# Spartan Training



## MaxKaladin

I'm trying to set up a group on my world that has a training program for their youth similar to the brutal conditions under which the Spartans raised their children. 

Assuming someone had basically been through having all "defective" children killed at birth and 14 years of Boot Camp from ages 7 to 21...

* Would you give them any kind of bonuses and penalties to stats?
* Any other special abilities?
* What class would they be? Prestige class, fighter and/or warrior NPC class?
* What level do you think they would be?
* Assuming some of their number were seperated out about halfway through to be trained as clerics, wizards or sorcerers, how would that change your answers to those questions? 

Thanks!


----------



## Ace

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I'm trying to set up a group on my world that has a training program for their youth similar to the brutal conditions under which the Spartans raised their children.
> 
> Assuming someone had basically been through having all "defective" children killed at birth and 14 years of Boot Camp from ages 7 to 21...
> 
> * Would you give them any kind of bonuses and penalties to stats?
> * Any other special abilities?
> * What class would they be? Prestige class, fighter and/or warrior NPC class?
> * What level do you think they would be?
> * Assuming some of their number were seperated out about halfway through to be trained as clerics, wizards or sorcerers, how would that change your answers to those questions?
> 
> Thanks!




The quick way to show the difference between a Spartan army and a regular one is to treat all of the Spartans as Fighters with 4d6 drop 1 stats. TReat regular joes as Warriors using average dice (+1 or 2 for prime stats)

As for the Wizards et all, well that depends on the -- highly stressed Wizards might be less effective than non stressed ones. Probably the easier solution is to make the surviving Wizards (and many would die in training) high level than normal; for their age. 

The Trojans (FREX) might have say a bunch of 3-5 level mages average age 20 something. The Spartan warcasters would be 6 level with a level or 2 of maybe Warcaster or some cool PRC


----------



## MaxKaladin

Ace said:
			
		

> The quick way to show the difference between a Spartan army and a regular one is to treat all of the Spartans as Fighters with 4d6 drop 1 stats. TReat regular joes as Warriors using average dice (+1 or 2 for prime stats)
> 
> As for the Wizards et all, well that depends on the -- highly stressed Wizards might be less effective than non stressed ones. Probably the easier solution is to make the surviving Wizards (and many would die in training) high level than normal; for their age.
> 
> The Trojans (FREX) might have say a bunch of 3-5 level mages average age 20 something. The Spartan warcasters would be 6 level with a level or 2 of maybe Warcaster or some cool PRC




Well, I imagine the surviving wizards would be very good under stress having grown up with so much of it and surviving.  I can see them being higher level and/or having a couple of levels of some more militant class/prestige class due to their very, um, focused childhood and adolescence.  Perhaps the warrior NPC class or a level of Rogue or two...

I suppose a different dice rolling method would be better to represent their training than a set of stat bonuses and penalties, though I can see those applying as well.

Thanks


----------



## the Jester

Since only the cream of the crop survives, roll their stats best 3 of 5d6.


----------



## hong

"The only traditions of the Spartan army are rum, sodomy and the lash." -- probably not Winston Churchill


----------



## Nifft

hong said:
			
		

> "The only traditions of the Spartan army are rum, sodomy and the lash." -- probably not Winston Churchill




Greeks had Rum?!?

 -- N


----------



## hong

Nifft said:
			
		

> Greeks had Rum?!?





"The only traditions of the Spartan army are olive oil, sodomy and the lash." -- still probably not Winston Churchill


Hong "not to mention fetta cheese" Ooi


----------



## Nifft

hong said:
			
		

> "The only traditions of the Spartan army are olive oil, sodomy and the lash." -- still probably not Winston Churchill




Presumably in that order.

 -- N, ducking and running


----------



## hong

Nifft said:
			
		

> Presumably in that order.
> 
> -- N, ducking and running



 Boom-tish!

We'll be here all week, folks.


Hong "try the olive oil, I hear it's delicious" Ooi


----------



## Eolin

Wine!

The greeks had wine, and spartans drank it with every meal. While they didn't get drunk like the athenians, it was one of the few indulgences.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

I'd be tempted to simulate this either by creating a subrace or creating some regional feats for Sparta.

If a subrace: +2 con, -2 cha
They're tough from their training but don't tend to relate to people as well outside of the strict discipline of their society.

No human bonus feat, no bonus skill points. Spartan upbringing doesn't engender the flexibility and curiousity of most human upbringings.

Stability: +4 to resist trip attacks. Resisting a shield charge is an important element in Spartan training.

Weapon Familiarity: Spartan longspear (EWP: 1-handed longspear)
Racial Proficiencies: Tower Shield, longspear, shortspear, trident, shortsword
Skill bonusses: +2 concentration, +2 to all skill checks involving extended exertion (swimming, climbing, etc).
Saving throw bonus: +2 fort saves against subdual damage from forced marches, cold, fatigue, or exhaustion, +2 against mind effecting effects.
Human Blood: Magical effects treat Spartans as humans.

