Martin Hash.com

Posted: **Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:40 pm**

Their Constitutions were fairly similar but whose do you prefer? They both had a lot of checks and balances on the respective "branches" of power.
Both societies were around for roughly a similar amount of time.

Posted: **Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:50 pm**

Spartans trump Romans on honor. Romans were whores.

Posted: **Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:54 pm**

Okeefenokee wrote:Spartans trump Romans on honor. Romans were whores.

You feel that way even pre "Empire" pre say 3rd Punic War?

Posted: **Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:33 pm**

GloryofGreece wrote:
Okeefenokee wrote:Spartans trump Romans on honor. Romans were whores.
You feel that way even pre "Empire" pre say 3rd Punic War?

I'm not one to dog pile on the Romans. They were beasts. They kicked ass and took names, for a time, but their culture never came close to that of Sparta in terms of honor. Show me the Spartan oligarch who amassed a fortune on the backs of the soldiers without ever having stepped foot on the battlefield that provided that fortune.

For Romans, honor earned on the field was one way to wealth. For the Spartans, it was the only way.

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:58 am**

Okeefenokee wrote:
GloryofGreece wrote:
Okeefenokee wrote:Spartans trump Romans on honor. Romans were whores.
You feel that way even pre "Empire" pre say 3rd Punic War?
I'm not one to dog pile on the Romans. They were beasts. They kicked ass and took names, for a time, but their culture never came close to that of Sparta in terms of honor. Show me the Spartan oligarch who amassed a fortune on the backs of the soldiers without ever having stepped foot on the battlefield that provided that fortune.

For Romans, honor earned on the field was one way to wealth. For the Spartans, it was the only way.

Spartans also were a type of homosexual military cult

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:23 am**

Montesquieu pointed up a big difference in the execution, at least, by Sparta and Rome of their respective constitutions:

The long duration of the republic of Sparta was owing to her having continued in the same extent of territory after all her wars. The sole aim of Sparta was liberty; and the sole advantage of her liberty, glory.

It was the spirit of the Greek republics to be as contented with their territories as with their laws. Athens was first fired with ambition and gave it to Lacedaemon; but it was an ambition rather of commanding a free people than of governing slaves; rather of directing than of breaking the union. All was lost upon the starting up of monarchy--a government whose spirit is more turned to increase of dominion. . . .

. . .

If a republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it be large, it is ruined by an internal imperfection.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... ch8s1.html

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:21 am**

Okeefenokee wrote:Show me the Spartan oligarch who amassed a fortune on the backs of the soldiers without ever having stepped foot on the battlefield that provided that fortune.

For millennia she's been known as Helen of Troy, but she might be more accurately named Queen Helen of Sparta. A careful reading doesn't invest much honor in Long-faced King Menelaus either. And Spartans weren't completely immune to mass surrender. (Just sayin'.)

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:29 am**

Fife wrote:Montesquieu pointed up a big difference in the execution, at least, by Sparta and Rome of their respective constitutions:

The long duration of the republic of Sparta was owing to her having continued in the same extent of territory after all her wars. The sole aim of Sparta was liberty; and the sole advantage of her liberty, glory.

It was the spirit of the Greek republics to be as contented with their territories as with their laws. Athens was first fired with ambition and gave it to Lacedaemon; but it was an ambition rather of commanding a free people than of governing slaves; rather of directing than of breaking the union. All was lost upon the starting up of monarchy--a government whose spirit is more turned to increase of dominion. . . .

. . .

If a republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it be large, it is ruined by an internal imperfection.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... ch8s1.html

Thanks for the link, cool stuff there. I've heard Spirit of the Laws can be a tough read but it seems fairly comprehensible there. The thing is eventually Sparta became an Empire as well.

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:30 am**

Spartans had a constitution that was modeled after Jerry Sandusky's browser history...

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:31 am**

California wrote:
Okeefenokee wrote:
GloryofGreece wrote: You feel that way even pre "Empire" pre say 3rd Punic War?
I'm not one to dog pile on the Romans. They were beasts. They kicked ass and took names, for a time, but their culture never came close to that of Sparta in terms of honor. Show me the Spartan oligarch who amassed a fortune on the backs of the soldiers without ever having stepped foot on the battlefield that provided that fortune.

For Romans, honor earned on the field was one way to wealth. For the Spartans, it was the only way.
Spartans also were a type of homosexual military cult

This is one of the oddest aspects of Spartan life. It just appears so glaringly. Also in a a lot of ways the collective or communal nature of entire Spartan society seem proto communistic.

Martin Hash.com

Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?

Re: Sparta or Rome/ Which Had The Better Constitution?