiers gave rise to infanticide,
polyandry and institutionalised pederasty. Cultural developments in the arts and
philosophy were considered unimportant in the context of military ambition. While this
would all be judged deeply dysfunctional by modern standards, many elements of
Spartan life were considered acceptable in the Greek world at the time. Further, the
success of Sparta, out of all proportion to its size and population during the classical
period, is evidence that the system was, for a time, admirably functional. Sparta was the
first Greek city to define citizens rights and duties. However, while this created some
stability, it was not enough to counter the main sources of political dysfunction: a highly
fractured structure of authority; a system reliant on the two subservient populations of
perioikoi and helots; and most importantly, the huge number of helots in comparison to a
dwindling number of Spartiates. Aristotle may have been exaggerating when he
compared Spartans to wild beasts, but his concept that the Spartan emphasis on military
was dysfunctional and would ultimately undermine her was eventually shown to be
accurate.

The Basis of Spartan Society

Following the two Messenian wars, Sparta found herself in control of significant land and
wealth, as well as a vast population of helot slaves. It was necessary for her to create a
strong system of order and justice, with a correspondingly strong military force in order
to keep the helots under control and prevent civil unrest over the spoils of war.1 This
concentration on unomia, or good order, lead Thucydides to note that Sparta from the
earliest times has been well-ordered and always avoided tyranny.2 This good order
created an emphasis on the common good which in turn gave rise to shared ideals of
1
Bettany Hughes, The Spartans, episode 1, (video recording), London, 2003.
2
Thucydides 1.18, trans O. Murray, Early Greece, London, 1980, p. 153.
Kate Narev - 220090979 2

communal cooperation and self-sacrifice.3 Plutarch has King Agesilaos stating the lesson
most studied at Sparta, how to rule and be ruled.4 The communal way of life lead to
uniformity, the prioritisation of collective interests, and conformity to accepted standards
of behaviour.5 Such priorities are not, in and of themselves, dysfunctional. Indeed, a
recognition of the common good has the potential to be a positive influence, and
Rousseau saw that positive influence in Sparta.6 The question now to be considered is
whether the Spartans created dysfunction in the way they implemented their militaristic
and communal goals.

Social Dysfunction
The Family
The Spartan system involved the subordination of the individual, his education and his
private life, to the ends of the state.7 The primacy of the needs of the state are evident
even from conception. Plutarch reports that the lawgiver Lycourgos was of a persuasion
that children were not so much the property of their parents as of the whole
commonwealth, and, therefore, would not have his citizens begot by the first-comers, but
by the best men that could be found.8 The need to create an ideal citizen body gave rise
to sexual practices which would be considered dysfunctional by modern standards. For
example, sex between spouses occurred in secret, when the husband could sneak to his
wife without being observed. This was thought to ensure that sex between spouses
occurred when their bodies [were] healthy and vigorous and thus most capable of
creating a healthy and vigorous child.9 Additionally, women were not expected to have
sexual relations exclusively with their husbands. Polyandry was common, and adultery
was encouraged for eugenic purposes.10

3
P. Cartledge 2004, What Have the Spartans Done for Us? Spartas Contribution to Western Civilization,
Greece & Rome Second Series, vol. 51, no. 2, p. 179.
4
Plutarch, Mor. 215D, trans S. Hodkinson 1983, Social Order and the Conflict of Values in Classical
Sparta, Chiron, vol. 13, p. 247.
5
S. Hodkinson 1983, ibid, p. 243.
6
P. Cartledge, op. cit., p. 170.
7
O. Murray, op. cit., p. 154.
8
Plutarch, Lycurgus, trans J. Dryden, in D. Kagan, The Ancient Near East and Greece, Vol. 1, New York,
1975, p. 187.
9
Ibid., p. 186.
10
A. Powell, Athens and Sparta: Constructing Greek Political and Social History from 478 B.C. (1st Ed),
London, 1988, p. 244.
Kate Narev - 220090979 3

