Hubbry Logo
First Messenian WarFirst Messenian WarMain
Open search
First Messenian War
Community hub
First Messenian War
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
First Messenian War
First Messenian War
First Messenian War
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
First Messenian War
Part of Messenian Wars

View over Messenia from the summit of Mt. Ithome
Date743 BC – 724 BC
Location
Messenia
Result Spartan victory
Territorial
changes		 Loss of sovereignty by Messenia; transfer of land ownership to the Spartans
Belligerents
Sparta Messenia
Commanders and leaders
Alcmenes, Polydorus: Agiad kings; Theopompus: Eurypontid king Euphaes, king of Messenia, son of Antiochus, grandson of Phintas; Cleonnis
Strength
Maximum of 3,000 infantry, 1,500 cavalry Roughly the same as the Spartan
Casualties and losses
1,800 2,700

The First Messenian War was a war between Messenia and Sparta. It began in 743 BC and ended in 724 BC, according to the dates given by Pausanias.

The war continued the rivalry between the Achaeans and the Dorians that had been initiated by the purported Return of the Heracleidae. Both sides utilized an explosive incident to settle the rivalry by full-scale war. The war was prolonged into 20 years. The result was a Spartan victory. Messenia was depopulated by emigration of the Achaeans to other states. Those who did not emigrate were reduced socially to helots, or serfs. Their descendants were held in hereditary servitude for centuries, until the collapse of the Spartan state in 370 BC.

Dates

[edit]

Pausanias' standard dates

[edit]

Pausanias says that the opening campaign was a surprise attack on Ampheia by a Spartan force commanded by Alcmenes, Agiad king of Sparta, in the second year of the 9th Olympiad.[1] The end of the war was the abandonment of Mt. Ithome in the first year of the 14th Olympiad.[2] The time of the war is so clearly fixed at 743/742 BC through 724/722 BC that other events in Greek history are often dated by it. Pausanias evidently had access to a chronology of events by Olympiad. The details of the war are not so certain but Pausanias gives an evaluation of his two main sources, the epic poem by Rianos of Bene for the first half and the prose history of Myron of Priene for the second half.[3] Nothing survives now of the sources except fragments.

Dates by the archaeology of Taras and Asine

[edit]

A second method of dating presented by John Coldstream takes archaeology into consideration as well as other literary evidence, arriving at somewhat later dates. Argos had entered the war on the Messenian side toward the end of it. They decided to eliminate Asine in reprisal for its assistance to Sparta during the Spartan invasion of Argos. After the war Sparta placed the refugees in a new settlement called Asine on the Messenian Gulf, today's Koroni. The destruction level at the old Asine is dated 710 BC,[4] more precise actually than can be obtained for most archaeological dates.

A second piece of apparently archaeologically supported evidence is the settlement of the Partheniai at Taras (Tarentum) in Italy. During the war while the men were away a certain number of Spartan ladies bore illegitimate children to non-Spartiate fathers, some with husbands stationed in Messenia. These Partheniai were denied citizenship and, being unwelcome in Sparta, they became a civic problem, ultimately staging a rebellion. They were sent off under Phalanthus at the suggestion of the Delphic oracle to found Taras at Satyrion later a suburb of Tarentum. Pottery from there is exclusively Greek and geometric from about 700 BC. Eusebius says Taras was founded in 706 BC. Granting a precision to the 710 date he does not grant to the 700 date and presuming the juveniles were sent away immediately after the war, Coldstream formulates new dates for the war of 730–710 BC.[5]

Background

[edit]
Ancient Messenia

Early rejection of the Heraclid king

[edit]

The Peloponnese had been Achaean before the return of the Heracleidae in 1104 BC. The victorious Dorian commanders, who were Heraclids, divided the Peloponnese between them. Temenus took Argos, Cresphontes took Messenia and the twin sons of Aristodemus took Sparta. The previous ruling family of Messenia, the Neleides (descendants of Neleus), had emigrated with the Atreids, rulers of Mycenae and Argos, to Athens. Most of the Achaeans remained in place.[6]

The Dorians colonized Sparta, then a small state on the east of the central Eurotas valley. Theras, their mother's brother, acted as regent for his nephews until they reached majority and then led a colony to Thera. Meanwhile, the Messenians had accepted Cresphontes as king after he married Merope, daughter of Cypselus, king of Arcadia and an Achaean. They gave up some land to another Dorian enclave in Messenia. Subsequently the noble families of the Achaeans staged an insurrection, assassinating Cresphontes and all but one of his sons in a single coup. The youngest, Aepytus, was being educated in Arcadia.

Acceptance of the Aepytidae

[edit]

Aepytus on reaching manhood shortly was restored by the kings of Sparta (Dorian), Argos (Dorian) and Arcadia (Achaean). The Messenian aristocracy was won by gifts and kindness, except for the regicides, who were executed. Aepytus founded a dynasty of kings of Messenia, the Aepytidae. The Heraclid part of the family background was explicitly dropped. The Aepytidae integrated totally into Achaean culture. They took the ancient Achaean (and Pelasgian) shrine on the summit of Mt. Ithome as their own, compelling the Dorians to worship there also. Ultimately under King Phintas they joined the yearly festival to Apollo at Delos, the very central festival and most important place of worship of the Ionians, the descendants of the Achaeans.[7]

This Achaeanizing provoked the Dorians living in Messenia. They viewed themselves as dominant over the Achaeans by right of conquest. They were supported in this view by Sparta, which had maintained a successful Dorian enclave, eventually achieving ascendance over the Achaeans in the Eurotas valley, who became the perioeci.

The raid on the temple of Artemis Limnatis

[edit]

The intense ethnic animosity and contention that prevailed between the Dorians and the Achaeans is illustrated by an incident of violence that occurred 25 years prior to the First Messenian War, during a festival at the temple of Artemis Limnatis around 768 BC.[8] This was the year that king Phintas, considered Dorian by the Dorians, brought Messenia to an Ionian festival. The temple was on the border between Messenia and Laconia and only Messenians and Laconians worshipped there. Artemis, sister of Apollo, had long been a popular goddess among the Mycenaean Greeks.

Pausanias relates two versions of the story. The Spartan version tells of the raping of virgins and the killing of the king of the Agiad line in Sparta, Teleklos. Ordinarily festivals and temples were sacred and were conducted on sacred ground in Greece; even hunted men could take refuge in a temple because of the taboo against violence. The Spartan version does not explain why the Messenians came to worship and suddenly began committing rape and murder on sacred ground.

The Messenian story says that the "virgins" were beardless soldiers dressed up as women under the leadership of Teleklos, and that the soldiers intended to get close to the Messenian aristocracy for an attempt at their lives. The usual religious considerations may not have been considered to apply since the shrine was an Achaean center, not a Dorian one. The soldiers selected for their beardlessness turned out to be too inexperienced, though, and the Messenian leaders easily threw them off and assassinated their commander. Pausanias says: "Those are the stories: believe one or the other according to which side you want to be on."

Cause

[edit]

Immediate provocation

[edit]

A generation later "the mutual hatred of the Lakonians and Messenians came to a head."[9] The immediate provocation was an incident of cattle theft. Polychares of Messenia, an athlete and Olympic victor, leased some grazing land from Euaiphnos the Spartan, who promptly sold the cattle to some merchants, claiming pirates had stolen them. As he was making excuses to Polychares, a herdsman of the latter, having escaped from the merchants, intervened to acquaint his master with the real facts. Apologising, Euaiphnos asked Polychares to let his son (Polychares') go with him to obtain the money from the sale, but once over the Spartan border Euaiphnos murdered Polychares' son. Polychares petitioned the Spartan magistrates for justice. Despairing of it, he began to murder such Spartans as he could catch at random. The Spartans demanded extradition of Polychares. The Messenian magistrates insisted on an exchange for Euaiphnos.

At this point the incident exploded into violence at the national level. The Spartans sent a delegation to petition the kings of Messenia, nominally Heraclids. Androcles was for extradition, Antiochus against. The whole history of Spartan-Messenian relations was reviewed, including the assassination of Teleclus 25 years earlier and the discussion became so heated that weapons were drawn. The parties of the two kings assaulted each other and Androcles was killed. Antiochus told the Spartans he would submit the case to the courts at Argos (Dorian) and Athens (Achaean).[10] Antiochus died a few months later and his son, Euphaes, succeeded him. The law case seems to have vanished. Shortly after a Spartan army under both kings of Sparta launched an invasion of Messenia.

Possible underlying causes

[edit]

Pausanias states the details of the immediate provocation for war and expresses his view that the underlying cause was ethnic and regional tension between Laconia and Messenia. Various scholars have given speculative analyses of the underlying causes throughout the centuries since Pausanias. A recent historian, William Dunstan, asserts that the Spartan invasion was an alternative to the colonization undertaken by most of the other states of Greece to relieve overpopulation at home. No evidence is offered for this view. He also implies that the Spartan aristocracy were moved by the desire for wealth, based on a cultural floruit and some foreign goods dating to the Orientalizing Period found during the excavation of the temple of Artemis Orthia in Sparta.[11] No such motives appear in the classical sources. As Dunstan points out, after about 600 BC Spartan luxuries were in deficit. The Spartan economy improved significantly with the inflow of dues from the new helot class of Messenia. There is no evidence that this economic arrangement was intended beforehand as a cause of the war.

