The conflict that forged a state. The Spartan conquest of Messinia

To understand what motivated this unique and differentiated development of rest of poles Greek, we must analyze the process of formation of the State and the definition of its political system, which took place between the 8th and 6th centuries[1]. And specifically some events that definitively marked the development of this process:the Messenian wars (see The Messenian Wars in Ancient and Medieval No. 14:Sparta).

The approach to the Messenian wars is certainly complex, both due to the scarcity of sources and the open bias of the few that we have. Among them, only the Spartan poet Tyrteo he is contemporary to the conflict, although his verses have come down to us in fragmentary form, some very interesting and illustrative poems are preserved. The rest of the authors who allude to the conflict are much later and are also clearly contaminated by later idealized reconstructions. In any case, we must highlight Pausanias, who gives us a complete account of the wars, influenced in his case by the Messenian vision developed after the independence of the territory in 371. For all these reasons, it is always necessary to have archaeology, which in this case helps us adjust chronologies and give greater historicity to the mythologized story of the sources.

Modern historiography has also debated the Messenian wars at length. Although we will not dwell too much on these debates, it is worth mentioning that in their general conception there are two visions. On the one hand, the traditional, and currently majority, which affirms that there were two Messenian wars, as described by Pausanias , which occurred between the end of the 8th century and the second half of the 7th. On the other, the so-called "Riano hypothesis" that defends the existence of a single war, after which there would be some conflicts and rebellions. Even being clear about the existence of a certain debate, in the narration of this essay we will follow the traditional vision.

As already mentioned, the outbreak of the conflict occurs at the end of the 8th century. Throughout it, Sparta experienced its process of synoikismos [2] with the union of its five traditional villages (Pitana, Cinosura, Mesoa, Limnas and Amiclas) in the middle of the century. From that moment on, its territorial expansion began in the Laconia region throughout the second half of the s. VIII, a process that can be known through the story of Pausanias compared to the archaeological data that show us the foundation of a series of settlements by Sparta throughout the territory. In this way, at the end of the century it is already possible to speak clearly of the existence of an organized State, which until now follows a process not very different from that of the rest of the poleis Greek.

For its part, Messenia It experienced a process of demographic increase between the 10th and 8th centuries, with evidence of population concentration in areas such as the Pamiso Valley or the slopes of Mount Ítome. Modern historiography has debated whether Messenia was on the brink of beginning its process of synoikismos , which would have led to the formation of a polis . Despite the debates about whether or not this would have happened, the truth is that there is no evidence that a process of synoikismos had begun to take place in the territory. at the time when the first of the Messenian wars broke out.

It is assumed by most of the current historiography that the first conflict broke out in 736 and lasted until 716. With the Messenian war, Sparta undertook its first large-scale company as a State, preparing a military expedition outside the limits of the Laconian territory, crossing Mount Taygetus and entering the region of Messenia. The main motivation that the Spartan state had to face such an effort was none other than its internal social conflict. As in other poleis , the lack of land, whether due to scarcity or concentration of ownership, was becoming a serious problem. Although in most of Greece this was addressed through the process of colonization, Sparta, due to its strong continental character and its military experience resulting from the conquest of Laconia, decided to solve this lack through the conquest of the fertile region of Messinia.

Once Sparta crossed Taygetus, she established her base of operations at Anfea , from where he directed the process of conquest. Given this, the different Messenian communities would have met and organized resistance. Reconstructing their work is really complicated, since our most prolific source, Pausanias, speaks to us as if there were already institutions and magistracies common to all Messenians, something that has already been discarded as an idealized reconstruction. Most likely, the attitude of the different communities was diverse, some resisting the conquest, others agreeing with Sparta or simply staying out of the conflict.

The war would have developed, mainly, through a process of Spartan occupation and looting against a Messenian defense based on harassment during most of the conflict. With the exception of the final phase, in which the Messenian resistance on Mount Ítome is mentioned in the face of the numerous Spartan attempts to assault the place, something that they would finally achieve, thus obtaining the surrender. After the defeat, the Messenian elites moved to other poleis , while the rest of the population returned to occupy the territory. Only three conditions imposed on the defeated communities are mentioned:1) the requirement not to rebel, 2) the delivery of half of their crops and 3) attendance at the funerals of the kings.