For a simpler solution, you could create a couple regional feats that all Spartans take:
Spartan Weapons Training: Tower Shield proficiency, shortsword, spear, longspear, trident, javalin proficiency.
Spartan Endurance: 1/2 strength endurance, +2 to saves against mind effecting effects.

You could represent the murder of "defective children" by placing a lower cap on stats. Any character with less than an 8 in any stat is killed--reroll them if rolling; if using point buy, you're set. For NPCs, simply use the non-elite statblock for all NPCs that would normally get the 11-10-11-10-11-10 statblock and give all of them at least one fighter level.

For clerics and wizards from such a culture, I would suggest that they all multiclass with fighter to represent early training before their special gifts manifested. Spellsword and Eldritch Knight will be much more common than single-classed wizards. Similarly, Warpriests, etc will be more common than single-classed clerics. Alternatively, you could give them the Spartan Training feats and focus their studies on battle magic. Perhaps all Spartan clerics take the war domain and all spartan Wizards specialize in Evocation of Transmutation, eschewing either Illusion, Enchantment, or Necromancy.



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I'm trying to set up a group on my world that has a training program for their youth similar to the brutal conditions under which the Spartans raised their children.
> 
> Assuming someone had basically been through having all "defective" children killed at birth and 14 years of Boot Camp from ages 7 to 21...
> 
> * Would you give them any kind of bonuses and penalties to stats?
> * Any other special abilities?
> * What class would they be? Prestige class, fighter and/or warrior NPC class?
> * What level do you think they would be?
> * Assuming some of their number were seperated out about halfway through to be trained as clerics, wizards or sorcerers, how would that change your answers to those questions?
> 
> Thanks!


----------



## Kahuna Burger

the Jester said:
			
		

> Since only the cream of the crop survives, roll their stats best 3 of 5d6.




Bad idea, unless you meant that to only apply to the str and con stats. Only the physical cream of the crop survives. The brightest, and wisest will likely be dead. 

I would take the normal spread for a city. Then kill off everyone with a con under 12. Yes, this will give you a smaller population, the spartans didn't have big numbers, they had tough cookies. Next make everyone with a str or con less than 13 a commoner. No level advancement to speak of. Out of what remains, give them all twice the xp for their age you normally would and fighter levels. Pick the feats that simulate a group fighting style and give everyone identical feats. 

Spellcasters should be rare. By the law of averages, you've likely killed off the ones who could have advanced far in infancy or childhood, or at best relegated them to commoner status. If there are folks in your main army with a CHA of 13 or better, give tham a few sorcerer ranks, or possibly bard. 

What you will have is a small but formidable group of specialists. They will be soldiers, and very good at it, but they will fight the one way they were taught and not have a lot of magical backup. They may or may not triumph against a force which uses its whole population and finds the roles each individual is suited for. Thats life.

If you wanted to update the idea of the spartans to include the value of magic, and fit it into the D&D gender balance in one fell swoop, I would put the women through a similarly intense clerical/sorcerer training process. Still remove anyone with a con under 10, but relegate those with both wis and cha under 13 to commoner status. Give the rest 1 1/2 XP from average and cleric or sorc ranks. Probably strength and war domains across the board. Stick with the idea of specialists who fight one way and do it well. 

Thats the way I'd do it, but I'm not as enamored of the legend of the spartans as many and would play up their weaknesses as well as strengths.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

While I agree that rolling 3x 5d6 for each stat would be a poor way of simulating Spartan characteristics, your assertion that the brightest and wisest will most likely be dead seems to assume that poor health and weakness correllate to wisdom and intelligence. I don't believe that to be the case. AFAIK, a strong, tough individual is neither more nor less likely to be smart than a weak and scrawny individual. Thus eliminating the weak and unhealthy would not necessarily kill off any more smart people than it would dumb ones. Although the overall population would be smaller, I don't see it as any dumber or more foolish than it would otherwise be.

If one wishes to bring the law of averages and the mathematical distribution of D&D stats into this, there will be no fewer characters with 13 cha and 18 strength than there are with 13 cha and 3 strength. The distribution of one stat has no effect on the distribution of the others so having a high or a low score in one stat neither makes other stats more likely to be high or more likely to be low.

It is true that the odds of a character having every stat above 13 are low, however for a character who already has 13 in one stat, the odds that the other will be 13+ are identical. It's like flipping coins. The odds that a coin will land "heads" eight consecutive times is less than 1%. However, given seven consecutive "heads", the odds that the next flip will result in heads is still 50%.

(And in any event, it's likely that the Spartans also killed those they regarded as feebleminded so any eugenics enthusiasts might be justified in giving them a bonus to mental stats as well).