By modern western standards these practices might be considered dysfunctional. Indeed,

it is illegal in most Western countries to be married to more than one partner.11 Western
religions almost uniformly consider adultery to be a sin, and the seventh commandment
declares Thou shalt not commit adultery.12 However, these are Western religious mores,
and should not be applied to Sparta without due consideration. In fact, women in the
wider Greek world were commonly considered the property of men.13 This approach in
Sparta is not so far out of the ordinary to be labelled dysfunctional. Where it becomes
dysfunctional, however, is in its coexistence with other freedoms afforded to women in
Sparta. Although Spartan women had no official political role, they had a significant
voice in the community, they were trained in public speaking and athletics, and they
could own and inherit land.14 Aristotle went so far as to call Sparta, unflatteringly, a
gynocratia, or state run by women.15 So when combined with social and economic
freedoms, the treatment of Spartan women as sexual property in the pursuit of eugenics
was dysfunctional.

Upon the birth of a male child in Sparta, the baby would be subject to the scrutiny of the
elders, and if found wanting, brutally euthanized. Plutarch explains:
The father of a newborn baby carried it to a certain place called a meeting-
place (lesche), where the eldest of his fellow-tribesmen sat. They examined
the infant if it was weak and deformed, they sent it off to the so-called Place
of Exposure (Apothetai), a place like a pit by Mount Taygetos, considering it
better for both the child itself and the city that what was not properly formed
with a view to health and strength right from the beginning should not live.16

This infanticide is clearly dysfunctional. Additionally, the decision to kill the children
was made by a committee, and the parents were expected to comply, which reveals the
primacy of the state over the will of the family. This contributes to Powells view that
model Spartans did not love their families; they loved the State.17 The subordination of

11
In Australia this law is found in the Crimes Act, 1958, s64.
12
Exodus, 20.
13
N.H. Demand, A History of Ancient Greece, New York, 1996, p. 132.
14
B. Hughes, The Spartans, episode 2, (video recording), London, 2003.
15
Ibid. See Aristotles comments on Spartan women in Politics, 1269b39-1270a31 (II, ix) trans M. Dillon
& L. Garland, Ancient Greece, Social and Historical Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of
Socrates (c.800-399 BC) (2nd ed), New York, 2000, p. 394.
16
Plutarch, Lykourgos, 16.1-2, trans M. Dillon & L. Garland, ibid, p. 396.
17
A. Powell, op. cit. p. 224.
Kate Narev - 220090979 4

family interests in such a finite and violent way is unique to Sparta, and is dysfunctional
in its opposition to natural human bonds.

The devaluation of the family continued throughout the life of the child. Boys were
removed from their family home at the age of 7, to join an agoge and be trained in
military arts.18 Thereafter, a males connection with his male peers became paramount.
Boys of 12 were paired with an older erastes, a man who took on the roles of parent,
teacher and mentor, but also lover.19 Such pederasty is considered dysfunctional in
modern western societies, but in ancient Greece it was well known in places such as
Boeotia and Eleia.20 Furthermore, it was praised in Sparta as an excellent means by which
boys could be educated.21 It was also considered vital to the success of the military that
boys formed close bonds with their fellow soldiers. The strength of the hoplite phalanx
relied on the close bonds of hoplites willing to die for one another.22 So although Spartan
pederasty would be considered dysfunctional in our context, at the time it was not
unusual and it served a functional purpose.