The strongest case for an underlying, and in this case ulterior, Spartan motive for the war is an admission by one of the Spartan kings that the Spartans needed Messenian land. The Spartan Constitution was already in effect by the time the war broke out. The Spartans had already produced a professional army, which is evidenced not only by their tactics in the war but by the reluctance of the Messenians to engage them. Lycurgus had redistributed all the land in Laconia, creating 39,000 equal plots, of which 9000 went to the Spartiates and 30,000 to the Perioeci. The source of this information, Plutarch, states two opinions as to the location of the 9000: either 6000 originally in Lacedaemon with 3000 in Messenia, added by the king Polydorus, victor of the First Messenian War, or 4500 in each region. Aristotle later stated that the Spartans could support 3000 infantry and 1500 cavalry. Each Spartiatate by law had to have his own kleros, an inalienable plot of land.[12] Burckhardt notes that Polydorus, questioned whether he wanted to go to war against brothers (presumably, Dorians integrated into Messenian society) replied: "All we want is land not yet distributed; that is, not yet divided by lot for our people."[13]

Thucydides[14] states that Sparta controlled 2/5 of the Peloponnese, which according to Nigel Kennel is 8,500 km2 (3,300 sq mi).[15] Using this figure as a rough estimate of the amount of land occupied by 39,000 klaroi obtains a figure of 54 acres (22 ha) per klaros, a significant agricultural estate. As citizenship and other social status depended on the possession of one the availability of land must have been a strong motive.

Course

[edit]

The capture of Ampheia for use as a Spartan base

[edit]

Despairing finally of remedies at law for the murders of their citizens the Spartans resolved to go to war without the usual heraldic notification or any other warning to the Messenians. Alcmenes assembled an army. When it was ready they swore an oath not to stop fighting until they had taken Messenia no matter whether the war was long or short and regardless of the casualties and cost.

The war's first battle was the Spartan attack on Ampheia, a city of unknown location now, but probably on the western flank of Taygetus. A swift night march brought them to the gates, which stood open. There was no garrison, nor were they in any way expected. The first sign the Ampheians had of war was the Spartans rousing people out of bed to kill them. Some few took refuge in the temples; others fled for their lives. The Spartans sacked the city then turned it into a garrison for the conduct of further operations against Messenia.[16] The Messenian women and children were captured. The men who had survived the massacre were sold into slavery.[17]

When the news of Ampheia spread a crowd gathered at the capital, Stenykleros ("rough acres," location unknown, perhaps under Messene), from all of Messenia. They were addressed by the king, Euphaes. He encouraged them to be true men in the hour of need, assuring them that justice and the gods were on their side because they had not attacked first.[18] Subsequently he placed the entire citizenry under arms and arranged for their training.[19]

From the beginning Euphaes relied on fixed defenses. He fortified and garrisoned the towns but avoided forays against the Spartan army. For two seasons more the Spartans raided the moveable wealth, especially confiscating grain and money, but were ordered to spare capital equipment such as buildings and trees, which might be of use after the war. In this matrix of fortified points the Spartans could never successfully siege any one point. Declining to attack the main Spartan army, the Messenians could only assault undefended Spartan border communities when the opportunity arose.

The skirmish for the fortified camp on the ravine

[edit]

In the fourth campaigning season; that is, in the summer of 739 according to Pausanias' dating scheme, Euphaes resolved to bring the war to the Spartans at Ampheia ("let loose the full blast of Messenian anger").[20] The Spartans were denying the Messenians use of the countryside for agriculture. Subsequent events show that this denial was untenable in the long term for the Messenians. They needed to strike a blow to remove the Spartan presence from their country.

Euphaes judged that his army was sufficiently trained to oppose the Spartan professional soldiers. He readied an expedition and subsequently marched out of the capital in what must have been the direction of Ampheia. That his first concern was to construct a fortified base nearer to Ampheia is indicated by the transport of "timber and all the materials for stockades" in his baggage train. No mention is made of any intelligence on the current position of the Spartan army. His actions were not those of a general expecting a battle that day. His intent must have been to move the start line of future attacks closer to the enemy, a standard tactic later used by the Roman army with repeated success.

The Spartans on the other hand were tracking his every movement. They sent immediately for reinforcements from Sparta, who marched directly for the enemy, encountering the Messenians in the middle between Ithome and Taygetus. Their approach was no surprise to Euphaes. Choosing his ground carefully he selected a site with one side bordering an impassable ravine between the Messenians and the Spartans. Nino Luraghi finds it "rather odd" that Euphaes stationed his army where it could not be attacked by the Spartans.[21] Whether he questions the account or the general is not stated, but seen from a different view, the problem disappears.

Subsequent events demonstrate that Euphaes intended to build a fortified camp, which is what he did. The main goal of siting such a camp is to deny the enemy access to it. The Spartan commanders understood Euphaes very well. They sent a force upstream to cross the ravine and outflank the Messenians, preventing them from building a camp, but Euphaes had anticipated this move. Following the Spartans along the other side of the ravine with 500 cavalry and light infantry under Pytharatos and Antandros they prevented the Spartans from crossing. The camp was finished the next day.

The location of the ravine remains unknown nor does the battle have a name. Blocked, the Spartan army withdrew from Messenia. As it did not settle the war the battle is most often called inconclusive. As far as the tactical goals of the two armies are concerned, it was a Messenian victory.

The pitched battle in the vicinity of Ampheia

[edit]

Both sides knew that in the next campaigning season a major battle would be fought. Meanwhile, at Sparta Alcmenes died and was replaced by his son, Polydorus. Cleonnis commanded the Messenian fortified camp. At the start of the season he took his command to the east to engage a Spartan army that was marching west from Sparta.

Disposition of troops

[edit]

They met on the plains beneath Taygetus at a still unknown location in Messenia, perhaps near Ampheia. The battle was mainly a heavy infantry engagement. The terms "light infantry" and "infantry" are being used by Pausanias. The Spartan army was mainly infantry. Some "light infantry" were present as Dryopians, an ethnic group of Pelasgians whose ancestors had been driven from Dryopia by the Dorians, who then called it Doris, and from their Achaean place of refuge, Asine, when Dorian Argos subjected it. They were finally offered protection by Dorian Sparta. These were drafted by the Spartans. Also present was a contingent of Cretan archers. Light troops played little part in the battle; they were mainly spectators.

The two armies faced each other in traditional start lines. Euphaes yielded the command of the Messenian center to Cleonnis, while he took the left flank with Antandros, and Pythartos on the right. Facing Cleonnis was Euryleon, a noble Spartan and a Cadmid, with Polydorus on his left and Theopompus on the right. The latter in his harangue appealed to glory, wealth and the oath they had all taken. Euphaes chose to present death or slavery, pointing to the fate of Ampheia. The signal was given to advance simultaneously on both sides.[22]

The problem of the phalanx

[edit]
Hoplites, Chigi Vase

Pausanias' description of the battle creates an apparent historical paradox. He refers to "the special characters of the two forces in their behaviors and in their frame of mind."[23] The Messenians "ran charging at the Lakonians reckless of their lives ...."[24] "Some of them leapt forward out of rank and did glorious deeds of courage."[25] The Spartans on the other hand were "careful not to break rank."[24] Says Pausanias, "... knowledge of war was something they had been brought up to, they kept a deeper formation, expecting the Messenians not to hold a line against them for as long as their own would hold ...."[25]

The Spartan tactic being described is that of the phalanx, the unbroken line of men creating a killing zone in front of them. The chief weapon of the ancient Greek phalanx was the spear. Pausanias says that those who tried to plunder the dead "were speared and stabbed while they were too busy to see what was coming,...."[23]

The paradox is that there is no supporting evidence of the use of the phalanx in Greece at that time. Anthony Snodgrass defined "the hoplite revolution," which included both the use of the phalanx in Greece and standardization of a "hoplite panoply" of arms and equipment.[26] The panoply consisted of artifacts adapted from previous models: corselet, greaves, ankle guards, closed "Corinthian" helmet, large round shield with a band for the arm and a side grip, spear, long steel sword. Each element except the greaves is dated to 750-700 BC, perhaps earlier.

They are first depicted together on Proto-Corinthian vases of 675 BC for the panoply and the phalanx around 650 BC, much too late for either the Great Rhetra or the First Messenian War. Snodgrass dates the small figures of hoplites found in Sparta, "a sign of a unified and self-conscious hoplite class," as he believes, to not before 650. He then questions the date of the Great Rhetra, implying it should be reinterpreted or moved to the 7th century.[27]

After Snodgrass published his analysis of pottery decoration there was a double effort to bring the Great Rhetra to a later time and find phalanxes in an earlier time, neither successful. The earliest evidence that John Salmon found was the vase paintings of the Macmillan Painter, who painted what appear to be phalanxes around the shoulders of Proto-Corinthian aryballoi. The Chigi Vase, for example, shows the overlapping shields, the spears, the grips of the shields and the corselets and closed helmets. It is dated 650; another, the Macmillan aryballos, to 655. The earliest of the series is an aryballos from Perchora dated 675, showing matched pairs, which are not necessarily phalanxes, but they fight in the presence of a flautist. These musicians were specific to phalanxes. They coordinated its movements.[28]

The only supporting evidence for the phalanx therefore is dated to the time of the Second Messenian War, not the First. However, this is proof from a deficit. The vases may only demonstrate that depictions of phalanx warfare began at that time, not that phalanxes did. Pausanias on the other hand is positive evidence. Moreover, attempts to discount or select out what he says often create other problems. He is a vital part of all the evidence for the period.

Establishment of a fixed defense at Mt. Ithome

[edit]
Mt. Ithome

Not wanting to experience another such battle, the Messenians fell back to the heavily fortified Mount Ithome. This is when the Messenians first sent for help from the Oracle at Delphi. They were told that a sacrifice of a royal virgin was the key to their success and the daughter of Aristodemus, a Messenian hero, was chosen for the sacrifice.

