A Brief History
Despite being known for their formidable military, Sparta has actually suffered as many if not more famous defeats as they have won victories in battle. Therefore, we ask, “Is Sparta’s much celebrated military actually overrated?” Please examine the list of their battle record below and let us know your thoughts in the comments using Disqus!
Digging Deeper: 22 Spartan Defeats
In 669/8 BC, the Argives defeated Sparta in the First Battle of Hysiae.
In c. 550 BC, the Arcadians defeated Sparta in the Battle of the Fetters.
On either August 20 or September 8-10, 480 BC, the Persians defeated the Spartans in the Battle of Thermopylae. Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC) claimed the Greek city-states had a total strength of 5,200+ versus 2,500,000 Persians in the battle, with the Greeks suffering 4,000 casualties and losses, including the death of Spartan king Leonidas I (r. 489–480 BC), versus ~20,000 Persian casualties and losses. Nevertheless, the Greek city-states (including Sparta) ultimately won the war against Persia.
In 429 BC, Athens with 20 triremes defeated Sparta, Corinth, and other members of the Peloponnesian League with 47 triremes in the Battle of Rhium. While Athens suffered no casualties or losses, 12 ships, with most of their crews, on the other side were captured.
Also in 429 BC., Athens again defeated the Peloponnesians (League of Corinth and Sparta) in the Battle of Naupactus. This time, Athens had 40 ships against 77 ships. Athens lost 8 ships captured versus at least one ship sunk and 6 ships captured on the Peloponnesian side.
In 425 BC, Athens defeated Sparta in the Battle of Pylos. Athens had 50 ships, 90 hoplites, and ~540 light troops. Sparta had 60 ships and an unknown number of troops. Athens lost 8 ships; Sparta lost 18 ships.
In 411 BC, Athens with 76 ships defeated Sparta with 86 ships in the Battle of Cynossema. Athens lost 15 ships; Sparta lost 21 ships.
In 410 BC, Athens defeated Sparta and allies in the Battle of Abydos. Athens had 74 ships plus 18 ships as reinforcements against Sparta and allies’ 97 ships. Athenian losses were minimal, but Sparta and allies lost 30 ships.
In 410 BC, Athens defeated Sparta and Persia in the Battle of Cyzicus. Athens’s 86 triremes triumphed over 80 triremes with Athens sustaining minimal losses, whereas Athens’s enemies lost the entire fleet!
In 406 BC, Athens, despite losing 25 of 155 ships, defeated Sparta, which lost 70 of 120 ships, in the Battle of Arginusae. Nevertheless, despite the defeats listed above that occurred from 429 BC to 406 BC, The Pelopponesian League led by Sparta did ultimately win the Peloponessian War over The Delian League led by Athens. Yet, Athens would fight against Sparta again soon enough…
In 403 or 404 BC, Athenian exiles consisting of 700 infantry defeated the Spartan garrison of Athens consisting of 700 infantry and two divisions of cavalry. Athenian exile casualties and losses were light, but 123 Spartans were killed.
In 403 or 404 BC, the Battle of Munichia was fought between 1,000 Athenians exiled by the oligarchic government of the Thirty Tyrants and the several thousand forces of that government, supported by a Spartan garrison. In the battle, a substantially superior force composed of the Spartan garrison of Athens and the army of the oligarchic government attacked a hill in Piraeus (the Munychia) which had been seized by 1,000 exiles, but was defeated. The Athenian exiles’ casualties and losses were light; their opponents, however, lost 70 men killed.
In 395 BC, Thebes defeated Sparta in the Battle of Haliartus. The Spartan leader Lysander, the triumphant hero of the Peloponnesian War, died in this battle.
In 394 BC, Athens and Persia’s 90 triremes defeated Sparta’s 85 triremes in the Battle of Cnidus. Athens and Persia’s losses were minimal, but Sparta lost an entire fleet! The war ended inconclusively with Persia dictating peace.
In 391 BC, Athens with a force composed almost entirely of peltasts (light infantry) defeated 600 Spartan hoplites (heavy infantry) in the Battle of Lechaeum. Athenian casualties and losses were minimal, but 250 Spartans were killed. The historical significance of this battle is that it marked the first occasion in Greek history where a force composed primarily of light troops defeated a hoplite force.