Family bonds continued to be weakened through other Spartan social structures. Age
classes, and shared barrack life until the age of thirty continued to reinforce community
ties over family ties.23 Men continued to take their meals in the syssition, or common
dining mess, and this unified men but drew attention away from the family.24 Such
dereliction of the family unit may strike modern observers as dysfunctional. However, in
Sparta, the family was supplanted by the male training unit and mess hall. This had the
important function of reinforcing male bonds, so that the military unit worked with
cohesion, and with reliance on a soldiers ability to value the lives of his unit. It has also
been argued that by reducing family allegiances, the Spartan system minimised a

18
S. Hodkinson, op. cit.
19
Xenophon, Constitution of the Spartans, trans D. Kagan, op. cit., p. 196.
20
Xenopohon, Constitution of the Spartans, 2.12-14, trans M. Dillon & L. Garland, op. cit., p. 427.
21
Ibid.
22
B. Hughes, op. cit.
23
S. Hodkinson, op. cit., p. 246
24
A. Powell, op. cit., p. 222.
Kate Narev - 220090979 5

potential source of conflicting loyalties. 25 This functioned effectively to unite the

Spartan community under the common cause.

Slavery
The Spartan system was heavily reliant on the slave class of helots. Unlike the chattel
slaves seen elsewhere in Greece, helots were public slaves, and had some limited rights.26
It was the helots who farmed the land, and they were obliged to give half of the product
to the homoioi, or free Spartan citizens.27 Tyrtaeus writes that the helots were treated just
like donkeys oppressed with great burdens, and Plutarch agrees that the Spartiates
treated the helots harshly and brutally.28This freed the homoioi from the need to produce
food or wealth, and thereby made them available to devote all their time to military
pursuits.29 In that sense it was an effective system.

However, there was dysfunction associated with Spartan helotage. Firstly, although
slavery was accepted in ancient Greece, those slaves were generally foreigners, whereas
helots shared a language and a culture with their Spartiate masters.30 Enslavement of a
brother race was considered unusual and thereby dysfunctional. Secondly, Spartiates
were significantly outnumbered by the helot underclass.31 Aristotle indicates that by
371BCE, and the end of Spartan primacy, Sparta could not field even 1000 citizen
soldiers, in spite of having land to support many more.32 This is a significant drop in
numbers from the 5000 hoplites who fought against the Persian army at Plataea in
479BCE.33 In a slave system where the slaves grossly outnumber the masters, dysfunction
is perhaps inevitable. At least twice during the Persian war, the Persians sought to use the
helots against their masters. There was also a serious helot uprising after the earthquake

25
M.I. Finley, Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages, 1970, London, p. 114.
26
For example, helots had a right to keep some of the produce they farmed, maintain family relationships
and live in their own cohesive groups. Ibid., p. 100.
27
N. Birgalis, Helotage and Spartan Social Organization, Sparta, Beyond the Mirage, Powell, A &
Hodkinson, S. (eds), Swansea, 2002, p. 257.
28
Tyrtaeus, 6,7 (Pausanias ICV.14.4-5), and Plutarch, Lykourgos, 28.8-12, trans M.Dillon & L. Garland, op.
cit., pp. 343-344.
29
P. Cartledge, op. cit., p. 162.
30
B. Hughes, episode 1, op. cit.
31
A. Powell, op. cit., p. 248
32
Ibid., p. 242.
33
M.I. Finley, op. cit., p. 109.
Kate Narev - 220090979 6

of 464BCE.34 This numerical imbalance, and the threat of helot revolt, evoked a violent
response from the Spartiates.

Cognisant of the need to keep the vast helot population subdued, so that their labour
could support the military, the Spartiates instituted brutal controls. First among these was
the krypteia, or secret service. Under this system, promising boys from the agoge were
given state sanction to hunt down and murder any helots they found.35 Additionally,
Aristotle says specifically that the ephors, when they first took up office, would declare
war on the helots, so that killing them would not involve ritual pollution.36 Ephors were
elected annually, meaning that once a year the killing of helots was legally endorsed.
Further, Thucydides outlines the massacre of 2000 helots who had previously served
Sparta in war.37 This kind of violence is clearly dysfunctional, yet it was justified by the
Spartans on the grounds that it served a socially useful aim: the terrorisation of the helot
population.38 In that sense, while amoral, the violent repression of helots functioned to
keep the social system secure.

