AHC: Spartan militarism replaces Athenian democracy

Though it certainly wasn't as free as the democracy we in the West practise it, it is popularly thought that the idea of democracy began in Athens. Certain sections of the population participated in elections and there were three branches of government-the Assembly, Council of Five Hundred and the courts. This model of democracy can be seen in several countries today.

On the other hand, Sparta was a militaristic society where the only occupation deemed important was service in the Army, to the extent where Spartan boys were taken from their families and brutally trained in the arts of war in the agoge. If a child was deemed unable to become a soldier, it was killed at birth.

Democracy became a popular form of government in the centuries to come while Spartan-type societies (like North Korea, for example) became frowned upon.

What would need to happen for it to be the other way around? Spartan-type militaristic societies become the norm while democracies are rare, if they exist at all.
 
Though it certainly wasn't as free as the democracy we in the West practise it, it is popularly thought that the idea of democracy began in Athens. Certain sections of the population participated in elections and there were three branches of government-the Assembly, Council of Five Hundred and the courts. This model of democracy can be seen in several countries today.

On the other hand, Sparta was a militaristic society where the only occupation deemed important was service in the Army, to the extent where Spartan boys were taken from their families and brutally trained in the arts of war in the agoge. If a child was deemed unable to become a soldier, it was killed at birth.

Democracy became a popular form of government in the centuries to come while Spartan-type societies (like North Korea, for example) became frowned upon.

What would need to happen for it to be the other way around? Spartan-type militaristic societies become the norm while democracies are rare, if they exist at all.

Spartan system was created out of very specific conditions, which don't hold true most of the time. Democracy on the other hand has appeal from a much wider range of societal conditions.
 
What kind of conditions?

The more modern thinking is less that Spartan institutions arose from unique conditions, and more that they held on to older institutions much longer than other Greek states. Serf underclasses, dining groups, and public education for boys are all attested elsewhere in the Greek world, such as Crete and Thessaly.

Moreover, modern scholars have deconstructed the whole idea of Spartan militarism. For example, the idea that they killed infants at birth comes from Plutarch, who wrote many centuries after Sparta had been even a regional power. Contemporary sources show that actual military training the Spartans underwent was very limited; they never trained with their weapons, and only practiced formation drill at the onset of the campaign, waiting until the whole army of citizens, subjects, allies, and mercenaries had been concentrated so that they would all learn the same skills. In Classical Greece, athletics had only marginal connection to military ability; authors like Xenophon contrasted the bodies of good athletes and good soldiers. The Spartiates were not really professional soldiers; they were gentlemen of leisure, who spent most of their time doing leisure class activities like riding horses, athletics, managing their estates, hunting, writing poetry about pretty girls, and so on.

With this in mind, the fact that for centuries, Sparta was the political ideal is less surprising. Most political thinkers being members of the elite, a system like Sparta's that concentrated all power in the hands of a stable oligarchy of wealthy landowners -Lakonia went for centuries without strife or rebellion even among the local helots- had great appeal to theorists from the Renaissance to the American founding. It's mostly in the 20th century, when totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany or the Soviets begin to appropriate that imagery that Western thinks began to really idealize Athens; for centuries, it had been used as a dire example of what happened when the people were given too much power.
 
I’d argue it would hold limited impact. Rome was founded in the eight century bce, and according to https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Republic/, the Republic was established just a year after the Athenian democracy. Now the Athenians could’ve easily been an inspiration to form the republic, but by that point the wheels would have been turning already and the res pública was inevitable.
 
I’d argue it would hold limited impact. Rome was founded in the eight century bce, and according to https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Republic/, the Republic was established just a year after the Athenian democracy. Now the Athenians could’ve easily been an inspiration to form the republic, but by that point the wheels would have been turning already and the res pública was inevitable.
though this would actually have a massive impact at least in my opinion. for the fact of influence for a good portion of roman culture was influenced by Greece, until much later the republic and its contact with Greece until then was limited. it wasn't until Rome started to expand that they begun too interact more. so by the time that Greek influence really started rolling in and Athenian democracy happened to be strangled by spartan militarism which stood as its replacement then we could see a very different cultural Rome. one that was already quite militaristic to the point that no amount of Athenian influence was going to remove. We could see Rome very different not in the sense that they won't be a republic but in how that republic will operate and work this is where i see the most impact of Sparta coming in. for example i could see Aphrodite's war god status come back in full swing. rather than the slow development towards it in OTL that never really came to fruition.
 
We could see Rome very different not in the sense that they won't be a republic but in how that republic will operate and work this is where i see the most impact of Sparta coming in.
Fair point but with Magnea Graecia and rome's mytho-history as being founded by trojan refugees, i think it would still have a hellenistic culture more or less in tune with OTL-unless i completely misunderstood your point.