Upon hearing of this, the Spartans held off from attacking Ithome for several years, before finally making a long march under their kings and killing the Messenian leader. Aristodemus was made the new Messenian king and led an offensive, meeting the enemy and driving them back into their own territory.

The Fall of Mt. Ithome

[edit]

The Spartans then sent an envoy to Delphi and their following of her advice caused Messenian reverses so great that Aristodemus committed suicide and Ithome fell. The Messenians who had fortified themselves on the mountain either fled abroad or were captured and enslaved.[29]

Legacy

[edit]

Sparta, under the rule of a diarchy, suddenly gained wealth and culture with the "socio-economic basis" of classical Sparta emerging from this war and expansion.[30] In 685 BC, a helot revolt caused a Second Messenian War.

In literature

[edit]

F. L. Lucas's Messene Redeemed (1940) is a verse drama, based on Pausanias, about Messenian history, including episodes from the First Messenian War.

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

First Messenian War

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The First Messenian War was a conflict in the mid-eighth century BC between and the polity of in the southwestern , in which seized control of 's fertile lands and reduced much of its population to the status of , state-owned serfs bound to the soil. Traditional accounts, preserved primarily through the second-century AD travelogue of Pausanias drawing on earlier Hellenistic sources like Myron of , date the war from approximately 743 to 724 BC and depict it as a heroic resistance by Messenian kings such as against Spartan invaders, ending in defeat after sieges and battles including the fall of the stronghold at Ithome. However, these narratives are widely regarded by modern historians as pseudo-historical, embellished with legendary elements to serve later ideological purposes, such as justifying Spartan dominance or fostering Messenian identity under foreign rule, with scant contemporary evidence and archaeological indications of a more gradual Spartan expansion rather than a singular dramatic . The war's causes likely stemmed from territorial pressures on resource-poor , driving expansion into neighboring amid the competitive dynamics of early Greek state formation, fundamentally shaping 's militaristic society and the systemic exploitation of that underpinned its economy and army for centuries.

Sources and Historiography

Primary Ancient Accounts

The primary ancient accounts of the First Messenian War survive not in contemporary records but through later compilations, particularly Pausanias' Description of Greece (2nd century AD, Book 4.4–24), which synthesizes Hellenistic sources including Myron of Priene's Messenian History (late 4th or early 3rd century BC). Myron's work, focused on the conflict from the Spartan capture of the Messenian town of Ampheia to the death of the Messenian king Aristodemus, forms the core narrative Pausanias attributes to the First War, dating it from 743 to 724 BC under Spartan kings Alcamenes and Alcandro and Messenian kings Polychares and Aristodemus. Pausanias notes Myron's account emphasizes Messenian heroism and oracular consultations, such as prophecies from Zeus of Ithome urging resistance, but acknowledges its partiality, as Myron did not cover the war's full scope. Pausanias supplements Myron with elements from other lost works, portraying the war's onset as stemming from a Spartan raid on the Messenian shrine of Limnatis, where Spartan king Teleclus was killed, prompting Alcamenes to declare war. Key events include Messenian victories at the Battle of the Boar's Grave (where slew 300 Spartans) and the Battle of Stenyclarus, followed by Spartan counteroffensives ravaging Messenian territory and culminating in the 11-year siege of Mt. Ithome, where famine and betrayal led to Messenian surrender; survivors became Spartan , while reportedly sacrificed his daughters and took his own life. These details, drawn from poetic and historiographic traditions, blend factual border disputes with legendary motifs like divine interventions and ritual suicides, reflecting pro-Messenian biases in Myron's era amid revived Messenian identity under the . Earlier sources like Herodotus (5th century BC) and Thucydides (late 5th century BC) allude to Messenian subjugation and helotage but provide no detailed chronology or battles for the First War, treating it as a foundational Spartan conquest yielding fertile lands worked by serfs. Tyrtaeus' elegiac fragments (mid-7th century BC), preserved in later quotations, exhort Spartan valor against Messenians but pertain primarily to the subsequent Second Messenian War, not offering independent testimony for the earlier conflict. Diodorus Siculus' Library of History (1st century BC, fragmentary Book 8) echoes Pausanias' framework but relies on similar intermediaries, underscoring the absence of Archaic-period originals and the retrospective construction of the war's narrative. The accounts' credibility is compromised by their distance from events—centuries removed—and incorporation of epic tropes, as no archaeological correlates definitively link to a unified "First War" of the scale described.

Later Greek Traditions and Biases

Later Greek historiographical traditions on the First Messenian War emerged in the , centuries after the purported events of the , and were shaped by the resurgence of Messenian ethnic identity following their from in 369 BC. Myron of , writing in the 3rd or , produced a Messeniaka that detailed the conflict from a Messenian viewpoint, portraying figures like King as resolute leaders who mobilized against Spartan incursions, including ritual sacrifices and fortified defenses at sites like Mount Ithome. Rhianus of , a contemporary epic poet, composed the verse Messeniaca, which Pausanias (2nd century AD) drew upon selectively, though Rhianus conflated elements of the first and second wars, attributing prolonged resistance under Aristomenes to a later Spartan king, Leotychides II, rather than aligning strictly with the traditional timeline. These works, synthesized by Pausanias in Book 4, emphasized Messenian heroism, communal oaths, and oracular prophecies, framing the war as a defensive struggle against Dorian aggression. Such narratives exhibit clear pro-Messenian biases, attributable to their composition amid efforts to reconstruct a suppressed after centuries of helotage and Spartan dominance. Hellenistic authors like Myron and Rhianus, operating in a context of renewed Messenian under the and later Roman oversight, amplified tales of defiance—such as Aristodemus' daughter-sacrifice for divine favor and guerrilla tactics—to legitimize Messenian claims to antiquity and victimhood, often omitting or vilifying Spartan motivations rooted in territorial expansion or resource disputes. Pausanias himself critiques inconsistencies, noting Rhianus' chronological errors and favoring earlier sources like for Spartan validation of as a response to Messenian raids, yet he privileges the emotive Messenian epics for dramatic detail, reflecting a selective romanticization over empirical rigor. This bias manifests in unsubstantiated heroic feats, such as superhuman feats by Aristomenes, which lack corroboration from near-contemporary Spartan poetry or archaeological evidence of widespread destruction in early , suggesting later embellishment for identity-building rather than faithful reconstruction. In contrast to fragmentary Spartan traditions preserved in Tyrtaeus' elegies—which justified the war as a moral and martial triumph over "insolent" foes—the later Greek accounts invert causality, depicting Sparta as tyrannical invaders driven by envy of Messenian prosperity, a framing that served post-liberation but ignores interstate norms of the Archaic period. These traditions' credibility is undermined by their distance from events (over 500 years for Rhianus) and dependence on oral lore potentially manipulated for political ends, as evidenced by Pausanias' explicit disagreements with Rhianus on sequencing and by the absence of Messenian perspectives in pre-Hellenistic records. Modern analysis views them as "pseudo-history," blending with sparse fact to sustain a of resistance, prioritizing over verifiable .

Modern Scholarly Analysis

Modern scholars approach the of the First Messenian War with skepticism toward the detailed narratives preserved in Pausanias, attributing them primarily to Hellenistic-era constructions rather than reliable archaic records. The epic accounts, notably those shaped by the 3rd-century BC Rhianos of , served to forge a cohesive Messenian ethnic identity following the region's liberation from in 369 BC by Thebes, rather than reflecting or early documentation. Nino Luraghi contends that the traditional story of a unified Messenian resistance under kings like represents an "imaginary ," projecting later communal myths onto a sparse, non-state population lacking strong pre- cohesion or centralized polity. Archaeological surveys in reveal no widespread destruction layers or fortified sites datable to circa 740–720 BC that could corroborate a cataclysmic , with site abandonments often predating or unrelated to Spartan incursions, prompting revisionists to favor a model of gradual Spartan expansion through settlement and economic dominance over a singular military campaign. , synthesizing regional evidence from Laconia and , accepts a broad Spartan conquest establishing helotage but cautions against literal acceptance of heroic sieges or battles, viewing ' 7th-century BC fragments as the earliest, albeit poetic and motivational, allusions to Messenian subjugation rather than historical chronicles. Debates persist on the helot origins, with Stephen Hodkinson emphasizing the systemic role of Messenian land appropriation in sustaining Spartan citizen equality, yet questioning whether all derived directly from wartime enslavement of a free population, as systemic biases in Spartan oral traditions minimized foreign narratives to preserve internal legitimacy. Anton Powell highlights how the underpinned Spartan in later Greek interstate relations, but modern analysis prioritizes causal factors like land hunger over legendary provocations such as the murder of King Teleclus. Overall, while the event's core—Spartan territorial control yielding dependent labor—is deemed probable based on ' incidental references to Messenian and epigraphic traces of Dorian migration, scholars privilege interdisciplinary evidence over biased reconstructions, underscoring the narrative's evolution as a tool for post-classical political rhetoric.