Perhaps the fear of helots played another part in sustaining the Spartan system. Demand
suggests that Spartiates were so anxious to keep the helots under control, that they were
keen to avoid a split in their own ranks.39 This served to unify other elements of society,
and avoid tyranny. Or perhaps, in spite of the evidence of occasional revolts, the helots
didnt have plans to overthrow the Spartans at all. It has been suggested that the
Spartiates would not have allowed their numbers to dwindle if helot revolt was a real
threat, and that the political and social stability of Sparta would not have been possible if
the threat was serious.40

34
H. Michell, Sparta, London, 1952, p. 83.
35
Plutarch, Lykourgos, 28.1-7 (Aristotle F538), trans M.Dillon & L. Garland, op. cit., p. 345.
36
Ibid.
37
Thucydides IV.80.25, trans M. Dillon & L. Garland, ibid., p. 344.
38
O. Murray, op. cit., p. 171.
39
N.H. Demand, op. cit., p. 126.
40
N. Birgalis, op. cit., p. 259.
Kate Narev - 220090979 7

Morality
It has already been seen that Spartans habitually engaged in behaviour which would be
considered morally repugnant in any modern context. Unhealthy babies were killed,
helots were the subject of state-sponsored terrorism, and men encouraged their wives to
have sex with other men. Other aspects of Spartan life also suggest social dysfunction.
For example, boys were encouraged to steal. If they were caught, the boys would be
punished, not for stealing, but for failing to steal successfully. Plutarch tells the story of
one boy who had stolen a fox cub and had it hidden under his cloak, for he endured
having his stomach lacerated by the beasts claws and teeth, and died rather than be
detected.41 This training for theft was supported by the traditional competition staged at
the shrine of Artemis Orthia. Here boys competed to steal cheeses from the altar, while
being beaten by older boys, sometimes to death.42 However, this custom was not
considered so aberrant in its time, and was in fact observed by tourists from throughout
the Greek world.43 The violence involved in a Spartan education led to comment by
Aristotle and by Plato, who observed that Spartans were educated not by persuasion but
by violence.44 While violence against children seems dysfunctional now, it was more
common in classical times, and was used by the Spartans in pursuit of their primary goal:
the creation of flawless soldiers.

Equality
An argument in favour of Sparta being a functional state is found in its prized equality.
Citizen children were schooled together, irrespective of their background.45 Dining
groups included citizens from a range of backgrounds, and all ate the same, simple food.46
They were also expected to contribute to the mess in the same amounts.47 Furthermore,
the rich assimilated to the common people by wearing simple clothes.48 The citizens of
Sparta were each granted an equal allotment of land (kleroi), and they were even known

41
Plutarch, lycourgos, 18.1, trans M. Dillon & L. Garland, op. cit., p. 169.
42
O. Murray, op. cit.
43
W.G. Forrest, A History of Sparta, London, 1968, p. 18.
44
A. Powell, op. cit., p. 230.
45
Ibid., p. 226.
46
Ibid., p. 246.
47
S. Hodkinson, op. cit., p. 252
48
A. J. Holladay, 1977, Spartan Austerity, Classical Quarterly, vol. 27, p. 125.
Kate Narev - 220090979 8

as homoioi, meaning equals.49 Lykourgos is said to have ordained that only iron should
be used as currency, and that it should be so heavy and cumbersome that a yoke of oxen
would be necessary to transport even a small sum.50 Plutach credits Lykourgos with
making this decision in order to remove completely any inequality and diversity.51

Yet this famed equality was unreal.52 There is evidence that inequalities persisted
throughout Spartan society. There were always differences in wealth, for example, partly
because land was privately owned and could be inherited.53 The best evidence of this are
the records of Spartans such as Damaratus and Arcesilaus entering teams in the Olympic
chariot races, the paramount sign of outstanding wealth among aristocratic Greeks.54
The rich also gained prestige by giving extra food to the syssition.55 The army was full of
inequalities, as it was a stratified force with its own elite, based largely, but not wholly on
military ability.56 Inequality exists in most cultures, and there is nothing prima facie
dysfunctional about that. However, when combined with the insistent rhetoric of equality,
such as it is in the case of Sparta, the situation can be dysfunctional.