In 376 BC, Classical Athens defeated Sparta in the Battles of Naxos.
In 375 BC, 300 from Thebes defeated 1,000-1,800 Spartans in the Battle of Tegyra.
In 371 BC, the Boeotian League led by Thebes, consisting of 6,000–7,000 hoplites and 1,500 cavalry, defeated 10,000–11,000 Spartan hoplites and another 1,000 Spartan cavalry in the Battle of Leuctra. According to Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, the victors lost only 300 versus 4,000+ casualties and losses on the loser’s side.
In 331 BC, 40,000 Macedonians defeated 22,000 Spartans (20,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry) in the Battle of Megalopolis. Macedonian casualties and losses numbered 3,500, whereas Spartan casualties and losses numbered 5,300 and included Spartan King Agis III.
In 222 BC, Macedon and the Achaean League with 28,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry defeated Sparta’s about 20,000 infantry and 650 cavalry in the Battle of Sellasia. Although Macedonian and Achaean casualties and losses were substantial, Sparta’s casualties and losses were heavy with 5,800 Spartans having died.
In 207 BC, the Achaean League defeated Sparta in the Battle of Mantinea.
In 195 BC, about 50,000 men fought for an alliance of Rome, the Achaean League, Rhodes, Pergamum, and and Macedon against Sparta in the Battle of Gythium. The allies won.
Digging Deeper: 16 Spartan Victories
Sparta has however won a number of victories, although you might notice this list is actually shorter than the list of Spartan defeats. These include the following battles:
In c. 682 BC, Sparta won a decisive victory over Messenia and Arcadia in the Battle of the Great Foss.
In 457 BC, 11,500 Spartans defeated 14,000 Athenians in the Battle of Tanagra. Casualties and losses for the battle are unknown.
In 494 BC, Sparta defeated Argos in the Battle of Sepeia. Argos’s casualties and losses numbered 6,000.
In 418 BC, Sparta and its allies defeated an army led by Argos and Athens at the First Battle of Mantinea. The winning side lost 300 Spartans with insignificant other allied casualties, while the losing side lost about 1,100 (700 Argives, 200 Mantineans, 200 Athenians and Aeginetans).
In 417 BC, in the Second Battle of Hysiae, the Spartans captured the Argive town of Hysiae, taking all the male citizens as hostages before subsequently killing the hostages.
In 411 BC, 9,000 Spartans defeated 8,000 Athenians in the Battle of Syme. Spartan casualties and losses numbered 900, whereas Athens’s casualties and losses numbered 2,900!
In September 411 BC, 8,000 Spartans defeated 11,000 Athenians in the Battle of Eretria. Sparta’s casualties and losses numbered 1,100; Athens’s casualties and losses numbered 4,000+.
In 406 BC, Sparta with 90 ships managed to defeat Athens with 80 ships at the Battle of Notium. Sparta suffered no casualties, but Athens lost 15-22 ships.
Also in 406 BC, Sparta’s 170 ships defeated Athens’s 70 ships in the Battle of Mytilene.
In 405 BC, 180 ships fighting for Sparta, Persia, Corinth, and the Peloponnesian League won the decisive Battle of Aegospotami over 170 ships fighting for Athens and the Delian League. While Spartan losses were minimal, Athens lost 150 ships and also 3,000 sailors who were executed. Athens was then besieged. Athens’s surrender ended the Peloponnesian War.
In 403 BC, Sparta defeated Athenian exiles in the Battle of Piraeus. Although Spartan losses are unknown, over 180 Athenian exiles were killed.
In 394 BC, 18,000 Spartan hoplites defeated 24,000 hoplites from Thebes, Argos, Athens, and Corinth in the Battle of Nemea at a cost of 1,100 dead or wounded Spartans and 2,800 dead or wounded Thebans, Argives, Athenians, and Corinthians.
In 394 BC, Sparta and Orchomenus with a strength of 15,000 defeated Thebes, Argos, and allies with a strength of 20,000 in the Battle of Coronea. The victors suffered casualties and losses numbering 350 versus the losers suffering casualties and losses numbering 600.