Chronology and Dating

Pausanias' Traditional Framework

Pausanias, in Book 4 of his , constructs the chronology of the First Messenian War primarily through synchronisms with Spartan royal genealogies, drawing on earlier traditions from poets like and Rhianos, while incorporating Messenian oral accounts preserved in local lore. He situates the war's outbreak during the overlapping reigns of the Spartan kings Alcamenes (Eurypontid line, son of Teleclus) and (Agiad line, son of ), following the death of the previous Agiad king Polydorus, whose rule Pausanias links to the immediate prelude of escalating border tensions. This framework posits the conflict as commencing after a Messenian raid on Spartan territory near the frontier river, prompted by King Euphaes of , which provoked a full Spartan under Theopompus' leadership. The narrative unfolds over approximately 19 years of intermittent campaigning, with Pausanias detailing key phases: initial Spartan invasions repelled by Messenian forces under Euphaes and his successor , followed by a decisive shift after ' ritual suicide, leading to the prolonged siege of the stronghold at Ithome. Pausanias emphasizes oracular prophecies and heroic exploits, such as the Messenians' defense bolstered by divine favor, but anchors the timeline relative to Spartan kingly successions rather than absolute calendars, deriving later absolute dates (traditionally 743–724 BC) from alignments with early Olympic victors and Sosibius' king lists, which place ' accession around the mid-8th century BC. This structure portrays the war's conclusion with the fall of Ithome in the 20th year, resulting in Messenian surrender and subjugation, though Pausanias notes discrepancies between Spartan (Tyrtaean) brevity and Messenian elaborations by Rhianos, suggesting the framework amalgamates biased partisan sources rather than contemporaneous records. Pausanias' reliance on regnal years—such as Theopompus' 41-year reign encompassing the war's climax—lacks independent verification from inscriptions or , and his integration of mythical elements, like ' twin sons and prophetic dreams, indicates a historiographical approach prioritizing etiological explanations over empirical sequencing. Nonetheless, this traditional scaffold, synchronized via Heraclid descents and Dorian migrations, forms the basis for subsequent Greek chronologies, influencing later authors despite evident anachronisms, such as projecting 5th-century onto 8th-century events. Scholars attribute the framework's endurance to Pausanias' access to periēgētic traditions and temple inscriptions at sites like Olympia and , though its precision remains contested due to the absence of cross-corroborating epigraphic evidence from the period.

Archaeological and Alternative Timelines

Archaeological surveys in , including excavations at key sites like Nichoria, reveal destruction layers and site abandonments dated to the late , with Nichoria specifically showing evidence of burning around 750–700 BC. However, these events lack clear attribution to a Spartan-led , as no widespread remnants, mass burials, or abrupt shifts in consistent with a full-scale in the traditional 743–724 BC window appear across the region. Instead, patterns of gradual depopulation and reduced settlement density emerge toward the early , alongside increasing Laconian ceramic imports and architectural influences, suggesting incremental Spartan expansion rather than a singular event. This sparse and ambiguous evidence contrasts with Pausanias' narrative, prompting scholars to question the historicity of a discrete First Messenian War. No contemporary inscriptions or artifacts directly corroborate the siege of Ithome or ' campaigns, and the absence of destruction horizons at major centers like undermines claims of rapid subjugation. Helotage, implied by later Spartan land divisions, aligns more closely with 7th-century socioeconomic shifts, such as elite flight and communal villager settlements persisting under oversight, rather than immediate enslavement. Alternative timelines favor a "low chronology," positing the effective Spartan takeover in the first half of the (circa 700–650 BC), which reconciles ' references to grandfathers' conflicts—composed around 650 BC—with the archaeological continuity in Messenian independence until then. This view, supported by king-list synchronisms and the timing of periokoi integration, treats Pausanias' high chronology () as retrojected legend influenced by Dorian return myths, bereft of empirical anchors like aligned Olympic victors or Iliadic precedents. Some analyses further dissolve the war into mythic construct, arguing helotry originated from pre-conquest inequalities amplified by narrative traditions, with full control achieved by the amid broader Peloponnesian realignments.

Challenges to Fixed Dates

The traditional chronology of the First Messenian War, placing it between approximately 743 and 724 BC based on Pausanias' account, depends heavily on a single late source whose reliability is contested by modern scholars. Pausanias, writing in the AD, drew from the 3rd-century BC poet Rhianos of , who composed epics glorifying Messenian resistance; these narratives likely served to construct a heroic ethnic identity for ns during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, rather than reflecting contemporary records. Earlier historians like and mention Spartan subjugation of but omit details of a distinct "First" war in the mid-8th century, suggesting the event's framing as a prolonged conflict may be a later elaboration. Archaeological evidence further undermines fixed dates in the , as excavations in Messenian sites such as Nichoria and the region around Mount Ithome reveal settlement continuity and no widespread destruction layers or military disruptions aligning with 743–724 BC. Instead, indicates gradual Laconian influence through trade and migration starting in the late 8th century, with fuller Spartan control evident only by the early , pointing to assimilation rather than a decisive . This discrepancy arises from in ancient chronologies, which retrofitted events to Olympic dating systems potentially miscalibrated by sources like Sosibius, leading scholars to propose alternative timelines where significant Spartan expansion occurred amid 7th-century upheavals, such as the Second Messenian War around 685–668 BC. Critics like Nino Luraghi argue that the "wars" narrative itself may be pseudo-historical, invented to legitimize helot subjugation and Messenian claims during later movements, with empirical data favoring a process of territorial incorporation over dated military campaigns. Without corroborating epigraphic or artefactual evidence from the purported period—such as dedicatory inscriptions or weapon hoards tied to Spartan victories—the fixed dates remain speculative, highlighting systemic issues in archaic Greek where oral traditions and ethnic mythmaking obscure causal sequences of expansion.

Historical Context

Dorian Settlement and Early Spartan Expansion

The traditional narrative of Dorian settlement in Laconia, as recounted in ancient Greek sources, posits a migration of Dorian tribes from into the following the collapse of Mycenaean civilization around 1100 BC, with the establishing dominance in Laconia and founding the of under Heraclid kings. This account attributes to the a , tribal divisions (Hylleis, Pamphyloi, Dymanes), and institutions that shaped early Spartan society, including a dual kingship from the Agiad and Eurypontid lines tracing back to legendary figures like Procles and . However, archaeological evidence from Laconia reveals continuity in settlement patterns, pottery styles, and burial practices from the Late through the Early , with no abrupt disruptions indicative of a large-scale or population replacement around 1100 BC. Instead, gradual and internal developments likely contributed to the adoption of Dorian linguistic and social elements in the region, as seen in the evolution from Submycenaean to Protogeometric wares without foreign imports or destruction layers uniquely tied to northern migrants. By the , the Spartan polity had coalesced around five villages—Limnai, Kynoousa, Mesoa, Pitane, and Sparta proper—through a process of synoikism, consolidating control over central Laconia and subordinating pre-existing communities, possibly Achaean or local populations, as the nucleus of the homoioi ( equals). This internal unification was accompanied by expansion into peripheral territories within Laconia, where autonomous towns such as Gytheion, Epidauros Limera, and Thyrea were incorporated as perioikoi settlements; these communities retained in local affairs but provided , , and economic support to the Spartans without full . Archaeological surveys in southern Laconia indicate increased settlement density and fortified sites during the late , reflecting Spartan efforts to secure coastal access and agricultural lands amid growing population pressures and land scarcity in the valley. Spartan expansion beyond core Laconia targeted in the mid-8th century BC, motivated by the allure of its fertile alluvial plains, which offered to alleviate divisions and support a class increasingly oriented toward tactics. Prior to the outbreak of the First Messenian War (traditionally dated 743–724 BC by Pausanias), Spartan forces likely probed border regions along the mountains, establishing outposts and engaging in skirmishes that tested Messenian defenses under kings like Euphaes and . This phase of expansion transformed from a localized power into a , with perioikoi poleis in eastern and southern Laconia supplying naval and auxiliary forces that facilitated operations across the rugged terrain separating the two regions. The resulting control over Messenian provided the economic base of coerced labor essential to sustaining Spartan military exclusivity, though the precise mechanisms of initial subjugation remain obscured by the paucity of contemporary inscriptions or artifacts from these early conquests.

Messenian Society and Economy Pre-Conflict

The region of Messenia possessed exceptionally fertile alluvial plains, particularly along the Pamisos River valley, which facilitated an agriculture-based economy centered on cereal crops such as and , alongside olives, vines, and activities like sheep and goat herding. This productivity stemmed from the area's deep soils and reliable water sources, enabling surplus production that sustained a population without the resource constraints faced in neighboring Laconia. Archaeological surveys, including the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, document low settlement density in the Geometric period (ca. 900–700 BCE), characterized by dispersed rural hamlets and farmsteads rather than nucleated towns or fortified centers. Sites like Nichoria, occupied until approximately 750 BCE, featured clusters of modest houses with storage facilities and agricultural tools, indicating self-sufficient communities focused on local cultivation and minimal craft production, such as basic . Artifacts reveal limited evidence of external trade, with predominantly local coarse wares and few imports, suggesting an economy oriented toward internal consumption over commerce. Social organization appears decentralized, comprising extended kin groups or villages without signs of strong central authority, as no palaces, large temples, or monumental predate the Spartan conquest. Burials occasionally include weapons, fibulae, and horse trappings, pointing to emerging elites who controlled prime lands and mobilized for defense, though population estimates remain low—likely tens of thousands across the region—based on site densities and ceramic scatters. This structure contrasts with more urbanized contemporaries, rendering Messenian communities militarily fragmented yet economically viable until external pressures, such as Spartan expansion, disrupted them. Later literary traditions of unified Messenian kingship, as in Pausanias, lack corroboration from contemporary material evidence and reflect post- mythic reconstruction rather than pre-war reality.