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Bad idea, unless you meant that to only apply to the str and con stats. Only the physical cream of the crop survives. The brightest, and wisest will likely be dead.
> 
> I would take the normal spread for a city. Then kill off everyone with a con under 12. Yes, this will give you a smaller population, the spartans didn't have big numbers, they had tough cookies. Next make everyone with a str or con less than 13 a commoner. No level advancement to speak of. Out of what remains, give them all twice the xp for their age you normally would and fighter levels. Pick the feats that simulate a group fighting style and give everyone identical feats.
> 
> Spellcasters should be rare. By the law of averages, you've likely killed off the ones who could have advanced far in infancy or childhood, or at best relegated them to commoner status. If there are folks in your main army with a CHA of 13 or better, give tham a few sorcerer ranks, or possibly bard.
> 
> What you will have is a small but formidable group of specialists. They will be soldiers, and very good at it, but they will fight the one way they were taught and not have a lot of magical backup. They may or may not triumph against a force which uses its whole population and finds the roles each individual is suited for. Thats life.
> 
> If you wanted to update the idea of the spartans to include the value of magic, and fit it into the D&D gender balance in one fell swoop, I would put the women through a similarly intense clerical/sorcerer training process. Still remove anyone with a con under 10, but relegate those with both wis and cha under 13 to commoner status. Give the rest 1 1/2 XP from average and cleric or sorc ranks. Probably strength and war domains across the board. Stick with the idea of specialists who fight one way and do it well.
> 
> Thats the way I'd do it, but I'm not as enamored of the legend of the spartans as many and would play up their weaknesses as well as strengths.
> 
> Kahuna burger


----------



## The Lone Badger

I would not give Spartan PCs any bonus. Rather, that's _why_ they have the 16 Con listed on their character sheet and proficiency in all martial weapons. PCs are by definition exceptional people, the Spartan background is just one possible explanation for their exceptionalness.


----------



## MaxKaladin

I'm hardly enamored of the legend of the Spartans.  Just a little while ago, I was telling a friend that they seemed just the sort of brutal barbarians the sadistic neanderthals who ran the PE program when I was in school would have loved to emulate.  

I doubt I'll have many PC's of this group unless they want to do the "I'm leaving my evil and corrupt society" thing.  I'm using the Spartans as a template for a very evil culture in my world and I'm mostly setting up rules for what I'll make NPCs like, though I also want to be ready if I need to do a PC as well. 

I tend to come down on the side of saying that the brightest won't be killed off.  My reading leads me to believe that the killing was confined to infants at birth.  If the kid seemed weak or deformed, it was killed.  Otherwise, it got to grow up to enter training.  I don't think they killed many students (on purpose -- as brutal as their training was, I'm sure there were accidents) during training.  There will be an appropriate percentage of population who are bright, wise, or charismatic enough to get tapped for training as spellcasters instead of fighters.  

As far as stats are concerned, I'm really tempted to only give bonuses or extra dice to strength, dexterity and constitution.  Spartan training did nothing to develop the rest but did a good job of developing people physically.

 Edit: I did consider the idea of a subrace and may do that.  As part of that idea, I considered what someone with Spartan priorities might have done in the way of magically enhancing the "race".  What might they have added and how might it be balanced?  (Probably just an ECL).

I also considered the idea of making sure eveyone had a level of thief and warrior/fighter (the rogue because they expected their kids to steal food to get enough to eat -- it was supposed to develop resourcefulness or something like that).


----------



## Michael Tree

I wouldn't give them any special bonuses for their stats, but I would let them reroll if what they rolled was substandard.

I would also make all characters spend their a 1st level feat on Endurance, and make spellcaster spend a feat on Skill Focus (concentration).


----------



## Corinth

Use the Warrior NPC class.  Give them Phalanx Fighting and Endurance.  Give the unit leader Formation Fighting (from CW; the one that has a BAB +6 requirement and helps others in the user's vicinity to benefit from it).  Go nuts with the breastplate/heavy shield/light weapon set-up; while in formation, base AC is 21+Dex modifier and they have a +1 to Reflex saves.

Now, you'll need some sort of workaround for the spear...


----------



## CCamfield

Corinth said:
			
		

> Now, you'll need some sort of workaround for the spear...




I'd just define a new weapon, probably as:  Hoplite Spear, Martial weapon, 1d8 (M)/x3 Piercing.  One-handed, no reach, range increment 10'.  Or use the Trident stats (1d8 (M)/x2), but change the name.


----------



## Corinth

CCamfield said:
			
		

> I'd just define a new weapon, probably as:  Hoplite Spear, Martial weapon, 1d8 (M)/x3 Piercing.  One-handed, no reach, range increment 10'.  Or use the Trident stats (1d8 (M)/x2), but change the name.



It has to be a one-handed light weapon for it to work with Phalanx Fighting.


----------



## Agback

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I'm hardly enamored of the legend of the Spartans.  Just a little while ago, I was telling a friend that they seemed just the sort of brutal barbarians the sadistic neanderthals who ran the PE program when I was in school would have loved to emulate.




Yes. But a lot of Athenian philosophers who are now considered intellectual giants  wished to emulate it too. Which just goes to show that brutality is not confined to brutes. And remind us that neanderthals had larger brains than you Cro-Magnon lot.



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I tend to come down on the side of saying that the brightest won't be killed off.