There were also those excluded from the ranks of the homoioi. Those who failed any of
the tests through boyhood or adulthood became permanent outsiders, subject to lifelong
public humiliation.57 Men were required to be elected to a syssition, and to contribute
food regularly, as well as a small amount of cash.58 If they were not elected, or if they
were unable to continue making contributions, they dropped out of the ranks of the
homoioi, and were henceforth denied the benefits of citizenship.59 This became a
particular problem in the 5th and 4th centuries, as more Spartans lost their wealth.60 It
reveals an element of dysfunction in a society which boasts of equality for its citizens, yet

49
W. G. Forrest, op. cit., pp. 50-51.
50
H. Michell, 1947, The Iron Money of Sparta, Phoenix, Vol 1., Supplement, p. 42.
51
Plutarch, Lykourgos, 9.1-5 trans M. Dillon & L. Garland, op. cit., p. 172-173.
52
W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 51.
53
O. Murray, op. cit., p. 168.
54
M. I. Finley, op. cit., p. 116.
55
S. Hodkinson, op. cit., p. 254.
56
Ibid., p. 256.
57
P. Cartledge, op. cit., p. 173.
58
H. Michell, 1947, op. cit. p. 43.
59
S. Hodkinson, op. cit., p. 252.
60
Ibid.
Kate Narev - 220090979 9

set difficult benchmarks for the retention of citizenship. The costs of a dwindling citizen
body have been discussed above, in relation to the helot population.

Political Dysfunction
The political system of Sparta is said to have been laid down by the lawgiver Lycourgos,
although it is unclear whether he was real or a mythical figure.61 The earliest evidence of
the Spartan constitution is the Great Rhetra, quoted by Plutarch as an oracle given by the
Delphic Apollo to Lycourgos.62 The Rhetra recognises three elements of the Spartan
constitution as being the kings, the council of elders (gerousia), and the assembly of
citizens (demos). The Rhetra does not, however, mention the ephors, a fourth important
element of Spartan political life.63 Although this system is admirable in many ways, and
was the first of its kind to be implemented, it did become dysfunctional.

The structure of authority was such that decision-making power was shared between the
different bodies of the state. This diffusion of authority made consensus very difficult,
and as a result it was hard for the Spartan leadership to take decisive action.64 Inability to
act is indicative in this case of political dysfunction. The fragmentation of authority in
Sparta also meant that no single individual could control all sources of power.65 This
might generally be considered positive, certainly by any political system based on the
Roman model. However, in Sparta it created a problem. It meant that if an individual
arose who, by his ambition and character was able to gain prestige, he may be able to
influence policy-making and divert the usual system of consensus.66 Such individuals, for
example Lysander, were regarded as a threat to the Spartan constitution, and were treated
harshly.

The system of kingship was also dysfunctional in the context of the broader Spartan
social environment. There were two Spartan kings at any time, said to be the descendants
61
A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants, London, 1956, p. 67.
62
V. Ehrenberg, From Solon to Socrates: Greek History and Civilization during the 6th and 5th Centuries
BC, London, 1973, p. 33.
63
M. I. Finley, op. cit., p. 113.
64
S. Hodkinson, op. cit., p. 278.
65
Ibid., p. 279.
66
Ibid.
Kate Narev - 220090979 10

of Heracles.67 The hereditary nature of kingship in Sparta is in direct opposition to the

Spartan social structures which minimise the role of the family. Family ties were also
seen to be important in the gerousia, as positions were generally given to senior members
of a small number of wealthy families.68 In the ephorate, too, the demos tended to elect
the wealthy and well-born.69 The observation of family connections in all three of these
bodies is in conflict with the ethics of a society putting community before family, and
thereby creates dysfunction.

