Spartans Did Not Throw Deformed Babies Away: Researchers

Yahoo News ^ | 12-10-2007

[stripes1776]

I thought it had to do with who lived in cities. If you lived in fixed permanent cities you were civlilized. If you were a tribe of wandering nomads you were barbarians.

Yes, that was one of the meanings. You might want to read post 55.

[Kevmo]

There goes another urban legend, or historical reference legend, or whatever it is.

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts

[Sherman Logan]

The classical world was very different from us in some of its attitudes. One of the things that impressed me most in reading Plutarch was what he considered noble and ignoble.

Noble was a war leader who led his people to pillage, rape and enslavement of the enemy and became rich and powerful in the process.

Ignoble was a guy who ran a business that provided people what they wanted in exchange for their money. Successful businessmen often spent the second half of their lives pretending they had never been in business, and certainly their sons did the same.

IOW, he thought theft, if conducted in a military way, was far more honorable than business. He didn’t argue this point, he just took it for granted as one his audience would agree with, which they did.

[stripes1776]

All or most armies raped & pillaged, but not all gained a reputation about it. How do you think the word got the connotation that's been passed down to us, if all it meant was those who's language sounds like "nonsense"?

Words change meaning over time. That is why they come to have several meanings. The context will usually indicate which meaning is the correct one. But you also have to consider the age, the historical time, in which the word is used. You might want to look at post 55.

Originally our word villain didn't refer to the moral character of a person. It simply indicated a person's birth. A vilein was a person of low birth in the middle ages--a serf who also had the status of a freeman. Today a villain is a wicked person.

The same is true of the word noble. It meant someone of a high birth in the middle ages, like a duke or an earl. It didn't carry a moral meaning. Today we think of someone being noble who is magnanimous, regardless of their social rank or status.

Was it possible for a vilein or serf to commit an act which we today would call noble and magnanimous without referring to his socal rank? Was it possible for a nobleman or aristocrat to commit an act we today would call villainous or brutish? I would say yes to both questions because words change meaning over time.

As for ancient Greeks hurling insults at their enemies, they probably did. I have been know to hurl an insult at someone I loved very much. It's a very easy thing to do.

[GoLightly]

As for Greeks and Romans hurling insults at their enemies, they probably did. But I doubt that using rhetoric to rouse the masses to hatred of the enemy was the primary reason to go to war for those ancients.

It wasn't to rouse the masses to get into war, but to strengthen their support after war was going to be undertaken.

[stripes1776]

The classical world was very different from us in some of its attitudes. One of the things that impressed me most in reading Plutarch was what he considered noble and ignoble.

Yes, I think that is one of the things I like about reading history. I get to enter another age with ideas and sentiments different from my own, and ones that I often disagree with. And yet I find this to be a very rewarding experience. I get to look at the world through someone else's eyes. And when I stop reading and come back to the every-day world of modern life, things seem somehow refreshed. I get to live in a bigger world.

That is why I also like old literature. I know that epic poetry has gone out of fashion a long time ago, but reading the Iliad in Homeric Greek made that ancient world come alive. If it weren't for reading that story, I wouldn't have any interest in the ancient Greeks at all, and I wouldn't be posting to this thread.

[FreedomCalls]

You might want to read post 55.

55 just restates what I said in 51. To a Roman, barbarians were those who were nomadic like the Vandals, Visigoths, and Huns. Anyone living in cities like the Parthians, Carthaginians, and Egyptians were not barbarians even if they were militarily opposed to Rome or did not follow Roman customs.

[Sherman Logan]

Most of what we think we know about Spartan culture and practices was written by their enemies, or at least by people unsympathetic to Sparta.

Oddly enough, many of those Athenians who wrote about the Spartans had great admiration for them in many ways. Xenephon is a good example, but the sentiment was widespread among writers of conservative bent.

Spartans were often viewed as sticking to the old ways while other Greeks, especially the Athenians, had become effeminate and corrupt.

[stripes1776]

To a Roman, barbarians were those who were nomadic like the Vandals, Visigoths, and Huns. Anyone living in cities like the Parthians, Carthaginians, and Egyptians were not barbarians even if they were militarily opposed to Rome or did not follow Roman customs.

Here is the big point: At the time of the Spartans and the battle of Thermopalae, barbarian meant someone who didn't speak Greek, even a Persian who came from a civilized empire. Did the word change meaning over time? Yes, most words do.

[FreedomCalls]

Here is the big point: At the time of the Spartans and the battle of Thermopalae, barbarian meant someone who didn't speak Greek, even a Persian who came from a civilized empire. Did the word change meaning over time? Yes, most words do.

Here is the comment I was replying to:

stripes1776: "As for the Romans, I haven't studied their word for barbarian. I assume it would have to do with the political organization of the opponent."

I haven't commented about the Greek use of the word, just correcting the late Roman usage. I don't know why you keep restating what has already been said.

[Ciexyz]

I’ve read accounts about the Vikings also having this practice. The father would examine the newborn child at birth and then decide its fate.

[GoLightly]

I’ve read accounts about the Vikings also having this practice. The father would examine the newborn child at birth and then decide its fate.

I don't think I've heard that & the first thing that I thought of when you mentioned it was Egil's bones & also Ivar the boneless, along with his brother Sigurd snake in the eye. Physical deformities were something of song & legend, so eliminating indivduals with them at birth would seem to be odd. I'm not saying they didn't or couldn't have, only that it doesn't fit with other things that are known about the Vikings.

[stripes1776]

I haven't commented about the Greek use of the word, just correcting the late Roman usage. I don't know why you keep restating what has already been said.

You say you don't know why I keep repeating what I have already said. From my point of view I don't understand why you want to keep arguing when we agree that the word barbarian changed meaning.

Thank you for supplying a Roman definition for the word barbarian, but that definition is different from the early Greek definition. And if I keep repeating myself, it is because my point isn't about a definition of a particular word but rather about an attitude to old literature. So let me repeat my point: if moderns go to ancient Greek literature with modern definitions of words (perhaps even Roman definitions of words), they will misinterpret what the Greeks (before Alexander) meant. That later definition doesn't help a student to understand the Greek meaning. In fact it is a source of misunderstanding.

Thank you for supplying a definition of the Roman word for barbarian. I can't thank you enough.

[Tribune7]

According to Pitsios, the bones studied to date came from the fifth and sixth centuries BC and come from 46 men, confirming the assertion from ancient sources that the Spartans threw prisoners, traitors or criminals into the pit.

Now, THAT is Spara!