Indeed not. The Athenians jeered at Spartan ignorance and stupidity, but probably because the Spartans lacked the background and specific nurture to develop their intellects, rather than because the inherently clever had been selectively killed. The Spartans certain had some canny generals, and ones who were charismatic enough to raise armies from among the locals as they advanced through friendly/neutral territory. Consider the career of Gylippos.



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> My reading leads me to believe that the killing was confined to infants at birth.  If the kid seemed weak or deformed, it was killed.  Otherwise, it got to grow up to enter training.




That seems right, yes.



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I don't think they killed many students (on purpose -- as brutal as their training was, I'm sure there were accidents) during training.




Remember the story about the boy with the fox inside his cloak. And recall that some boys are recorded to have been flogged to death in the festival of Artemis of the Brazen House. Although the Spartans probably didn't purposely kill many boys in training, there was probably s significant mortality.



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> There will be an appropriate percentage of population who are bright, wise, or charismatic enough to get tapped for training as spellcasters instead of fighters.




Consider that these might get a different training: just as austere, but perhaps not as _physically_ strenuous.



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> As far as stats are concerned, I'm really tempted to only give bonuses or extra dice to strength, dexterity and constitution.  Spartan training did nothing to develop the rest but did a good job of developing people physically.




The policy in your fictitious state might not be so one-sided. The Spartans might perhaps have trained wizards and bards if D&D magic had been available to them.



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I also considered the idea of making sure eveyone had a level of thief and warrior/fighter (the rogue because they expected their kids to steal food to get enough to eat -- it was supposed to develop resourcefulness or something like that).




To make them good at foraging for food in the field on campaign. Perhaps a level of Ranger?

I think that the big thing should be that the full citizens be fighters rather than warriors or aristocrats. That ought to come out as a considerable advantage in the field.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Felix

> Kahuna Burger:
> I would take the normal spread for a city. Then kill off everyone with a con under 12. Yes, this will give you a smaller population, the spartans didn't have big numbers, they had tough cookies. Next make everyone with a str or con less than 13 a commoner.



As far as I know, it was only the Spartan citizens that were subjected to infanticide, brutal training, compulsary service in the army, and forced living in barracks. The commoners in this society could basically do what they wanted. They were the ones that actually held property, I think. The citizens had the privilige of running the government, and the responsibility of defending it; I don't think they were allowed property though.


----------



## Agback

PS.

If you google "Spartan boy fox" you get some interesting results. Some pages tell you that Spartans were taught to read and write, others that they were not. One page even tells you that all the Spartiates took an equal share in the produce of the agricultural land (if that had been true it would have solved a major problem, and the Spartan state would have been vastly stronger) and that Spartiates were allowed to leave the barracks and live with their wives as young as twenty. Another asserts taht Spartiate boys who failed a final examination at 20 became _perioiki_.

My advice: believe nothing that is not supported with quotes from a primary source.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Endur

I'd give them extra levels of Fighter or Warrior.  Extra experience is all they have.  They don't have sub-races or templates or higher stats.


----------



## Agback

Felix said:
			
		

> As far as I know, it was only the Spartan citizens that were subjected to infanticide, brutal training, compulsary service in the army, and forced living in barracks. The commoners in this society could basically do what they wanted. They were the ones that actually held property, I think. The citizens had the privilige of running the government, and the responsibility of defending it; I don't think they were allowed property though.




The full citizens (Spartiates) were certainly allowed to own real estate, slaves, etc. as well as of course weapons, armour, and other personal effects. They were forbidden from working at any gainful employment, even from working on their own farms. And all except the kings were forbidden from commerce. I guess they would have been in trouble if found to possess the tools of a trade, or traffickable quantities of merchandise. It is a strange irony that Sybaris was a Spartan colony.

In the Spartan state commerce and the professions and trades were pursued by the _perioiki_ ("neighbours"), people of Doric race resident in Lakonia but not citizens of Sparta. And a third group, possibly not of Dorian race, was confined to a role like that of a mediaeval serf (but subjected toa more brutal repression than was common for serfs).

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL

I seem to remember that weak babies were not actually killed. They were left out in the open air overnight. If they survived that then they were tough enough...

Friendly bunch, those Spartans.

As far as NPCs go, I'd just make them higher level - think that would reflect their training. For example, basic infantry are Warrior 2. For more challenge there could be Elite units of leveled up fighters. Would make them a lot nastier than most peoples armies?


----------



## Mark

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> I seem to remember that weak babies were not actually killed. They were left out in the open air overnight. If they survived that then they were tough enough...




"Exposed" on a hillside, leaving their fate to the gods... (Sometimes snapped up by rural families who needed additional farmhands.)



			
				Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> Friendly bunch, those Spartans.




Basically 



			
				Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> As far as NPCs go, I'd just make them higher level - think that would reflect their training. For example, basic infantry are Warrior 2. For more challenge there could be Elite units of leveled up fighters. Would make them a lot nastier than most peoples armies?




These might come in handy - 

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=695


----------



## Mark Chance

Agback said:
			
		

> And a third group, possibly not of Dorian race, was confined to a role like that of a mediaeval serf (but subjected toa more brutal repression than was common for serfs).