The kings were subject to supervision by the ephors, an annually elected body of five
men. The ephors could even suspend a kings rule if an examination of the skies was
found to support such a move.70 The ephors gradually gained power, until they came to
compete with the traditional role of the kings.71 In one sense this was a valuable balance
of power, however, the use of discretion by the ephors increased to such an extent that
they have been labelled tyrants.72 This is ironic, given Spartas proud dissociation from
the tyrants of other Greek cities, but is also evidence of dysfunction.

There was another group within Spartan society, politically disenfranchised, yet populous
and important to the success of the community: the perioikoi or people living around.73
Perioikoi lived in autonomous communities throughout Laconia. They were free men, but
were subject to Spartan policy, and obligated to fight in Spartas army if called upon.74 It
has long been assumed that the perioikoi devoted themselves to industry, crafts and trade,
as well as the production of weaponry, although that view has recently been challenged.75
With trade, the perioikoi craftsmen and traders gained wealth. This created a problem, as
the perioikoi were getting richer than the Spartiates, and a revolutionary atmosphere

67
Plutarch, Lykurgus, trans J. Dryden in D.Kagan, op. cit., p. 181.
68
P. A. Rahe, 1980, The Selection of Ephors at Sparta, Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, vol. 29,
no. 4, p. 387.
69
Ibid., p. 386.
70
M. I. Finley, op. cit. p. 115; O. Murray, op. cit.
71
V. Ehrenberg, op. cit., p. 43.
72
A. Powell, op. cit., p. 237.
73
V. Ehrenberg, op. cit., p. 31.sd
74
M.I. Finley, op. cit., pp. 109-110.
75
R.T. Ridley, 1974, The Economic Activities of the Perioikoi, Mnemosyne, vol. 27, fasc. 3, p. 283.
Kate Narev - 220090979 11

started to develop.76 Basing their success on helots and perioikoi created political and
economic inequalities which threatened Spartas stability. The smooth running of the
military system was reliant on the majority of the population, who were mistreated, or at
least not afforded the rights of citizens. This dysfunction threatened the stability of the
state.

Cultural Dysfunction
It has been opined that by the middle of the sixth century BCE, Spartan culture began to
decline.77 This is partly based on evidence from the altar of Artemis Orthia, which reveals
that offerings lacked luxury products from this time onwards.78Additionally, there is no
evidence of great philosophers, artists, or imported poetry or pottery from this period.79
As there is no economic explanation for this new austerity, it has been regarded as the
result of a political decision, which forbade luxuries in order to support the strict
discipline of the military community.80 Aristotle certainly assumed this was the case,
criticising the Spartans for devoting themselves entirely to the arts of war at the cost of
developing the arts of peace.81 If Aristotle was correct, then Sparta might well be labelled
culturally dysfunctional.

Recent thought, however, considers Spartan austerity a myth.82 Indeed, Spartan clothing
had a reputation as being exceedingly fine. Kritias wrote that the smallest details of their
daily life (are fine) Laconian shoes are the best, their cloaks are the pleasantest, and
most convenient to wear.83 We also know that Spartans had songs and dances and
festivals, which suggest a rich cultural life.84 Birgalis explains the ancient reflections on
Spartan austerity as a rumour propagated by Athenians to explain why they lost the

76
J.V.A Fine, The Ancient Greeks: A critical history, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 98 & 100.
77
O. Murray, op. cit., p. 166.
78
A.J. Holladay, op. cit., p. 117.
79
Ibid. B. Hughes, episode 1, op. cit.
80
A.J. Holladay, ibid., p. 116
81
M.I. Finley, op. cit., pp. 114-115.
82
N. Birgalis, op. cit., p. 250.
83
Kritias, Athen XI, 283, trans R.T. Ridley, op. cit., p. 291.
84
M. Dillon, Archaic and Classical Sparta, Greece (c. 800-323 BC), University of New England, School of
Humanities, Armidale, 2013, p. 5.
Kate Narev - 220090979 12

Peloponnesian War.85 But the austerity which would have suggested cultural dysfunction
may not in fact have been as widespread as originally thought.