In Spring 272 BC, 2,000+ Spartans and Macedonians defeated 27,000 men and 24 elephants from Epirus in the Siege of Sparta. Casualties and losses were heavy on both sides.
In 227 BC, Sparta defeated the Achaean League in the Battle of Mount Lycaeum. Spartan losses were light, but the Achcaean League’s losses were heavy.
In 226 BC, Sparta again defeated the Achaean League in the decisive Battle of Dyme. Sparta’s forces included 9,000-11,000 as King Cleomenes III (r. 235–222 BC) trained 4,000 new hoplites to his force of 5,000 already active hoplites, while 600 of the total may have been cavalry. The Achaean League had about 20,000 total soldiers of which about 800-1000 were cavalry. Spartan casualties and losses were low, but the Achaean League’s losses were heavy.
Digging Deeper: Two Inconclusive Results
Other battles involving Sparta had less clear outcomes.
In c. 684 BC, Messenia battled Sparta to disputed results in the Battle of Deres.
In 546 BC, Argos and Sparta each pitted 300 men against each other in the indecisive Battle of the 300 Champions with 299 of Sparta’s 300 being casualties or lost and 298 of Argos’s 300 being casualties or lost.
Question for students (and subscribers): Is Sparta’s much celebrated military actually overrated? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
Hutchinson, Godfrey. Sparta: Unfit for Empire. Frontline Books, 2015.
Rahe, Paul Anthony. The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta: The Persian Challenge (Yale Library of Military History). Yale University Press, 2017.
Rusch, Dr. Scott M. Sparta At War: Strategy, Tactics and Campaigns, 950–362 BC. Frontline Books, 2011.
The featured image in this article, Leonidas at Thermopylae (1814) by Jacques-Louis David, is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or fewer.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="12857 https://www.historyandheadlines.com/?p=12857">62 Comments
no i think that they deserve all the credit over past battles, they were clearly a force to be reckoned with ! These were very strong and smart individuals.
I do not think Sparta’s victories are overrated. With the amount of victories they have accumulated, I think they are very deserving of the credit. I believe credit is given only where it is due, and I certainly believe credit is due to Sparta.
When we all here the Word Sparta we think strong, and maybe of a few different Hollywood films. I do not believe Sparta to be overrated they worked hard and together to get the defeats they did. They deserve to have all the credit they do.
I don’t agree with Sparta being overrated. Sparta deserves just as much credit as Athens has.
THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAA! No shot they were overrated, they made a movie about them so they must have been pretty legit! The stand of 300 spartans, it can’t be matched. They are one of the most respected group of warriors in ancient civilization.
There is no way Sparta is overrated. There were only 300 of them and they had this much military power! They were amazing in my opinion.
I would never say Sparta is overrated because they accepted the challenges and fought to the death and in most instances they were outnumbered
Sparta rose up to the challenge and fought amazing odds. They showed great military power so i would never say they were overrated.
Sparta isn’t overrated. Strategy is just as important as the military itself. Sparta isn’t know for its military strategy, so it could be they just were not great at this aspect of war, thus they lost a lot of battles. Sparta is know for their military because of their warrior culture, which isn’t underrated.
Sparta may have been defeated quite a few times, but the amount they have accomplished with their victories completely outweighs what they have lost from defeat.
I noticed throughout this article that this article is that the Spartan losses were majorly comprised of naval losses. It seems as though there militaristic society and lifestyle did not extend to the sea. I do not think that these losses makes the Spartans over rated, but rather adds a more realistic nature to them showing that they were not perfect.
It seems as though the weakest link of the Spartan army was their naval units. Most of the losses that were provided in this article were naval based. Although they had strong militaristic tactics on land, they did not have this same strength in the sea. I would not call them overrated in the slightest due to these naval losses, because they were very talented on land.
It’s not surprising that a majority of their loses were naval battles considering they put a majority of their efforts into land battles. I would not say that they are overrated, but it is always hard to see a list of one sides defeats without looking at all of their accomplishments as well.
