I heard an interesting bit of information today while listening to Dan Carlin's newest episode of his history podcast, Hardcore History, Kings of Kings part 2. In it, while discussing the Battle of Thermopylae, Carlin mentioned that a new thought among some modern historians is that the Spartans were not actually as skilled and elite as people have hyped them up to be in the past, but that compared to the other Greek cities (most of which had almost no military preparation and schooling while the Spartans actually did) the Spartans looked absolutely unstoppable.
Is this a legitimate theory some historians have? If so, what are some examples of evidence to back it up?
I ask here mostly because I know Carlin, as much as I love his podcasts, is not an actual historian and has gotten information wrong in the past.
Pretty much the same question came up yesterday, so I'll link you to the same answer I linked to then: The answer written by u/XenophonTheAthenian in this post.
Spoiler: Spartans indeed weren't nearly as awesome as their reputation would have us believe. They had an advantage in training and discipline compared to other Greek, purely amateur forces, but even then managed to lose over half their battles.
That thread is closed, so if you have follow-up questions you can ask them here, maybe pinging that user in the process.