I feel like pop-culture (namely 300) has skewed pretty much everybody's perception on just how fierce and efficient the Spartans were, so I'd like to get a realistic analysis on their capabilities.
How effective was the Spartan military?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
The Spartan military itself was highly efficient. However, they did not have the manpower nor the diplomatic tact to manage a large empire. The manpower problem could be circumvented if they had even a modicum of diplomatic tact, but since they had the diplomatic tact of a blunt sword, they had to fight off just about everyone. They were better suited for the opposition role-opposing the Persian Empire, opposing the Athenian Empire, where they served as a rallying point basically for all opponents of said empire.
Lateknight
Banned
Look at history of the Spartan empire if want to see how effective it was in the long run.
Sparta is historical proof that having Charisma as a dump stat IRL is never a good idea.
I'd be both less severe and hagiographic : Sparta beneficied from a basic support from both people from some Greek city-states (against Athenian "imperialism") and from a part of Athenian aristocracy itself. One could say they were an army with a city-state, which eventually made their military strength impressive relatively to their size and geopolitical importance; but unable to really project their power without opening largely their flanks and overstretching
That was admittedly the problem of every Polis' hegemony, but Sparta simply didn't have the same economical and ressources bases than Athenes or Thebes, which made them even more dependent from the Great King (Persians)'s subsides : at one point, they were less defenders of Hellas against Persians than Persians agents and policemen of the region.
Could they have done well as part of a greater Hellenic federation? E.g. Not having to worry about diplomacy and being set on the enemies of Hellas?
From what I was told in my Ancient Greek History University course, the Spartan military early on was exceptionally ineffective, failing to defeat the Argeads on multiple occasions (even though the Argeads had such poor farmland they were nicknamed "acorn eaters" by other Greeks).
After the reforms, though, they became a lot more feared. Of course the mythologising of the Spartan army means it could never live up to the modern "hype", but they were very well-conditioned, if nothing else. The problem with their army was the inability to maintain long campaigns because of the constant strategic threat of a helot revolt. But without the helots, you couldn't have the Spartan martial lifestyle to the same extent, so that makes it quite difficult.
That being said, the Spartans still pulled out some impressive feats long after they lost their hegemony to the Thebans and later the Macedonians. Just look at Pyrrhus' Siege of Sparta.
After the reforms, though, they became a lot more feared. Of course the mythologising of the Spartan army means it could never live up to the modern "hype", but they were very well-conditioned, if nothing else. The problem with their army was the inability to maintain long campaigns because of the constant strategic threat of a helot revolt. But without the helots, you couldn't have the Spartan martial lifestyle to the same extent, so that makes it quite difficult.
That being said, the Spartans still pulled out some impressive feats long after they lost their hegemony to the Thebans and later the Macedonians. Just look at Pyrrhus' Siege of Sparta.
Their manpower problem arose from the fact that they were arch conservatives when it came to political system. They preferred to let poorer homoioi slide into periokoi class and as such not count as actual soldiers then to enact soe sort of land reform or loosen requirements.
Which means that Sparta didn't have manpower problem per se but rather it had very strict rules on who serves where and as such created shortage itself.
TinyTartar
Banned
I guess an apt comparison would be with Japanese Naval Aviators in WW2. They were the very best at what they were doing, and were able to absolutely destroy opponents in a tactical sense, but the lack of manpower and the utter overextension of forces meant that a determined opponent could play the long game and whittle them down through attrition.
Basically, man or man, they were very effective. But most fights are not done man for man. They often had to fight 3 or 4 enemy states at a time while also making sure the Helots did not revolt.
Basically, man or man, they were very effective. But most fights are not done man for man. They often had to fight 3 or 4 enemy states at a time while also making sure the Helots did not revolt.
Could there be a realistic PoD where Sparta either widens the manpower net to include such disassociated classes and/or attempt to spread the Spartan martial tradition to other city states?
Should this go into non-political chat? Not trying to be a dick here, just asking a question.
I agree completely.
As was already said, Sparta had no interest in joining a federation unless they ruled it. It was actually quite remarkable that they took the step to running what was essentially an empire in Greece. Prior to and even during most of the Peloponnesian War, Sparta exhibited a very strong unwillingness to commit themselves to anything outside the Peloponnese, even in times of crisis (the reason they only sent 300 men to Thermopylae was because they were too busy using the rest of their army to build a defensive wall along the Isthmus of Corinth, for example). They had very good reason for this if you go by their logic-the longer most of their forces are away from the Peloponnese, the larger a chance that the Helots would revolt from their rule. They were pretty paranoid about this, and, actually it was probably an astute assessment given that their treatment of the Helots led them to revolt very often.
Indeed.
I don't think that's an apt comparison. The Spartans showed remarkable staying power, moreso than the Athenians up to a point. They managed to outlast them in the Peloponnesian War, which is no mean feat. Their main problem was, as I said, they had no diplomatic skill to speak of. Lysander ran rampant basically alienating everyone he possibly could after winning the Peloponnesian War. Had Sparta simply one, proclaimed freedom for the greeks, and withdrew back to the Peloponnese, they would have been in a fantastic spot.
Actually, I don't find that scenario too unrealistic. It should perhaps be surprising that Sparta chose to take on the role they did after winning the war, given their historical reluctance to go on foreign campaigns outside of the Peloponnese,so I don't see why a Sparta less influenced by the likes of Lysander can't maintain that reluctance and forgo trying to dominate all of Greece.
FOr the first one, Sparta will cease to be Sparta. Sparta, for what its worth, created their martial prowess because almost all the domestic work was done by everyone else. The male citizens of Sparta, as I understand it, were able to spend their time almost exclusively focused on warfare and military matters. The only occupation of a Spartan male was soldier.
As for the second part to your question, that would be entirely counterproductive. Why would the Spartans wants to spread their martial tradition to other city states, who would almost certainly end up being rivals of Sparta anyway?
Wouldn't have they took the lead immediatly after the war, they'd have ended with an earlier Beotian hegemony : their allies were really about crushing Athenes as much as possible, and if Athenian hegemon was a pain in the ass for Peoloponesians, having a relatively unified hegemon north of Corinth would have been even more of a threat.
Now, it doesn't mean they had to garrison everything in sight, but Spartan interventionism was a likely consequence of the war, IMO.
Actually once the Allies learned not to dogfight Zeros the Japanese were in grave trouble. For the first 3-6 months they did very well. After that they were on the losing end of kill ratios. IIRC Calbear said that even Wildcats had a 2-1 kill ratio vs Zeros. Once Corsairs and Hellcats came in it got much worse.
True, spartans had no intention of exporting their ideology or political system. What I think is possible is some sort of soft internal reform that prevents homoioi class from dwindling. Maybe land reform, maybe giving land to those who couldn't afford admission or something.
No doubt Spartan interventionism was necessary. I don't think we are disagreeing here. The Spartans, under our scenario (since, I think we are in the same scenario here) would probably be able to turn right back around and ally with everyone else against Thebes, a la their coalition against Athens.
Rinse, and repeat basically. It's their best way to not alienate everyone and still remain a hegemonic power.
So even during the Spartan Hegemony there were no attempts to "assimilate" conquered villages or city states into the Spartan way of life?
or at least take military-fit males back to Sparta to do so?
or at least take military-fit males back to Sparta to do so?