Spartan led Ionian Revolt?

Aristagoras of Miletus, who was probably the key man behind the Ionian Revolt, first asked Cleomenes I of Sparta to help him - the Spartans denied him only because Persia was too far away for comfort, as Argos would be sure to take advantage of Sparta's armies being across the Aegean. Anyways, later he asked the Athenians, who accepted, and we know the story from there. But say Cleomenes accepted... how might the Ionian revolt have changed with Spartan leadership, and how might Persia have responded with it being Sparta instead of Athens that aided the Ionians? (and we're assuming that Argos doesn't take advantage of Sparta's armies campaigning in Asia, for whatever reason)

One of the most interesting things (I think) with this is that Sparta might be able to get some contributions from the early Peloponnesian League, which could have some implications.

Impossible probably.. why?
The social system of Sparta. If they do that, it could give ideas to the 'Hilotes', and... BAD.

The Ubbergeek said:

Impossible probably.. why?
The social system of Sparta. If they do that, it could give ideas to the 'Hilotes', and... BAD.

Click to expand...

The helots? That's not going to be an issue unless they send literally every man overseas; it's not like every time Sparta went to war for an extended period of time, that all the helots revolted. Really, I'd think that getting approval from the ephors would be a bigger problem, as it would be understood as a more long term campaign then the usual Spartan war, which probably wouldn't be overly appreciated from the ephors.

There is a recent precedent for an Ionian Spartan campaign, in Sparta and Corinth's war against Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos; it was a fairly short war, but it did consist of Sparta sending a fair amount of men (likely with both kings, a practice which I'm pretty sure had ended by this point thanks to Cleomenes) outside the Peloponnese and Greece Proper for an extended period of time. And I'm not thinking that Sparta is sending a few thousand man army or anything, I'm thinking like maybe a max army of 1200 (probably less then that) and Cleomenes, heading over there with maybe some Corinthian and Arkadian support (some ships and maybe a thousand more men or something), to lead the Ionians, who would obviously supply the large majority of the forces committed against Persia. I don't know how many men Athens sent, but I can't imagine it was much more then 2500-3000 men (tell me if I'm completely wrong here), so it shouldn't be horribly different as far as manpower. Tell me if I'm horribly mistaken, but I think the biggest problem is keeping Sparta there long enough to finish the campaign, not whether the helots revolt.

Yes, but when you army is away, and the home base revolt... Peoples which higher numbers than your own ruling caste...

it's game and not life, but it was always problem in KOEI'S old strategy sim games.

The Ubbergeek said:

Yes, but when you army is away, and the home base revolt... Peoples which higher numbers than your own ruling caste...

it's game and not life, but it was always problem in KOEI'S old strategy sim games.

Click to expand...

I know it seems weird, but I don't think it'd be a consideration to Sparta, and I don't think it would be a major problem even if it did randomly happen. Really, the helots barely ever revolted - it only happened a couple times, and one of those was largely due to an earthquake. And even if they did revolt, most of the Spartan army would be there, and all of Sparta's allies would be able to help, and put it down in a second. They'd only revolt if Argos or maybe Persia offered their emancipation (Athens, while a bit PO'd at Sparta for trying to instate an oligarchy, wouldn't try it), and Argos by itself wouldn't be able to do much harm to Sparta, and Persia would only send money, and maybe minimal troops, to help them. And I doubt either would do that - Argos out of fear that the Peloponnesians would use that as an excuse to force it into their league or maybe even obliterate it completely (very unlikely but possible) and out of the knowledge that they'd lose, and Persia mostly just because I highly doubt that they actually would - they never did during Xerxes' invasion, or whenever they were against Sparta in a war IOTL, so I don't see why they would here.

It was argued however the spartans actually FEARED a mass revolt - and its why they had a yearly tradition of 'HILOTES HUNTING', and their general brutality...

there is conditions for a mass revolts in circumstances...

The Ubbergeek said:

It was argued however the spartans actually FEARED a mass revolt - and its why they had a yearly tradition of 'HILOTES HUNTING', and their general brutality...

there is conditions for a mass revolts in circumstances...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they did that stuff - hell, they even did this:

The helots were invited by a proclamation to pick out those of their number who claimed to have most distinguished themselves against the enemy, in order that they might receive their freedom; the object being to test them, as it was thought that the first to claim their freedom would be the most high spirited and the most apt to rebel. As many as two thousand were selected accordingly, who crowned themselves and went round the temples, rejoicing in their new freedom. The Spartans, however, soon afterwards did away with them, and no one ever knew how each of them perished.

Click to expand...

Doing all of this stuff made it so that they wouldn't revolt at every oppurtunity, so that if they needed to campaign for a while somewhere, the helots wouldn't overthrow the entire country. The Spartans took great care that they wouldn't revolt, and they almost never did, whether the army was off in Samos or in Attica, or in Laconia. They wouldn't revolt unless they were bribed with promises of independence, or if some huge oppurtunity like an earthquake (or literally the entire army leaving Laconia for months, which wouldn't happen) came up. There's almost no historical precedence of it (in fact, I could be wrong, but I don't think there was a revolt prior to 500 BC) happening during a Spartan campaign - why make a huge fuss over all of them revolting this time, when you're the greatest state in Greece, with a bunch of allies/vassals working for you? People might be concerned about it, I'll retract that statement, but it wouldn't be a big concern, and fear of a helot revolt is no reason for Sparta to refuse sending a few hundred men to help the Ionians, especially when the helots simply didn't revolt.