There are two further aspects of Spartan culture which may reflect dysfunction. Firstly,
Spartas deliberate isolationism meant that she did not move on with the political or
artistic developments of other Greek cities at the time.86 Secondly, Spartas focus on
conformity made her slow to institute change.87 Sparta saw her culture as being of ancient
origin, and therefore static.88 By committing to her program of military perfection, Sparta
made an enemy of change.89 The inability to change also made Sparta incapable of
adapting to the world around her, particularly after the Persian Wars. Her commitment to
her constitution at all costs eventually led to the highest cost. As Forrest writes, Changes
were needed but, pickled in self-satisfaction, the Spartans would not move.90

Conclusion
Many aspects of ancient Sparta appear dysfunctional when assessed by modern Western
standards. The strictures and violence of their education system, their approach to women
as property and child-bearing machines, and their minimisation of family ties seem
dysfunctional, but were not particularly unusual for their time. On the other hand, the
murder of infants and helots was clearly dysfunctional, as was the Spartan commitment to
tradition at the cost of change. Ultimately, it was Spartas commitment to her strict way
of life that was her downfall.

85
N. Birgalis, op. cit.
86
A. J. Holladay, op. cit., p. 120.
87
S. Hodkinson, op. cit., p. 248.
88
A. Powell, op. cit., p. 217.
89
B. Hughes, The Spartans, episode 3, (video recording), London, 2003.
90
W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 153.
Kate Narev - 220090979 13

Bibliography
Andrewes, A. 1956, The Greek Tyrants, Hutchinson, London.

Birgalis, N. 2002, Helotage and Spartan Social Organization, Sparta, Beyond the
Mirage, Powell, A & Hodkinson, S. (eds), Classical Press of Wales, Swansea, pp. 249-
266.

Cartledge, P. 2004, What Have the Spartans Done for Us? Spartas Contribution to
Western Civilization, Greece & Rome Second Series, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 164-179.

Demand, N. H. 1996, A History of Ancient Greece, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Dillon, M 2013, Archaic and Classical Sparta, Greece (c. 800-323 BC), University of
New England, School of Humanities, Armidale, NSW.

Dillon, M & Garland, L. 2000, Ancient Greece, Social and Historical Documents from
Archaic Times to the Death of Socrates (c.800-399 BC) (2nd ed), Routledge, New York.

Ehrenberg, V. 1973, From Solon to Socrates: Greek History and Civilization during the
6th and 5th Centuries BC, 1973, Methuen, London.

Fine, J.V.A. 1983, The Ancient Greeks: A critical history, Belknap Press, Cambridge,
Mass.

Finley, M.I. 1970, Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages, Chatto & Windus,
London.

Forrest, W.G. 1968, A History of Sparta, Duckworth, London.

Hodkinson, S 1983, Social Order and the Conflict of Values in Classical Sparta, Chiron,
vol. 13, pp. 239-281.

Holladay, A.J. 1977, Spartan Austerity, Classical Quarterly, vol. 27, pp. 111-126.

Kagan, D 1975, The Ancient Near East and Greece, Vol. 1, Macmillan Publishing, New
York.

Michell, H. A1952, Sparta, Cambridge University Press, London.

Michell, H. 1947, The Iron Money of Sparta, Phoenix, Vol 1., Supplement, pp. 42-44.

Murray, O. 1980, Early Greece, Fontana Press, London.

Powell, A. 1988, Athens and Sparta: Constructing Greek Political and Social History
from 478 B.C. (1st Ed), Routledge, London.
Kate Narev - 220090979 14

Rahe, P.A. 1980, The Selection of Ephors at Sparta, Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte
Geschichte, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 385-401.

Ridley, R.T. 1974, The Economic Activities of the Perioikoi, Mnemosyne, vol. 27, fasc.
3, pp. 281-292.

The Spartans 2003, television program, Channel 4, London, November 23.