::::::::I can only assume that your persistent refusal to grant Cartledge credibility as a historian is influenced by two factors: your evident and admirable distaste for the Spartans, which by the way I share; and the fact that you have all too evidently never read any contemporary historical work on Sparta, including his.  I repeat, Cartledge is attested over and over again as a major authority.  I have his magnum opus next to me, Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History 1300 to 362 BC.  On the back is a quote from a review in the Times Higher Educational Supplement: "...an important book on Sparta - the best so far, in many ways..." That's from Simon Hornblower, one of the editors of the OCD (Oxford Classical Dictionary).  I urge you to track this book down and read the chapter 10, "Helots and Perioikoi", and then I will engage with you about Cartledge's credibility.  In the meantime, I cannot keep arguing about his credibility when you don't seem to know anything about him.  The guy is Professor of Greek History at Cambridge, not some fly-by-night Spartophile.  Do you want me to quote him at you about the Spartan treatment of the Helots?  Your refusal to grant him credibility is beginning to look increasingly irrational, if you don't mind my saying so.  You also think that I have said that he "lacks integrity as he is influenced by whoever is paying him".  That is beneath you, to be honest.  There is a time and a place for making serious criticisms of "300", and as a matter of fact he does make some serious criticisms of the Miller book in his book on Thermopylae - of which you appear to have read only the title.  Please, I welcome debate on this subject, but your distrust of Cartledge is something I am finding hard to take seriously.