Interstate Relations in the Peloponnese

In the , interstate relations in the were characterized by fragmented polities, localized rivalries, and emerging patterns of conquest rather than formalized alliances, with positioning itself as an expansionist power amid competition for arable land and strategic frontiers. Argos, controlling key eastern territories, maintained a position of traditional enmity toward , rooted in territorial disputes over regions like Thyreatis, though direct clashes such as the Battle of Hysiai occurred later in 669 BC; this rivalry predated the First Messenian War and limited Argive intervention in Spartan-Messenian affairs. Sparta's relations with Arcadian communities, particularly , involved early aggressive probes aimed at subjugation, as Sparta sought to secure its northern borders and incorporate peripheral areas like Skiritis before turning southward; however, full conquest of eluded until later treaty-based alliances in the mid-6th century BC, following failed attempts possibly linked to the "Battle of the Fetters." Archaeological evidence, including Lakonian Protogeometric pottery at , indicates pre-conflict cultural contacts but no binding pacts that would have drawn Arcadians into the Messenian conflict. Messenia, as an independent entity with fertile valleys like the Pamisos, maintained autonomy without documented alliances to counter Spartan incursions, though its resistance during the First Messenian War (c. 743–724 BC) relied on internal mobilization rather than external Peloponnesian support from states like or , which remained peripheral to the conflict. This isolation underscored the absence of a cohesive interstate framework, with Sparta's conquest-driven diplomacy—subjugating Messenians as while establishing perioikic subordinates in Laconia—foreshadowing later hegemonic structures like the , formed only after repeated Messenian subjugation.

Causes and Provocations

Underlying Spartan Motivations

Sparta's pursuit of the First Messenian War stemmed fundamentally from economic and demographic imperatives, as the city's territory in Laconia provided inadequate arable land to support its expanding citizen body of Spartiates. Prior to the conquest, Laconian soil was divided into roughly 9,000 equal allotments (kleroi), reflecting resource constraints that threatened the egalitarian distribution essential to Spartan social order and the maintenance of full-time warriors unburdened by farming. Messenia's fertile alluvial plains promised substantial agricultural expansion, potentially doubling Sparta's cultivable area and enabling surplus production to underpin the hoplite class's leisure and military specialization. Overpopulation exacerbated these pressures, with population growth in the BCE straining Laconia's limited and fostering internal instability, as unequal access to viable land risked eroding the homoioi (equals) system. Conquest addressed this by subjugating Messenians as , whose coerced labor on redistributed estates generated the fixed contributions (apophora) that sustained Spartiates without personal toil, thus stabilizing the regime through enforced agrarian output. This helot-dependent model, while innovative, institutionalized perpetual antagonism, as the economic dependency on servile farming perpetuated Spartan vigilance against revolt. While later traditions invoke border disputes or royal admissions of necessity—such as a Spartan king's acknowledgment of land shortages—these likely rationalize deeper causal drivers of expansionist rather than incidental triggers. Archaeological patterns of site intensification in Laconia circa 750–700 BCE further corroborate pre-war , underscoring how resolved existential threats to Sparta's proto-militaristic .

Immediate Triggers and Border Incidents

The primary precipitating the First Messenian War, according to Pausanias, occurred at the sanctuary of Limnatis, located on the frontier between Laconia and Messenia. Spartan tradition held that Messenian men violated Spartan maidens participating in a festival there, prompting King Teleclus to intervene; he was slain in the ensuing clash, after which the maidens reportedly took their own lives. The Messenian account countered that Teleclus orchestrated an ambush, disguising beardless Spartan youths as girls armed with concealed daggers to assassinate prominent Messenian attendees; in , the Messenians killed the attackers, including Teleclus himself. Pausanias, drawing from third-century BCE historians like Rhianus who amplified Messenian oral traditions, presents these irreconcilable narratives without endorsement, reflecting the partisan distortions typical of post-conquest accounts aimed at justifying territorial claims or glorifying resistance. A subsequent episode involving cattle theft served as the direct catalyst for open hostilities. Messenian Olympic victor Polychares, leasing pastureland from Spartans near the border, suffered the theft of his herds by the Spartan Euaephnus, who also murdered Polychares' son. In retaliation, Polychares ambushed and killed Euaephnus along with other Spartans, prompting Lacedaemonian demands for his alongside reparations for Teleclus' death—demands the Messenians rejected. These events, framed by Pausanias as culminating in Sparta's declaration of war during the reign of Alcamenes (Teleclus' son) and Messenian Euphaes, align with a traditional start date of 743 BCE, marked by an initial Spartan assault on the Messenian town of Ampheia. While such incidents underscore plausible frictions over grazing rights and undefended frontiers in a pastoral economy, the absence of corroboration from earlier sources like or archaeological markers of pre-war violence suggests these details may represent etiologies retrofitted to rationalize Spartan expansion rather than verbatim history.

Demographic and Resource Pressures

In the eighth century BCE, experienced following the consolidation of Dorian settlements in Laconia, which strained the region's limited . Early traditions indicate that the numbered around 2,000 households at the outset of this expansion, but subsequent increases placed pressure on the agricultural base of Laconia, a characterized by mountainous terrain and inferior compared to neighboring regions. This demographic expansion mirrored broader trends across Greek poleis, where rising numbers prompted territorial adjustments, including or , to secure sustenance for citizens. Messenia, by contrast, possessed highly fertile alluvial plains ideal for grain production, as noted in archaic poetry attributing its productivity to divine favor. Spartan control over Laconia alone provided insufficient resources to support an expanding citizen-warrior class reliant on agriculture for self-sufficiency, exacerbating land scarcity amid growing family allotments. The conquest of Messenia thus addressed these pressures by annexing approximately 3,200 square kilometers of prime farmland, enabling the redistribution of lots to sustain the Spartan elite without reliance on external trade or overseas foundations. Archaeological surveys confirm Messenia's superior agricultural potential, with evidence of intensive Bronze Age and early Iron Age cultivation that persisted into the archaic period, underscoring its appeal as a resource target. These demographic and resource dynamics formed a causal for Spartan aggression, as internal pressures favored expansion into adjacent territories over fragmented colonial ventures. While ancient sources like emphasize Messenian wealth as a lure, modern analyses highlight how Laconia's ecological constraints—limited flatland and variable rainfall—necessitated subjugation of a more productive neighbor to avert subsistence crises. The resulting helotage system institutionalized this imbalance, binding Messenian labor to Spartan landholdings and averting further population-driven instability in the .

Traditional Course of Events

Spartan Offensive and Initial Engagements

The Spartan offensive in the First Messenian War commenced under the dual kingship of Alcamenes of the Agiad line and of the Eurypontid line, who led Lacedaemonian forces across the and Oenus rivers into Messenian territory. According to Pausanias, drawing from earlier accounts such as those of Myron of , the invaders ravaged the countryside as far as the Pamisus River before launching a surprise night assault on Ampheia, a fortified town situated on the slopes of Mount Ithome near the western flank of . This initial engagement, dated by Pausanias to the second year of the 26th (c. 743–742 BC), resulted in the swift capture of the settlement, exploiting the element of surprise against unprepared defenders. In response, the Messenians, commanded by their king Euphaes, mounted a on the Spartan encampment outside Ampheia. The Lacedaemonians, maintaining disciplined formation, repelled the assault decisively, inflicting heavy casualties and slaying Euphaes in the fray, which forced the Messenian forces into retreat. These early clashes established Spartan tactical superiority in open engagements, leveraging their emerging phalanx-style against less coordinated Messenian resistance, though the narrative relies on Hellenistic-era reconstructions prone to heroic embellishment rather than contemporary records. Subsequent Spartan advances pushed deeper into , setting the stage for prolonged conflict, but initial successes at Ampheia underscored motivations rooted in territorial expansion and resource acquisition amid Dorian population pressures. Pausanias' chronology frames these events as the war's opening phase, spanning roughly two decades until the siege of Ithome, though modern assessments question the precision of dates and scale due to the absence of epigraphic or archaeological corroboration for such pitched battles in the . The accounts, preserved through poets like Myron, emphasize Spartan aggression as unprovoked expansionism, yet reflect later Messenian perspectives aimed at legitimizing resistance narratives rather than neutral .

Messenian Resistance and Key Battles

The Messenians offered prolonged and fierce resistance to the Spartan , leveraging their of the and defensive fortifications to counter the superior Spartan in a series of engagements that extended the conflict over nearly two decades. Traditional accounts attribute this resilience to leaders such as King Euphaes, son of Antiochus, who mobilized the Messenian forces after initial Spartan incursions into border regions. Spartan sources, preserved fragmentarily through later historians, emphasize the unexpected tenacity of the Messenians, who refused to submit despite early setbacks, forcing Sparta to commit to a war of attrition under kings Alcamenes and . Key early battles highlighted the initial phases of resistance. In 743 BC, Spartan forces under Alcamenes captured the fortified town of Ampheia, massacring its defenders and inhabitants in a punitive raid that marked the formal outbreak of hostilities; this success, however, failed to break Messenian morale and instead galvanized further opposition. Three years later, Euphaes led Messenian troops, alongside commanders like Cleonnis, in a defensive stand near a ravine, where they entrenched in a fortified camp and repelled Spartan assaults to a bloody draw, inflicting significant casualties on the invaders. Pausanias, relying on Hellenistic sources such as the epic poet Rhianus of and the prose historian Myron of , describes these encounters as pivotal in staving off immediate conquest, though modern analysis questions the precision of such details due to the legendary embellishments in Rhianus' work. Subsequent clashes, including a major pitched battle under Euphaes against Theopompus and his co-commander Polydorus, proved indecisive, with fighting continuing until nightfall amid heavy losses on both sides; Messenian archers and reportedly disrupted Spartan advances, prolonging the . These engagements, fought primarily on the fertile plains of , underscored the Messenians' tactical adaptability, as they alternated between open combat and retreats to higher ground, denying a swift victory. Pausanias notes additional sites like Derae and the "Boar's Tomb" (Kaprou Sema) for early victories attributed to Messenian forces, though these may reflect pro-Messenian traditions compiled centuries later. Overall, this resistance exhausted Spartan resources, compelling a shift toward prolonged operations, but lacked external alliances, isolating the Messenians in their defense. Scholarly consensus views Pausanias' narrative as blending historical kernels with mythic elements, given the absence of corroborating Spartan records or contemporary inscriptions.