Although the spartans did lose a lot of battles, they also had their fair share of victories. I think the fact that they lost so much in battle is simply because of all of the battles they took part in. You are going to lose some battles if you pride your civilization on war. I do not think that the Spartans were overrated at all.
Wow, I had no idea they had lost so many battles. It definitely calls their reputation into question, but what is interesting to me is I don’t even think they would even have such a well know badass reputation if it weren’t for the 300 movies by anyone other than historians.
I think that Sparta was always over rated. They didn’t win every battle they fought and I thought it was sad that the children would be taught to fight at such a young age. I think if they trained to be just great warriors they should have won more of their battles.
I do not think that the Spartans are over rated in any fashion. They had a very unique fighting style and hardened lifestyle unlike any other at the time. They trained their warriors to such an extent that they only thing that they though about was eating, sleeping and fighting in battle. Although they did have their fair share of defeats a large number of these defeats were do to the fact that the enemy did not want to fight the Spartans in close combat but instead rained arrows onto them from far distances.
I don’t think it’s fair to call the Spartans overrated. Even the greatest sports teams in the world can’t win every game for all of time. Sparta was a fenomenal military power and they earned the valor and glory that is attributed to them.
Sparta is not overrated even in the slightest degree. Not every battle is won but it depended on the military tactics used against the enemy that may have been their downfall. A common enemy was Athens who knew them very well too.
Sparta is most definitely not overrated they were amazing and so dedicated to their fighting and what they believe in.
I do not think Sparta is overrated. Most of the losses that were provided in this article were naval based. I think the rest of the Spartan aspects were powerful and essentially undefeated. They were a force to be reckoned with, and they worked hard so they deserve it.
I do believe Sparta is overrated, because never has a society been so famous for being associated with one battle (Thermopylae), a battle which they technically LOST, along with having their king killed, and is essentially the only way many people can even remember who the Spartans are.
They might be slightly overrated on the grand scale of things, but on an individual level one Spartan was one of the most deadly warriors ever. So on an individual level they are not overrated.
I really honestly thought that the Spartans were really bad ass, but I guess they did have some pretty big losses and really were not that good at winning battles.
It’s not rare to see a civilization have its ups and downs as far as power goes. Sparta always had mighty warriors, but obviously it was not always the most powerful city-state.
Sparta is kinda overrated. The proof is there, just like any sports coach they should be judged on their winning percentage. The more battles you are in the more you should win if you are one of the best armies of all time. Granted I would never tell a Spartan that. Maybe the Spartan’s should have tried to get along with more people…
Even though Sparta does have more losses than victories, they still continue to be known as having one of the greatest military armies in history! Also, although they did lose a lot, that did not discourage them from fighting.
Sparta may have suffered many losses even more than their victories, but was makes Sparta not overrated is how much they train and dedicate themselves to combat. I think that what truly makes Sparta world renown is their dedication to a warrior lifestyle.
Sparta was one of the more fearless warrior states. Even though it had some devastating losses it cannot change the fact that spartan warriors were born for fighting to the death. That was their glory.
Sparta is not overrated, any fearless warrior state is going to have their fair share of losses, due to the fact that they were always looking for war. Spartan warriors were fearless and would sacrifice anything for their people.
You win some, you lose some. I think that it was clear from the beginning that Sparta was not some unstoppable force that couldn’t be reckoned with. If so, it would have been Sparta that conquered almost the entire known world and not Macedon under Alexander the Great. Still, they are awesome because their pioneering battle training tactics and technique.
I mean, Sparta never had the numbers to be some unstoppable army, but they definitely did close to the best they would with what they had. They may be a bit overrated, but they were still an incredibly notable army then and still now.
I think it depends on the battles you win and the weight that the battle carried and the importance behind it.
I figured that the reputation of the Spartans was something drawn up in the sources closest to them. Especially in these ancient times with so many armies at play, it is hard to imagine an undefeated spartan crew. Although it is very fun to imagine as an unstoppable freight train, like Lebron…
I think that ancient sources revering Sparta tend to admire their work ethic more so than their actual military prowess. In the ancient world, Sparta was sort of a social experiment, and its lasting intrigue is more due to its uniqueness than its historical dominance.