IIRC, the slave class in Sparta were subject to frequent wars in order to keep their numbers at a "reasonable" level and to instill fear of their Spartan masters.

Also, don't forget that, at least among the Spartan ruling class, there was something akin to equality between the sexes, a situation that didn't really play out in more sophisticated Athens where women were almost considered chattel.


----------



## Mark

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Also, don't forget that, at least among the Spartan ruling class, there was something akin to equality between the sexes...




Case in point -

_Kyniska__ was the daughter of the Spartan king Archidamus. In 396 BC she became the first woman to win an event at the Olympic Games. It is said that she was the first woman to breed horses and that she invented the sport of horse racing. She wins for a second Olympic victory in (?) BC, and many other women including the famous Lacedaemonian, win Olympic competitions thereafter._


----------



## Null Boundry

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> IIRC, the slave class in Sparta were subject to frequent wars in order to keep their numbers at a "reasonable" level and to instill fear of their Spartan masters.
> 
> Also, don't forget that, at least among the Spartan ruling class, there was something akin to equality between the sexes, a situation that didn't really play out in more sophisticated Athens where women were almost considered chattel.




The treatment of the Helots was one of the more nasty aspects of Spartan ideology (Probably because they were so heavily outnumbered by the Helots). Which considering the rest of it is saying something. As part of the coming of age ceremony for Spartan youths they had to take part in something called The Night Of The Long Knives, this involved them traveling into Messenia and killing any Helot they chose. This would usually invlove any that didn't look the subserviant profile such as having the nerve to look at a Spartan. 

Most of Sparts foreign policy was evolved around keeping armies out of Messenia as they knew their treatment would cause an automatic revolt and collapse of their agricultural base.


----------



## Agback

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> I seem to remember that weak babies were not actually killed. They were left out in the open air overnight. If they survived that then they were tough enough.




Indeed? I have never come across a reference to the Spartans going out and collecting the survivors, and have always assumed that when they exposed an infant on a hillside they left it there indefinitely, as other Greeks practising infanticide (but aiming to avoid the 'pollution' of doing violence to a relative) did. Can you point me to a contemporary reference to the Spartans reversing their judgments in the case of infants who survived the first night on Mount Taygetus?

'Mary Renault' makes the point in "The Last of the Wine" that the stories of children being exposed on hillsides and adopted by childless peasants or queens are probably a sop to the consciences of soft-hearted family members. Though of course it was possible.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Jshock_75

Spartans were definitley very clever... I would go so far as to say they would get some sort of free "rogue" feat, considering the recruits were effectivley required to steal enough food to survive.


----------



## takyris

Hm.  I'm inclined to view some of these claims with skepticism, and to look at some of the others in the context of what other people at the time were doing.  I'm trying to remember a Greek War Tactics book I read a long time ago, and it said something about the Athenians being the "good guys" by modern standards when they joined the Spartans in the war against Persia, but then Athens attempted to monopolize trade and throw its weight around, which is why the Spartans went in and whupped 'em a little.  Which doesn't make the Spartans these evil warlike jerks -- or at least, no more so than the Athenians, who started the Athens-Sparta war.

(Note: I'm getting all this from the book, which focused mainly on war tactics and not on culture.  It only really said, "Sparta wasn't nice, but it was by no means the awful barbarian state that Athens made it out to be -- that was Athenian propaganda, and Athens was the aggressor in the war.")

I'm not saying that I want to time-travel back to Sparta and live among my true people, but it sounds like some people are taking what they do out of context ("They beat their slaves?!  Why, that's barbaric!", which is true, just like it was true a few thousand years later in Georgia, but only from our perspective) and believing some of the bad press that the Athenians flung out.

Yeah, they sound like the badass war-guys of their time, which implies a certain level of not-nice-itude.  But I don't know that they ate babies or sold their friends' e-mail addresses to spam providers or digitally altered "Star Wars: A New Hope" so that Han doesn't shoot first.


----------



## MaxKaladin

It's pretty hard to forget the story about the boy and the fox when practically _every_ _single_ _webpage_ about the Spartans tells it.  

I've gathered there is some pretty suspect and outright contradictory data out there.  Fortunatly, I'm not doing historically accurate Spartans.  I'm just making a D&D version.  Heck, some of the nasty stories are just the thing I need.    

I'm aware the Spartans were probably unfairly demonized by their neighbors, but even if only half of what I've heard is true then I'd say they're still pretty nasty folks.


----------



## dagger

Also something that is not commonly known, very few of them took woman as lovers except to breed. Most had male lovers exclusively. 

The bond between the warriors was also greater for this reason. The sex between males was incouraged and accpted.


----------



## takyris

> It's pretty hard to forget the story about the boy and the fox when practically _every_ _single_ _webpage_ about the Spartans tells it.




I just did a Google search, and found it referred to as a *legend*.  As in, a parable, a fable, which every page I went to said was "probably not true".

