Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was watching a trailer for a movie called 300: Rise of an Empire. I noticed in this movie the Spartan soldiers from the chest and legs are naked.

But recently I read in several posts here in the Stack Exchange, that Celts fought a war naked, and being naked is extremely dangerous and deadly for an army. Why then were the Spartans naked?

Is it correct that the Spartans were almost naked? If yes, wasn't that a weak point for an army?

share|improve this question
    
Yes, they fought naked, and guess what, they walked around naked too. There is a lot of stuff your history teacher didn't tell you about. –  Tyler Durden Jun 11 at 1:01

2 Answers 2

Hoplite and phalangite at the time of the Persian Wars preferred a linen upper body armour called linothorax. Unfortunately, no examples have survived from ancient times, and we can't be sure for the details of its construction. Bronze cuirasses were also used, but were too expensive for infantryman and probably impractical for regular use in battle. We can't be absolutely certain if the Spartans wore linothoraxes or cuirasses at Thermopylae, but the former is the more logical choice, given that agility and speed are essential when facing an army far superior in numbers and on unconventional terrain.

That said, the tradition of depicting ancient Greek warriors naked or semi-naked in works of art is a lot older than Hollywood:

Phalanx. Side A of an Attic black-figure Tyrrhenic amphora, ca. 560 BC
Phalanx. Side A of an Attic black-figure Tyrrhenic amphora, ca. 560 BC

Knelt warrior with decladded sword: Achilles waiting for Troilus? Tondo of an Attic black-figure kylix, ca. 560 BC.
Knelt warrior with decladded sword: Achilles waiting for Troilus? Tondo of an Attic black-figure kylix, ca. 560 BC.

Rider with birds and a winged figure, perhaps Nike (Victory). Lakonian black-figured kylix, ca. 550–530 BC.
Rider with birds and a winged figure, perhaps Nike (Victory). Lakonian black-figured kylix, ca. 550–530 BC.

Greek applique with a nude swordman. Made in Lakonia (Sparta). Bronze, 550-525 BC
Greek applique with a nude swordman. Made in Lakonia (Sparta). Bronze, 550-525 BC

share|improve this answer
3  
+! - Curious: do you think these artistic renditions accurately reflect how warriors actually dressed for combat, or are they just like Hollywood: Stylized for the benefit of the viewer? I understand that before we had mechanized warfare, there was an advantage to "traveling light" and staying agile, but naked? Why make yourself so unnecessarily vulnerable - particular in the genital areas? –  user2590 Sep 24 '13 at 1:40
    
@Vector bit of both probably. Can imagine them fighting naked or nearly so in ritualised combat like duels and tournaments to show off their prowess and courage (and to level the playing field), while in warfare they'd carry what armour they could. They'd probably not carry a full suit of armour though, covering the entire body, as such would be too cumbersome and heavy (and indeed the first pictures show only parts of the body covered). Even later, in the middle ages, knights were highly immobile in their steel suits, effective only on horseback (the Greeks had no horses). –  jwenting Sep 24 '13 at 5:36
    
@jwenting - could be. I was thinking along such lines too. I'm also pretty sure that at such times it was appropriate to display your "endowments" - a "pissing contest" as it were... :-) –  user2590 Sep 24 '13 at 5:40
1  
@jwenting "the Greeks had no horses" Hm? What then is the creature the rider on the third image is on? (also see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippeis). Now, you make a good point about the weight of the armour and shield, but you're forgetting a critical detail: The warriors didn't carry much, that was what slaves were for. For example, in the Battle of Thermopylae, each of the 300 Spartan hoplites had at least 2 and maybe even 3 perioikoi each. –  Yannis Rizos Sep 24 '13 at 9:21
    
@Vector Stylized for the benefit of the viewer would be my guess. –  Yannis Rizos Sep 24 '13 at 9:23

This question fits my definition of trivial. If you copy the question and paste it into google, three of the top five responses answer the question.

  1. One mentions the Hoplites
  2. I'll grant you that Yahoo answers answer is as sparse as the movie's armor.
  3. Roman Army Talk cites (unreliably) an interesting counterexample

The best answer is the first, from History vs Hollywood.

Did the Spartans really fight with virtually no body armor?

No. The movie 300 has the Spartan soldiers fighting nearly naked without any form of body armor protecting them. Body armor was a valuable asset to the real Spartan soldiers. 300 author Frank Miller commented on this alteration in an Entertainment Weekly interview, "I took those chest plates and leather skirts off of them for a reason. I wanted these guys to move and I wanted 'em to look good. ... Spartans, in full regalia, were almost indistinguishable except at a very close angle."

Clear, concise, and it even provides a picture of spartan armor. And an authoritative quote from Mr. Miller which ought to settle the question of why the movie portrayed them that way.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.