Ill also admit to two biases that impact my views of this topic
-I firmly believe that Persia was the root of western society, not greece, or failing that, Rome itself. Centralized mega states with a (decent) tolerance for foreiners that pay taxes is much more in tune with the western chronicle than the slightly democratic city states. And western democracy draws from rome and uppity noblity, so that arguement is flimsy to me
-I've never been good at the cultural impacts. I try but always just relate it to geopolitics
 
Fair point but with Magnea Graecia and rome's mytho-history as being founded by trojan refugees, i think it would still have a hellenistic culture more or less in tune with OTL-unless i completely misunderstood your point.

Ill also admit to two biases that impact my views of this topic
-I firmly believe that Persia was the root of western society, not greece, or failing that, Rome itself. Centralized mega states with a (decent) tolerance for foreiners that pay taxes is much more in tune with the western chronicle than the slightly democratic city states. And western democracy draws from rome and uppity noblity, so that arguement is flimsy to me
-I've never been good at the cultural impacts. I try but always just relate it to geopolitics
i do agree with your points though with the magnea graecia.
and i also agree with you "bias"
anyways while close that was not really the point as i believe if Athenian was strangled in its crib with Sparta taking influence over the Greek holdings. such as the golden age of Athenian democracy and empire taking over as a preferred way of governance. instead many new cities and old looked to the strongest state that without Athens would undoubtedly be Sparta would likely start adopting similar traditions. this cultural militarism would likely carry over to the Italian colonies. i would also assume the roman empires expansion would be much slower with a more militarised Greece and colonies though once conquered i am sure the roman conquer ball will start rolling much faster. you also could see a much more authoritarian and armed Rome which is already a feat.
 
all in all while magna Graecia will be ionian in many places i am sure that spartan cultural domination will still have a profound effect on those states just as Athens did
 
The more modern thinking is less that Spartan institutions arose from unique conditions, and more that they held on to older institutions much longer than other Greek states. Serf underclasses, dining groups, and public education for boys are all attested elsewhere in the Greek world, such as Crete and Thessaly.

Yes but unlike in Sparta, most of Greece transitioned more to the polis model of govt eventually. Sparta did not which makes them unique (also a few other places inspired by the Spartan model). But serfdom elsewhere in Greece did not see such rigid, permanent lines develop between different peoples after centuries of living together. Neither were serfs or ethnic groups under domination treated as badly as the Helots and if they were, it was not a permanent state of affairs.

Contemporary sources show that actual military training the Spartans underwent was very limited; they never trained with their weapons, and only practiced formation drill at the onset of the campaign, waiting until the whole army of citizens, subjects, allies, and mercenaries had been concentrated so that they would all learn the same skills. In Classical Greece, athletics had only marginal connection to military ability; authors like Xenophon contrasted the bodies of good athletes and good soldiers. The Spartiates were not really professional soldiers; they were gentlemen of leisure, who spent most of their time doing leisure class activities like riding horses, athletics, managing their estates, hunting, writing poetry about pretty girls, and so on.

Ideologically they were far more preoccupied with war and the concept of themselves as warriors than the other Greeks, that's the key point of their "militarism." It has more to do with their political ideology than actual lifestyle. Sparta did not really have an aggressive foreign policy, when we talk about their "militarism" it has to do with their cultural attitude towards war in general and its central importance in their political ideology (enforcing superiority over conquered peoples/helots). Also the Spartan Agoge was no walk in the park; its main purpose however was ideological education towards conformism and state militarism not training super warriors. Just because in many cultural aspects the Spartan elites were like the rest of the Greeks, doesn't mean they don't have their unique brand of "militarism."

Most political thinkers being members of the elite, a system like Sparta's that concentrated all power in the hands of a stable oligarchy of wealthy landowners -Lakonia went for centuries without strife or rebellion even among the local helots- had great appeal to theorists from the Renaissance to the American founding. It's mostly in the 20th century, when totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany or the Soviets begin to appropriate that imagery that Western thinks began to really idealize Athens; for centuries, it had been used as a dire example of what happened when the people were given too much power.

This just shows the Spartan system as unique, it is seen as an ideal (unachievable) by various proponents of oligarchy later in history. No one really believed they could implement a system that concentrated military power in a seventh of the population, with the rest of the population seen as separate and of a lower caste and kept enslaved in mentality. Helots were ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered: every autumn the Spartans would declare war on the helots so they could be killed by a member of the Crypteia without fear of repercussion. 2000 were killed in the 491 BC event. They had zero judicial protection and killing them was considered quite acceptable. The Spartans would kill the best and strongest of their men and breed with the strongest of their women to create bastards who would be eligible to join their citizen army. (male bastards were kept, female bastards were left to die) Without a religious or racial factor, it's unthinkable that such a large majority of the population could be kept pacified in this manner accepting this as being perfectly normal for a timespan of centuries, with little to no assimilation or mixing. It had to be certain unique conditions that can't just be replicated easily everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Top