What exactly is problematic here?  It's an obviously exaggerated legend meant to show how badass the Spartans were, and it uses as an example a military trainee.  In the middle ages, there was no concept of children.  Look at the art.  Children are painted as adults seen from a distance, not as children.  In ancient Greece, is it that hard to imagine that children would also be treated as miniature adults, subject to the same laws?  If this were a story about the badass U.S. Marines, it would be "A green trainee" instead of a young boy, and the wound (from the broken beer bottle under his shirt or something) would send him to the hospital instead of the grave (because of modern sensibilities regarding death), and when he got out of the hospital, he'd be given one hundred pushups for punishment, and then promoted to the head of his class for honor and ability to withstand pain.

It's military camp-talk.  Same today as it was then, within the social context of the time.


----------



## Zaruthustran

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> Edit: I did consider the idea of a subrace and may do that.  As part of that idea, I considered what someone with Spartan priorities might have done in the way of magically enhancing the "race".  What might they have added and how might it be balanced?  (Probably just an ECL).
> 
> I also considered the idea of making sure eveyone had a level of thief and warrior/fighter (the rogue because they expected their kids to steal food to get enough to eat -- it was supposed to develop resourcefulness or something like that).




I'd avoid the subrace thing. That's definitely a slippery slope: just look what's happened with Elves.

I'd treat Spartans as what they are: a culture with a focus on martial/physical prowess. 

Don't give bonuses to physical abilities. Instead, simply make sure that the order of preference for abilities is physical first, mental second. That way you get the result what you want (Spartans being strong, tough, fast) while keeping Spartans human. [see EDIT below]

To reflect the training I'd start every Spartan with one level of Fighter, and force the human bonus feat [see EDIT below] to be spent on a custom "Spartan Training" feat. This feat can be whatever you think is appropriate, such as something that gives much the same effect as an ability alteration (such as "+1 to all Str-based skill checks and -1 to all Cha-based skill checks), Or you could go with something simple like making all Spartans take Endurance, Great Fortitude, or Lightning Reflexes. Me, I'd go with Endurance.

I'd also give Spartans access to appropriate base classes like Marshall and Warmage, and prestige classes such as Tactical Fighter, Warchief, and Havoc Mage (all from Miniatures Handbook).

Trust me, you want to avoid subraces. Once you make one you'll want to make others (do Atheneans get +2 Wis?) and pretty soon the concept of "human" becomes meaningless. [not to mention preventing the other core races from being Spartans--see EDIT below]

To codify the above, make it like so:

   Spartan: your culture emphasizes physical development.
   Determine ability scores as normal. Arrange with the following requirements: no physical ability score may be lower than 10, and at least one physical ability score must be 12 or higher. Your character begins with one level of Fighter. Your human bonus feat must be spent on the "Spartan Training" feat.

-z

EDIT: scratch the human bonus feat requirement. Instead, make "Spartan Training" a fighter feat and require the fighter feat from the mandatory fighter level to be spent on it. Just like that, you've allowed for all races to be Spartans--which makes much more sense in a standard, racially-diverse D&D world. And you've tied the mandatory fighter level to the feat--which makes sense. Due to the ability requirements there should be more dwarf, half-orc, half-elf, and human Spartans than halfling, gnome, and elf spartans. Which, again, makes a whole lot of sense.


----------



## MaxKaladin

takyris said:
			
		

> I just did a Google search, and found it referred to as a *legend*.  As in, a parable, a fable, which every page I went to said was "probably not true".
> 
> What exactly is problematic here?




Well, mostly I think that there has to be more than that one story out there for various websites to use, but the only story that seems to get used on many webpages is that one about the boy and the fox.  You would think more people would either use a different story or use more than one.  I found the "come back with your shield or on it" story to be rather underused, for instance.  

Maybe Google is just turning up the wrong websites for me though.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> In the middle ages, there was no concept of children.




I've read that that wasn't true.  Rather, they (the medievals) lacked modern sensibilities concerning children and adolescents.  We would be seen as being insanely overprotective to them (even to parents a hundred years ago).  The art thing, from what I've read, is related to status.  Supposedly, size didn't so much to actual physical size as to status.  Many of the "small adults" that were thought to be children are evidently actually supposed to be adults of low status.  It's been quite a while since I read this, so I may have some of the details wrong.  All my books are in storage right now, so I can't provide cites but the name Barbara Hanawalt comes to mind.


----------



## hong

takyris said:
			
		

> Hm.  I'm inclined to view some of these claims with skepticism, and to look at some of the others in the context of what other people at the time were doing.  I'm trying to remember a Greek War Tactics book I read a long time ago, and it said something about the Athenians being the "good guys" by modern standards when they joined the Spartans in the war against Persia, but then Athens attempted to monopolize trade and throw its weight around, which is why the Spartans went in and whupped 'em a little.  Which doesn't make the Spartans these evil warlike jerks -- or at least, no more so than the Athenians, who started the Athens-Sparta war.
> 
> (Note: I'm getting all this from the book, which focused mainly on war tactics and not on culture.  It only really said, "Sparta wasn't nice, but it was by no means the awful barbarian state that Athens made it out to be -- that was Athenian propaganda, and Athens was the aggressor in the war.")
> 
> I'm not saying that I want to time-travel back to Sparta and live among my true people, but it sounds like some people are taking what they do out of context ("They beat their slaves?!  Why, that's barbaric!", which is true, just like it was true a few thousand years later in Georgia, but only from our perspective) and believing some of the bad press that the Athenians flung out.
> 
> Yeah, they sound like the badass war-guys of their time, which implies a certain level of not-nice-itude.  But I don't know that they ate babies or sold their friends' e-mail addresses to spam providers or digitally altered "Star Wars: A New Hope" so that Han doesn't shoot first.