Siege of Ithome and Surrender

Following initial Spartan victories and Messenian setbacks, including desertions among slaves and outbreaks of disease, the remaining Messenian forces under kings and Euphaes retreated to the fortified heights of Mount Ithome, a steep and naturally defensible peak central to Messenian territory. This withdrawal marked the final phase of the First Messenian War, traditionally dated by Pausanias to 743–724 BC, as the Spartans shifted from open-field engagements to a prolonged . To address perceived divine displeasure amid mounting hardships, the Messenians consulted the Delphic oracle, which demanded the sacrifice of a maiden from the royal Aepytid lineage to avert further calamity. , interpreting the oracle's requirements amid familial and political strife, ultimately sacrificed his daughter, an act described in ancient accounts as fulfilling the prophecy though steeped in legendary elements derived from Hellenistic sources like Rhianus. Spartan forces renewed assaults on Ithome approximately five years after the retreat, during which Euphaes fell in battle after a 13-year reign, leaving to lead the defense. The siege endured as Spartans encircled the mountain, cutting off supplies and exploiting the defenders' isolation, with modern estimates placing its duration at around ten years within the broader 20-year conflict. Besieged by , internal despair, and relentless pressure, the Messenians abandoned Ithome in the war's twentieth year, as echoed in the poetry of : "But in the twentieth year they left their rich tilled lands, and fled from out the lofty mountains of Ithome." Aristodemus, confronted by unfavorable omens and the collapse of resistance, committed suicide, symbolizing the end of Messenian . Terms of surrender allowed some survivors to flee as exiles, while others faced death or subjugation, paving the way for Spartan domination and the origins of helotage in ; Pausanias' narrative, compiled centuries later from potentially nationalistic Messenian traditions, underscores the event's role in shaping Spartan identity despite its semi-legendary character.

Archaeological Evidence

Material Traces of Conflict

Excavations in have uncovered sparse direct indicators of violent conflict during the late , the period traditionally associated with the First Messenian War. At the settlement of Nichoria, a major destruction layer dated to approximately 750–700 BC, evidenced by collapsed structures and burnt remains, suggests an episode of or leading to abandonment; this has been tentatively attributed by some scholars to early Spartan military pressure, though alternative explanations such as internal strife or cannot be ruled out. A contemporaneous "warrior burial" in Trench III at Nichoria, containing iron weapons including a and spearhead beneath a stone , points to martial activity in the region, potentially reflecting heightened tensions or skirmishes. Broader surveys indicate patterns of site depopulation across western around the same timeframe, with abandonments at locations like Kouphovouno and possible disruptions at Pylos-area villages, interpreted by archaeologists as consistent with territorial expansion or displacement rather than wholesale devastation. However, the absence of mass graves, widespread weapon scatters, or fortified remnants datable to this era—such as at Mount Ithome, where significant defenses appear only in later periods—undermines claims of a cataclysmic campaign. Indirect traces include the initial appearance of Laconian-style ceramics and architectural influences in Messenian contexts from the late onward, signaling gradual Spartan penetration and cultural overlay rather than abrupt conquest. This material shift, observed in pottery assemblages with motifs echoing Laconian Protogeometric wares, supports a model of incremental control through settlement and over outright . Overall, the prioritizes evidence of disruption and assimilation, challenging literary narratives of heroic sieges while highlighting the limitations of perishable evidence in pre-literate .

Site Abandonments and Cultural Shifts

Archaeological surveys in reveal limited evidence of site abandonments during the late , coinciding temporally with the traditional dating of the First Messenian War (c. 743–724 BC). The most prominent example is the Nichoria ridge settlement, which was abandoned before the mid-, during the Late Geometric period, with no associated destruction layers or burn marks indicative of violent conquest. Some scholars interpret this abandonment as potentially linked to early Spartan territorial pressures, given Nichoria's strategic location in the region, though alternative explanations include economic decline or environmental factors absent direct artefactual evidence of warfare. The Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP) documents only five definite Geometric-period sites in surveyed areas, clustered primarily in regions I, VI, and VII, with no widespread pattern of destruction or mass abandonment across . Continuity is evident at sites like Romanou (c. 18–22 hectares), which maintained occupation from Geometric through Classical times, suggesting resilient local settlement rather than wholesale depopulation. PRAP data challenge narratives of a depopulated western post-conquest, indicating instead active, nucleated communities that may have adapted to emerging Spartan oversight without catastrophic disruption. Cultural shifts in Messenia during the 8th–7th centuries BC appear subtle archaeologically, with persistent low-level ritual activity at cult sites such as on Mount Ithome and Apollo Korythos, even under presumed Spartan control. styles and practices show gradual evolution toward Archaic forms, but without abrupt breaks signaling foreign imposition; for instance, tomb cults at prehistoric tholos tombs like Nichoria's Tholos F continued intermittently, reflecting enduring local traditions. This continuity implies that any Spartan influence fostered supervised agrarian communities—potentially proto-helot nucleated settlements—rather than erasing indigenous , as evidenced by the absence of imported Laconian dominance in early Archaic assemblages. Overall, the underscores a pattern of selective abandonment and adaptive persistence over violent upheaval.

Limitations of Physical Corroboration

Destruction layers identified at key Messenian sites, such as Nichoria in the late , provide potential traces of conflict but fail to conclusively corroborate the Spartan conquest narrative due to imprecise dating and ambiguous causation. Excavations at Nichoria reveal burning in Unit IV-5 around 750 BC, accompanied by ash deposits and a burial with an iron , yet these features could stem from accidental fires, local disputes, or non-military events rather than organized Spartan invasion. Chronological frameworks based on Geometric often carry margins of error spanning a generation or more, misaligning with traditional dates for the war (circa 743–724 BC) derived from later sources like Pausanias, whose account was composed nearly 900 years afterward. Systematic regional surveys, including the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, have documented site abandonments and shifts in settlement patterns across during the early Archaic period, but these reflect broader demographic or economic trends rather than targeted devastation. Prior to such initiatives, data deficiencies arose from limited excavations in agriculturally intensive areas, where plowing and erosion obscure or disperse artifacts, yielding sparse surface scatters insufficient for attributing causality to Spartan forces. The absence of mass weapon deposits, inscriptions, or fortifications datable to the —such as at Ithome, where defenses postdate the era by centuries—exacerbates interpretive challenges, as Spartan emphasized austerity with minimal durable remains. Scholarly analyses, including those by Nino Luraghi, emphasize that physical evidence does not substantiate a singular, dramatic , suggesting instead gradual integration or early control mechanisms predating the , which may represent a later ethnic memory constructed for ideological purposes. Isolated finds, like a single at Asine, offer tantalizing hints of violence but lack context linking them to Messenian resistance or Spartan offensives, underscoring the reliance on literary amplification over empirical traces. Overall, the Geometric period's rural, non-monumental character in both Laconia and limits the potential for unambiguous physical corroboration, rendering archaeological data suggestive at best but inconclusive for verifying specific events like battles or the siege of Ithome.

Consequences and Immediate Aftermath

Enslavement and Helot System Origins

Following the Spartan conquest in the First Messenian War, traditionally dated circa 743–724 BC, the surviving Messenian population faced systematic subjugation, with many reduced to helotry—a form of state-enforced that bound them to the land as agricultural laborers. Ancient accounts, preserved in Pausanias' (drawing from earlier sources like Myron of Priene's Messeniaka), describe how King Theopompos of Sparta, after the prolonged of Ithome, imposed this status on the defeated, redistributing Messenian territories as kleroi (hereditary land allotments) to victorious n citizens, who extracted a fixed in produce without direct oversight. This arrangement originated as a pragmatic response to Sparta's need for a stable labor force to support its full-time warrior class, leveraging Messenia's fertile plains for grain and other staples essential to citizen subsistence. The system differentiated Messenian from chattel slaves elsewhere in , as they retained family units, limited property rights, and communal structures, yet remained collectively owned by the Spartan state rather than individuals, with no against exploitation or ritualized . , an 7th-century BC Spartan poet, alluded to this dependent status in fragments celebrating the conquest, portraying as conquered foes compelled to toil under perpetual threat, a dynamic reinforced by institutions like the krypteia (a youth training ritual involving helot killings) and annual ephoral declarations of war on to legitimize coercion. While Laconian predated the Messenian conquest—stemming from the earlier subjugation of towns like Helos, from which the term "helot" (heilotai) derives—the Messenian component vastly expanded the system, providing the demographic bulk (estimated at several times the population) that sustained Sparta's agoge-focused . This enserfment's causal roots lay in Sparta's conquest-driven expansion amid Archaic demographic pressures and land scarcity in Laconia, where direct farming by citizens risked diluting prowess; empirical parallels in Near Eastern systems suggest helotage as an adaptive for via coerced , though Sparta's version emphasized ethnic enmity to deter revolt. Modern analyses, informed by fragmentary epigraphic and literary evidence, affirm the war's role in institutionalizing helotage, despite debates over the narrative's 4th-century BC elaboration by Messenian exiles to justify later claims.