Despite her victory, Sparta failed to end her social conflicts . To such an extent that he sees the need to undertake the foundation of a colony, Taras, where he sends a population group that the sources mention as especially conflictive. The fact that these internal problems continued in Sparta has led to reflection on the real scope of the conquest of Messenia in that first war. Neither could the entire territory be controlled, nor was land ownership taken care of, at least on a large scale, since the truth is that there were no distributions of land that could solve the internal instability.

This fragile situation led, during the second half of the 7th century, to the Messenian communities trying toget rid of Spartan rule , rebelling with the support of Argives and Arcadians, enemies of Sparta after having had past clashes over border issues. Most likely, most of the conflict took place in a similar way to the first of the Messenian wars, with Sparta occupying territory and the Messenians harassing her troops. Although we can find an important difference, because now the Spartan army had adopted the phalanx formation and the hoplite panoply. This was very useful in the clashes in the open field, within which we would have to highlight the battle of the Great Trench, one of those narrated by the sources to which we can attribute the most historicity, in which the Spartans violated a severe defeat the Messenians.

In any case, the Messenian harassment during the approximately 17 years that the conflict lasted seriously intensified the tensions within Sparta, something that is seen in the verses of Tyrtaeus, in which the Spartans are exhorted to respect civic values ​​and to fight relentlessly until they defeat the Messenians. Finally Sparta managed to win and settle, this time yes, her power in Messenia, reducing the population to collective slavery (Hilotism), distributing it throughout the territory and dividing the land into lots, which would be assigned to the Spartan citizens. Thus ended the period of strong social tensions.

Although the Spartan political and institutional system is usually attributed to the mythical Lycurgus legislator, the truth is that this framework was built progressively over a long period, approximately from the VIII to VI, influenced in a very notable way by its process of territorial expansion and, especially, by the conquest of Messenia. The Spartan elite was transforming and transforming the polis as a result of the enormous social conflicts that he experienced and being aware that the hylotization of the Messenians was going to be a constant danger , a danger they assumed in order to perpetuate a system of exploitation that was especially beneficial to them. Thus was born a society and a state prepared to maintain this system of exploitation, creating for this a powerful hoplite army as effective in repressing within as capable of defending and asserting Sparta's interests abroad (see Sparta, a society for war in Ancient and Medieval No. 14:Sparta).

Bibliography

Fonts

• Description of Greece III-IV . Madrid:Gredos, 1994 (Translation and notes:María de la Cruz Herrero Ingelo).
• Greek Elegiacs . Madrid:Gredos, 2012 (Translation and notes:Emilio Suárez de la Torre).

Monographs and articles

• CAVANAGH, William G., GALLOU, Chrysanthi &GEORGIADIS, Mercourios (eds.). Sparta and Lakonia. From Prehistory to Pre-modern . London:British School at Athens Studies, 2009.
• DOMÍNGUEZ MONEDERO, Adolfo J. The polis and the Greek colonial expansion. 8th-6th centuries . Madrid:Synthesis, 2001.
• FORNIS, Cesar. The history, the cosmos and the legend of the ancient Spartans . Seville:Editorial University of Seville, 2016.
• FORNIS, Cesar. “Between epic and history:the Spartan conquest of Messenia”,University Magazine of Military History 6 , 11, 2017, 157-171.
• LURAGHI, Nino. The ancient Messianians. Constructions of ethnicity and memory . New York:Cambridge University Press, 2008.
• NAFISSI, Massimo. “Sparta” in Fornis, César (ed.) Myth and archeology in the birth of the legendary cities of Antiquity . Seville:Secretariat for Publications of the University of Seville, 2012.
• PLÁCIDO SUÁREZ, Domingo. “The proto-cities of Messenia”, Studia Historica. Ancient History 20 , 2002, 65-73.
• RODRIGUEZ ALCOCER, María del Mar. “The cults of Ártemis Limnatis and Ártemis Cariatis in the Messenian wars of the archaic period”, Arys 11 , 2013, 125-144.