I have no joke here, I just want to say that I totally endorse this movie, novelisation, TV series, musical, adaptation, and/or reinterpretation:

http://www.journalscape.com/pasquinade/2003-11-24-10:39


----------



## Agback

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I'm aware the Spartans were probably unfairly demonized by their neighbors, but even if only half of what I've heard is true then I'd say they're still pretty nasty folks.




Most of the really cool stories were told by their _admirers_. But of course, that doesn't make the stories true.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## shilsen

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I've read that that wasn't true.  Rather, they (the medievals) lacked modern sensibilities concerning children and adolescents.  We would be seen as being insanely overprotective to them (even to parents a hundred years ago).




True. It's also partly related to the fact that in medieval times (and both earlier and later), there were a whole lot of complicated issues for people to deal with which made the question of parenting seem a lot less important. When you have the Black Death showing up every few years, whether to smack a child or not becomes a fairly unimportant question. Even in 2003, many countries/cultures would regard the American (for example) treatment of children as far too overprotective, and that's partly because these cultures/countries have more pressing issues to spend their time and energy on.



> The art thing, from what I've read, is related to status.  Supposedly, size didn't so much to actual physical size as to status.  Many of the "small adults" that were thought to be children are evidently actually supposed to be adults of low status.  It's been quite a while since I read this, so I may have some of the details wrong.  All my books are in storage right now, so I can't provide cites but the name Barbara Hanawalt comes to mind.




I haven't encountered this piece of information, but it's quite incorrect. Consider medieval paintings of historical figures that we can identify (and whose status we are aware of). Children, whatever their status, tend to be painted as little adults. It's simply a matter of existing perspective and perception being reflected in the art form.


----------



## Storm Raven

shilsen said:
			
		

> I haven't encountered this piece of information, but it's quite incorrect. Consider medieval paintings of historical figures that we can identify (and whose status we are aware of). Children, whatever their status, tend to be painted as little adults. It's simply a matter of existing perspective and perception being reflected in the art form.




A point that says a lot about medieval painting, but absolutely nothing about painting and artistic human representation during the era being discussed.


----------



## krichaiushii

Perhaps just make a few more skills class skills for Spartans.

Survival or Wilderness Lore (depending on edition) - due to constant foraging.
Knowledge (Strategy and Tactics) - considering their reputation as fierce fighters, it seems appropriate.
Perform (singing) - from my limited reading, singing and retellling epics were the only worthwhile artforms of the Spartans.
Concentration - necessary to conduct oneself in a mass formation, while death is all around you

I like the idea of forcing a physical-abilities related feat as the human feat. Endurance, Run, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, and perhaps even Skill Focus: Concentration (or other appropriate skill).  

The book "Gates of Fire" by Pressfield provides some useful insights into Spartan training, as well as being an excellent bit of historical fiction.


----------



## Ruined

krichaiushii said:
			
		

> I like the idea of forcing a physical-abilities related feat as the human feat. Endurance, Run, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, and perhaps even Skill Focus: Concentration (or other appropriate skill).




One of the players in my campaign is a huge fan of the 'Gates of Fire' novel. His character (Gerad in my SH below) is a jannisary warrior, much like the Spartan style. He took Run, Endurance, Improved Unarmed Strike, and a few others. Also has the Military Training feat out of SSS' Players Guide to Fighters & Barbarians.

The character also took Leadership, so he now has a small group of soldiers to fight with him in spear and shield formation.


----------



## Ysgarran

http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/8c_p1.html

http://www.pbs.org/search/search_results.html?q=Spartans&neighborhood=none&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0

PBS had done a special about sparta a couple of months ago, a quick search didn't find it but it did find some other interesting stuff.


----------



## takyris

hong said:
			
		

> I have no joke here, I just want to say that I totally endorse this movie, novelisation, TV series, musical, adaptation, and/or reinterpretation:
> 
> http://www.journalscape.com/pasquinade/2003-11-24-10:39




  You know, the really sad part is that, due to timing constraints and our growing budget wackiness, I only end up seeing movies when my wife and I go out to have an afternoon with my mom.  A recent game-night conversation with my buddies went like this:

Them: Man, *Kill Bill* was just awesome.  Pat, have you seen that?

Me: Er, no.

Them: Aw, that's too bad, we thought you'd love that hyperviolent fight melange. (Um, except that they probably would never use the word melange.  Nobody except me ever uses that word, I think.)  So, what, you didn't go see it 'cause you were all pumped from seeing Matrix Reloaded?