Spartan Territorial Gains

The conquest of Messenia following the First Messenian War, traditionally dated to circa 743–724 BC, resulted in 's acquisition of the region's fertile alluvial plains, particularly along the Pamisos River valley, which provided significantly richer agricultural land than the rocky terrains of Laconia. This expansion enabled to redistribute Messenian estates as kleroi—fixed land allotments assigned to full Spartan citizens (Spartiates)—thereby supporting a citizen body dedicated to pursuits rather than subsistence farming. The gains alleviated population pressures in Laconia and secured a reliable food surplus through coerced labor, fundamentally altering 's economic base. Ancient sources, such as the poetry of , describe Spartans seizing land after two decades of conflict, with defeated Messenians retreating to mountainous refuges like Mount Ithome, implying effective Spartan dominance over lowland territories. Pausanias recounts the Messenian surrender at Ithome leading to loss of their lands, though he attributes the full imposition of helotage—state-enforced —to subsequent events. Scholarly analysis estimates this increased Sparta's cultivable area by nearly half or more, fostering dependency on helot tribute that comprised up to half of the produce from assigned plots. However, the precise extent of territorial incorporation remains uncertain, as archaeological and textual evidence suggests Sparta may have initially secured only coastal and valley zones, with fuller integration occurring over generations amid ongoing resistance. These gains entrenched Sparta's control over key sites like and the Stenyclarus plain, enhancing strategic depth in the western and providing buffers against external threats. The influx of productive territory underpinned the homoioi system's viability, where equal shares of land theoretically prevented wealth disparities among citizens, though later concentrations eroded this ideal. Unlike alliances or tribute arrangements with other neighbors, Messenian subjugation involved direct and demographic subjection, marking a shift from communal Dorian settlement patterns to imperial exploitation.

Demographic Impacts on Messenia

The Spartan conquest following the First Messenian War (c. 743–724 BC) transformed the free population into , a state-controlled serf class bound to the land and compelled to provide fixed portions of their agricultural produce to Spartan overlords. This helotization encompassed the majority of Messenians, who previously comprised an independent Dorian or pre-Dorian populace, effectively curtailing their autonomy while preserving their demographic presence through native reproduction rather than replacement via imported slaves. Helot demographics in Messenia exhibited relative stability post-conquest, with less pronounced decline compared to Laconian counterparts, as their labor sustained Spartan citizen-farmer allotments (kleroi) without evidence of wholesale extermination or mass displacement. A portion of the Messenian elite and fighters evaded enslavement by fleeing into , fostering an early that maintained a distinct "Messenian" identity separate from the helotized remainder; these exiles later invoked the in narratives of resistance, as preserved in sources like Pausanias. The helot population, estimated in later periods to outnumber Spartiates by ratios up to 7:1 across Laconia and , originated substantially from this subjugated group, enabling demographic growth through family units rather than chattel importation. Archaeological surveys in reveal continuity in settlement patterns into the Archaic period, with no clear indicators of abrupt depopulation in the late , suggesting that while social structures collapsed, the core populace endured under altered status. Longer-term, the helot system's demands—intensified by annual declarations of war on to justify killings—imposed selective pressures, targeting the strongest males and potentially skewing sex ratios or vitality, though quantitative remains elusive. This demographic subordination underpinned Sparta's militarized society but sowed seeds of instability, as evidenced by subsequent helot revolts drawing on Messenian numbers. Scholarly estimates posit as 60–79% of the regional population by the Classical era, a legacy traceable to the war's immediate restructuring rather than total erasure.

Scholarly Controversies

Historicity and Narrative Construction

The primary accounts of the First Messenian War originate from Hellenistic-era authors rather than contemporary , with Pausanias in the AD compiling narratives from Rhianus of Bene's epic Messeniaka and Myron of Priene's , both composed in the . These sources describe a conflict spanning approximately 743–724 BC, involving Spartan kings like Teleclus and Messenian leader , culminating in of Ithome and Messenian defeat, but they lack corroboration from Archaic-period inscriptions or artifacts. Earlier references, such as in ' poetry from the mid-7th century BC, allude to Messenian subjugation without specifying a singular "first" , suggesting the detailed emerged later as a constructed tradition rather than . Scholars widely regard the war's as dubious, characterizing it as a "pseudo-history" fabricated during the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, potentially by Messenian exiles or propagandists to assert a distinct ethnic identity following their liberation from Spartan control after the in 371 BC. This construction served ideological purposes: for Messenians, it romanticized resistance figures like Aristomenes as symbols of heroism against oppression, while for Spartans, it may have retroactively justified helotage as the outcome of a legitimate conquest rather than piecemeal expansion. The absence of archaeological evidence—such as widespread destruction layers or fortified sites datable to the mid-8th century BC—further undermines claims of a cataclysmic , with material traces of conflict in attributable to other periods or localized skirmishes. From a first-principles perspective, the narrative's —positing a rapid Spartan enabling the helot system's origins—conflicts with of gradual Lakonian-Messenian integration via marriage alliances and trade in the , as inferred from shared and settlement patterns. While a kernel of truth may exist in Spartan territorial expansion into by the late 8th century, the epic-scale war, complete with prophetic oracles and heroic suicides, aligns more with mythic than empirical reconstruction, reflecting Hellenistic-era needs to retroject national myths onto sparse Archaic realities. Modern analyses emphasize evaluating these sources against their political contexts, noting Rhianus' and Myron's works as products of Messenian revivalism rather than disinterested chronicles.

Conquest vs. Gradual Integration

The scholarly debate over the First Messenian War centers on whether achieved dominance through a decisive military or via a more protracted process of economic, demographic, and political integration. Traditional accounts, drawing from ancient literary sources, portray a violent subjugation of around 735–715 BCE, resulting in the enslavement of its population as . Proponents of this view, such as Hans van Wees, argue that the helot system exemplifies archaic Greek imperialism, where victors imposed forced labor on defeated communities, akin to serfdom in or Argos. , a 7th-century BCE Spartan , describes intense warfare lasting two generations, with Messenians portrayed as stubborn foes ultimately subdued, lending early contemporary support to a tied to Sparta's territorial expansion. In contrast, skeptics like Nino Luraghi contend that the model is an ideological fabrication, retroactively constructed to justify and bolster Spartan or Messenian identities. Early sources such as emphasize flight and resistance rather than mass enslavement, with fuller enslavement tales emerging centuries later in Pausanias and others, influenced by events like the 5th-century BCE Messenian revolt. Luraghi proposes that in arose from pre-existing dependent laborers gradually subordinated through Spartan infiltration, rather than a singular ethnic of a unified . This aligns with evidence of Messenia's pre-Spartan fragmentation, lacking the cohesion of a centralized state ripe for abrupt overthrow. Archaeological data underscores the challenges to a rapid conquest thesis, revealing no widespread destruction layers or cultural ruptures in Messenian sites datable to the late 8th or early 7th centuries BCE. Instead, material records indicate gradual Laconian stylistic influences emerging from the late 8th century onward, suggesting incremental dominance via settlement, trade, or alliances rather than cataclysmic invasion. While undisputed that Sparta exercised full control over Messenia by the early 6th century BCE, the absence of corroborative physical traces implies that literary epics may exaggerate for propagandistic effect, prioritizing mythic causation over empirical sequence. Recent syntheses favor a hybrid model: localized conflicts enabling progressive integration, with helotage crystallizing from systemic subjugation rather than wholesale ethnic replacement.

Role in Spartan Identity Formation

The First Messenian War, traditionally dated to approximately 743–724 BCE, established Spartan dominance over and initiated the helotage system, whereby the defeated Messenians were reduced to state-serfs obligated to cultivate land allotments for Spartan citizens. This arrangement freed Spartiates from agricultural labor, enabling their full-time devotion to military training and governance, which became hallmarks of Spartan identity. The generated by helot labor supported the Spartan communal messes () and equalized citizen landholdings, reinforcing a collective ethos of and martial equality among the homoioi, or "similars." The perpetual threat of helot revolt, rooted in Messenian resentment from the conquest, instilled a in , manifesting in institutions like the krypteia—a rite where young Spartans secretly assassinated potentially rebellious —and annual declarations of war on the to legitimize their subjugation. This fear-driven vigilance shaped Spartan social controls, including eugenic and rigorous agoge education, which prioritized physical prowess and obedience, forging an identity centered on unyielding discipline and collective defense against internal subversion. Spartan cultural narratives, preserved in poetry like that of , glorified the Messenian conquest as a foundational epic of endurance and heroism, embedding it in the as the origin of Sparta's superior warrior caste. This mythologized victory differentiated Spartans from other , emphasizing their role as perpetual guardians of order against chaos, a self-conception that influenced and alliances, such as leadership in the . However, modern scholarship debates the war's , suggesting the helot system and militarism may have evolved gradually rather than from a singular cataclysmic event, though the traditional account underscores how perceived Messenian subjugation catalyzed Sparta's unique societal rigidity.