If you were to say that Sparta was the greatest military power of its day, you would be lying. Nonetheless, they were often outnumbered when they suffered defeats, and your average Spartan could certainly defeat your average soldier from anywhere else. It is not fair to include Thermopylae in here. Their sacrifice was vital to the persistence of the Greek city-states. (If the Persians had indeed won in the 490s/480s, sure, the Greeks would have been allowed to maintain most of their institutions and rule themselves, but they still would have ultimately been subservient to Persia.)
Sparta was ok. Possibly overrated, but still had a unique military strategy
Previously, I did not know that Sparta suffered so many defeats. Really changes my perspective on their military prowess!
Sparta may very well have been overrated. I had no idea they were that unsuccessful. Sparta is normally so hyped up but they may not have been as epic as depicted.
Many people hype up Sparta and in this article, I found the first time people were showing how unsuccessful they were. I can now see that Sparta could have been overrated indeed.
Not a fair article. Most of the spartans victories were non navel, and most losses were navel. Historians still agree that Spartas navel power was rarely (if ever) as good as their on foot power. Also, for people who say they were overrated, you will have a tough time explaining how purpose bread soldiers (perfected by eugenics), who started training at 7 (and never stop training) wouldn’t result it best in class soldiers.
DQ has a good point. Spartans were better soldiers on land than at sea, especially against powers with recognized specifically for navel power, like Athens.
I think Sparta is often given too much credit. Much is deserved but I think alot of it comes from the popularity they have received from films.
Given the time period and how socially advanced they were, I do not think they are that overrated.
I believe the reason why they are so overrated is because when they are kids, they have to learn how to fight all of their lives. This makes an idea that they are very strong figures that cannot be stopped and Hollywood also makes them look so cool in movies like 300.
I find the above numbers very unreliable. For example in Leuctra you mention 11.000 spartan hoplite’s?!?! Spartan hoplites were only on the right flank and they had a 12 men deep formation when the thebans had a 50 men formation. So the thebans outnumbered them 4 to 1. The rest of the army were not Spartans. Just the fact that the thebans decided to put almost all their men to face the spartan right wing proves how much they feared them.
Keep in mind that Spartans were only a small elite force, their army also included perioikoi, helots and other Peloponnesian.
I think that the main theme here, is that the Spartans were always fighting with smaller numbers than there opponents. So they continue lay did more with less, or lost as you would expect when you’re outnumbered in battle.
Not overrated at all, can’t win them all. Sparta was one of the most elite fighting forces in all of history.
I dont think so, even though no one really knows what happened back then these guys did alot of great things
Overrated ? I wouldn’t go that far. But It is true that the general public is not aware of so many defeats, I sure wasn’t. But either way, the Spartans were a bad group of warriors.
I wouldn’t say that they are overrated, you could be the strongest warrior in the world and have off days. They lost many battles but they also won some amazing battles.
I believe calling them overrated is going a bit too far. Regardless, they are a strong group of warriors.
I don’t think they are overrated, even with loses they were still bad-ass warriors.
overrated is not the correct term. The fact that they did al they did defines them as the hefty strong warriors they strived to be. they didnt have to be barbaric but they were.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that they were over rated.
Everyone has losses, they were good warriors and won many battles.
Saying the Spartans are overrated is like saying the Patriots are overrated. They had fought so many battles that there was no way they were going to win them all. Losses happen, but the legacy still lives on in a positive light.
Sparta is far from being overrated. you win some you lose some. That is just what happens in battles.
I think it is more than just how many wins or loses. Just like the 300 story. They lost, and everyone knew it, but the fact that they fought so hard and lasted so long is the bigger point. It gives hope and admiration despite the outcome.
I don’t really get why you would say Spartans are overrated. They did so much positive, you can’t have it all I guess.
It’s really interesting to see an army so strong and not have the hundreds of people that other armies had and they still held their own. I guess that’s why they were known as the fierce warriors of their time. But after awhile their lower numbers soon became part of their demise.
This is very interesting. This shows that the most fierce, powerful, and formidable forces aren’t indestructible. Anyone can be defeated at any point no matter how impressive their forces may seem.