Me: Er, no.

Them: Dude!  You haven't seen Matrix Reloaded?  How did you understand Matrix Revolutions, then?

Me: Er...

Them: What about that crime movie with the Rock?

Me: Er...

Them: What about SWAT?

Me: Er...

Them: Pat, what was the last movie you saw, man?

Me: Well, *Under the Tuscan Sun* is the cinematically beautiful story of this woman who recovers from a painful divorce by buying a villa in... what?  Quit lookin' at me funny!

Them: Dude, we don't know you anymore.

- - - - -

But meanwhile, back on a topic not far away...

The portrayal of children *does* relate to the Sparta deal, because I made the point awhile back that the fox & kid story wasn't that big a deal by their standards, because they were thinking of the kid as a new recruit, not as a young and innocent child.  Showing evidence that children were thought of as little adults, not as children, in periods less civilized than our own, supports that hypothesis.  It's not ironclad evidence by any stretch, but it does at least help make me sound somewhat less full of poo.

(And yeah, I can imagine that sometimes we're dealing with people of low status, but sometimes the painting is entitled "The Baron of Gablahgablah with his son", which sort of makes it less likely that said little-person is a servant or man of low status, since he's painted as a carbon copy of the adult standing next to him, wearing smaller versions of the same clothing, standing in the same position.)


----------



## Wilphe

Duh


----------



## Wilphe

Mark said:
			
		

> Case in point -
> 
> _Kyniska__ was the daughter of the Spartan king Archidamus. In 396 BC she became the first woman to win an event at the Olympic Games. It is said that she was the first woman to breed horses and that she invented the sport of horse racing. She wins for a second Olympic victory in (?) BC, and many other women including the famous Lacedaemonian, win Olympic competitions thereafter._




And didn't Agesilaos get her to do this in order to humiliate people who thought they were something because they could own a horse?


----------



## Wilphe

I'd make them all Fighters.
That's the whole point of their society after all.
You keep a large number of helots to provide the agricultural surplus that enables you to do nothing else except fight and train to fight, and your dependent periokoi to do the crafting and trade you don't have time to learn how to do.

The training would make all of them have starting levels as fighters, though they might multiclass later. The stealth/survival aspect of their training I might reflect with a level of ranger, esp under 3.5. Rogue I would avoid as it doesn't really reflect their style and if anyone needs a full BAB it is these guys. 

Spell support would be from multi-classed clerics (they were rather religious (read: Superstitious) and perhaps some sorcerors. Wizardry would depend on how you integrated the training into the society, if you have Spartiate wizards they'd still need to go through the agoge so they'd be a level or two behind in development. They would be very focused on support in battle.
Alternatively, you could say that would weaken the focus of their society and that they get arcane support in the same way they got cavalry and support troops - through periokoi and allies.

How many levels they have depends on how the rest of the world is set up. Spartan influence was based on the fact that they had fewer fighters compared to their competitors, but the ones they had were all full time warriors. Of course historical hoplite warfare doesn't really require skill, just bravery and endurance. It's not suprising that that is what their training fostered.

Their alignment is a fairly strong lawful, probably tending to neutrality. Good if you want to play up the stoic, self-sacrificing aspects of their culture, evil if you want to play up the sheer random violence and terrorism that underlayed their power.


----------



## Enkhidu

Ysgarran said:
			
		

> http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/8c_p1.html
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/search/search_results.html?q=Spartans&neighborhood=none&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0
> 
> PBS had done a special about sparta a couple of months ago, a quick search didn't find it but it did find some other interesting stuff.




That PBS special was great! And I just found a book that was written by their chief resource for the series: 
here .

Better yet, it loks like PBS bundled them both: here.


----------



## CCamfield

I was going to recommend Rutledge's book, but it got some unfavourable comments on Amazon.  (Well, average of 3.5/5 stars)


----------



## shilsen

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> A point that says a lot about medieval painting, but absolutely nothing about painting and artistic human representation during the era being discussed.




I was responding to MaxKaladin's post about medieval painting, so I commented on medieval painting. I'm simple that way


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Wilphe said:
			
		

> Spell support would be from multi-classed clerics (they were rather religious (read: Superstitious) and perhaps some sorcerors. Wizardry would depend on how you integrated the training into the society, if you have Spartiate wizards they'd still need to go through the agoge so they'd be a level or two behind in development. They would be very focused on support in battle.
> Alternatively, you could say that would weaken the focus of their society and that they get arcane support in the same way they got cavalry and support troops - through periokoi and allies.




I'd definitly go with the latter solution. The whole point of the spartan mindset/training/legend was that they were specialists. They did one thing, they did it one way and they did it well. Since philosophy didn't win any wars back then and technology was a non issue, it worked, but when put into the D&D mix the spartan way will have drawbacks. Let them have fighter wizards, and you no longer are trying to make the spartans, just a standard warlike nation. At least thats how I see it... 

Kahuna burger


----------