Long-Term Legacy

Influence on Spartan Militarism

The First Messenian War, dated approximately 743–724 BC, culminated in Sparta's conquest of , reducing its population to —a servile class bound to the land and obligated to deliver half their produce to Spartan overlords. This system originated directly from the war's outcome, as Spartan forces under King seized the fertile Pamisos valley to alleviate pressures in Laconia, redistributing conquered territory as kleroi (allotments) worked by helot labor. The resulting demographic imbalance, with outnumbering Spartan citizens by roughly 7:1 as evidenced at the in 479 BC, instilled a chronic fear of rebellion that fundamentally drove Sparta's militaristic evolution. To maintain control over this resentful majority, Sparta institutionalized pervasive military readiness. The , a compulsory training regimen beginning at age seven, conditioned male citizens in endurance, stealth, and combat, producing warriors unencumbered by agricultural toil thanks to helot dependency. Complementing this was the krypteia, a rite involving elite youths patrolling the countryside to assassinate strong or potentially insurgent helots, effectively a state-sanctioned terror mechanism that reinforced subjugation through fear. These practices, tied causally to the Messenian conquest's legacy, distinguished Spartan society by prioritizing collective defense over individual enterprise, with annual declarations of war on helots legitimizing preemptive violence. Long-term, the helot threat from shaped Spartan identity as a , curtailing foreign adventures to avoid weakening internal security and fostering oligarchic . Demographic decline among citizens, exacerbated by the system's demands, further entrenched , as policies like and equal land distribution aimed to sustain a homogeneous warrior elite. highlights this insecurity's role in Spartan decision-making, such as during the , where helot defections posed existential risks. Ultimately, the war's imposition of helotage transformed Sparta into Greece's preeminent military power, albeit one rigidly oriented toward suppression rather than innovation or expansion.

Messenian Identity and Later Revolts

Despite the imposition of helotage following the Spartan conquest, the subjugated population of retained a distinct ethnic identity, differentiated from Laconian by a of pre-conquest and ongoing resistance to Spartan dominance. This Messenian consciousness, often framed as a "rebel identity," manifested in cultural practices, such as persistent cults and oral traditions emphasizing heroic defiance, which contrasted with the more assimilated Lakonian lacking a separate pre-helotic . Archaeological and epigraphic indicates limited under Spartan control, with Messenian-specific elements enduring in peripheral sanctuaries and , though some scholars argue this identity was retroactively constructed in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE to legitimize anti-Spartan mobilization. The persistence of this identity fueled later revolts, most notably the Third Messenian War (464–455 BCE), triggered by a massive earthquake in Sparta on January 27, 464 BCE, which killed approximately 20,000 Spartans and emboldened helots to rebel. Messenian-led insurgents, numbering in the thousands, seized Mount Ithome as a defensible base, exploiting the Spartans' weakened state to declare independence and rally broader helot support. Sparta's prolonged siege of Ithome strained resources, leading to appeals for aid; Athens dispatched 4,000 cleruchs initially, but suspicions of Athenian sympathies prompted their dismissal in 461 BCE, escalating tensions that contributed to the Peloponnesian War. The rebels ultimately negotiated surrender in 455 BCE, receiving safe passage and resettling as Athenian allies at Naupactus, where they maintained military contingents against Sparta. Subsequent disturbances, including helot defections during the , underscored unresolved Messenian grievances, but definitive liberation occurred in 369 BCE following Theban victory at Leuctra (371 BCE). invaded Laconia, inciting mass helot desertions estimated at 70,000, and oversaw the refoundation of as a fortified on Ithome's slopes, integrating freed with returning exiles from Naupactus and other diasporas. This event crystallized Messenian identity through state cults venerating figures like Aristomenes—portrayed in Pausanias' accounts as a legendary resistor—and civic monuments rejecting n narratives, transforming helot resentment into a pan-Hellenic symbol of emancipation while economically undermining via land redistribution. The new polity's survival, despite Macedonian interventions, affirmed the resilience of this identity forged in subjugation.

Broader Hellenic Implications

The conquest of Messenia in the First Messenian War (c. 735–715 BC) endowed Sparta with substantial agricultural lands, enabling the sustenance of a citizen-warrior class unburdened by farming duties through the imposition of helotage on the subjugated population. This economic foundation supported an estimated 8,000 hoplites by the early , amplifying Sparta's military capacity and establishing it as the preeminent power in the . The resulting resource surplus shifted the balance of power away from rivals like Argos, fostering a that compelled neighboring poleis to recalibrate their strategies toward alliance or resistance. Sparta's post-conquest foreign policy evolved from direct subjugation—evident in initial failures against in the early —to formalized pacts, culminating in the by the mid-6th century BC. This coalition, binding most Peloponnesian states except Argos through oaths of mutual defense, extended Spartan influence without further large-scale annexations, stabilizing the peninsula under Lacedaemonian leadership. The league's structure exemplified unequal alliances, where Sparta's veto power and arbitration role influenced interstate disputes, setting a for hegemonic blocs in Greek politics. Across the Hellenic world, Sparta's model of internal consolidation via conquest contrasted with colonial expansions by states like or , projecting an image of disciplined, land-locked supremacy that other poleis viewed with wary emulation or opposition. This reputation underpinned Sparta's command in pan-Hellenic coalitions during the Persian invasions of 480–479 BC, where its formations proved decisive at and , thereby shaping collective Greek resistance to external threats. The enduring helot-dependent system, however, introduced chronic internal vulnerabilities, as recurrent Messenian unrest diverted Spartan resources and tempered its interventions in broader Greek affairs.

References

  1. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/messenian-wars
  2. https://core.ac.uk/download/524649347.pdf
  3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ancient-messenians/conquest-of-messenia-through-the-ages/D75B10C84F28008012A92ADD89B1662C
  4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4434759
  5. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/part-ii-ideologies-chapter-5-nino-luraghi-the-imaginary-conquest-of-the-helots/
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320547836_An_Archaeology_of_Ancient_Sparta_with_Reference_to_Laconia_and_Messenia
  7. https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias4A.html
  8. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-4311
  9. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/tyrtaeus-fragments/1999/pb_LCL258.45.xml
  10. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/adrh9g/looking_for_sources_first_messenian_war/
  11. https://core.ac.uk/download/132804049.pdf
  12. https://myths.uvic.ca/PAUS1-4.html
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1852266
  14. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ancient-messenians/425C070D49EB4B0264BE71A3BB9DE9CF
  15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119072379.ch3
  16. https://www.cristoraul.org/ENGLISH/readinghall/THIRDMILLENNIUMLIBRARY/HISTORY-OF-GREECE/PDF/Cartledge_Sparta_Lakonia-1300-362.pdf
  17. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/chapter-10-stephen-hodkinson-spartiates-helots-and-the-direction-of-the-agrarian-economy/
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/650985
  19. https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/when-two-sites-war-settlement-destruction-late-eighth-century-bc/
  20. https://www.academia.edu/98503949/Laconia_and_Messenia
  21. https://www.spartareconsidered.com/messenian-war-s-.html
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329875076_PYLOS_REGIONAL_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_PROJECT_PART_VII_A_Retrospective
  23. https://1440review.com/2024/01/15/the-lost-history-of-the-messenians/
  24. https://www.academia.edu/3314900/2009_Lakonia_and_Samos_during_the_Early_Iron_Age_A_Revised_Look_at_the_Messenian_War_Dates
  25. https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/GreeceSparta.htm
  26. https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/found-the-dorians/
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118769966.ch26
  28. https://www.spartareconsidered.com/perioikoi.html
  29. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/spartan-conquest-messenia
  30. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/part-iii-structures-chapter-8-thomas-j-figueira-the-demography-of-the-spartan-helots/
  31. https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/25067953.pdf
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236822470_Pylos_Regional_Archaeological_Project_Part_VII_Historical_Messenia_Geometric_through_Late_Roman
  33. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/csps/documents/beingpeloponnesian/ostby.pdf
  34. https://journals.openedition.org/gaia/5307
  35. https://sghsancienthistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/spartan-economy-land-ownership.pptx
  36. https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/messenian-wars/
  37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23906945
  38. https://www.storiespreschool.com/first_messenian_war2.html
  39. https://chs.harvard.edu/primary-source/a-pausanias-reader-in-progress-description-of-greece-scrolls-1-10/
  40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/284141
  41. https://www.epostravel-tours.com/the-messenian-wars/
  42. https://www.storiespreschool.com/first_messenian_war3.html
  43. https://www.storiespreschool.com/first_messenian_war.html
  44. https://esirc.emporia.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/2729/Romine%2520Jr.%25201971.pdf?sequence=1
  45. https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/147682.pdf
  46. https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/148395.pdf
  47. https://www.academia.edu/26548486/Origins_of_the_Helots
  48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24444854
  49. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/patterson/files/eleven.pdf
  50. https://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/a_comparison_of_spartan_helotry_and_ancient_near-eastern_slave_systems.pdf
  51. https://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/05sparta_1_0.pdf
  52. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10602-024-09453-0
  53. https://www.blacksacademy.net/pages/hy-005-anqgsp-sparta-sixth-seventh.php
  54. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/chapter-6-jonathan-m-hall-the-dorianization-of-the-messenians/
  55. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/part-i-helotic-histories-chapter-3-hans-van-wees-conquerors-and-serfs-wars-of-conquest-and-forced-labour-in-archaic-greece/
  56. https://brill.com/view/journals/agpt/41/1/article-p121_7.xml
  57. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm
  58. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1178/1178-h/1178-h.htm
  59. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Lycurgus*.html
  60. https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/21/HHR2021-jones.pdf
  61. https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1990_num_59_1_2279
  62. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118834312.ch19
  63. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/chapter-7-kurt-a-raaflaub-freedom-for-the-messenians/
  64. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005.06.26/
  65. https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780511402487_A23678042/preview-9780511402487_A23678042.pdf
  66. https://resolve.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/6B1D19B7529D9584CF9A3D767C556415/9780511481413c11_p330-344_CBO.pdf/conclusions.pdf
  67. https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/11295/1/DISSERTATIONFINALVERSION.pdf
  68. https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/article/download/2263/2152/
  69. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/sparta/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.