Could Cleomenes III succeed??

[Berserker]

from what I've read, the Spartan King was only defeated because the Macedonaisn agreed to lend aid to the Achaean League

could he have avoided the battle of Sellasia??
could he have won the battle??

his rival, Aratus, wassnt that great of a commander compared to the Spartan King

what could happen to a Sparta with a stronger position. would they align themselves with Rome in the Macedonian wars?

 

[Berserker]

Bumping this thread

 

[Cambyses]

Sparta was still in a state of pretty critical decline. Cleomenes' reforms would have slowed the process, but even he couldn't do much about the dwindling population of Spartiates, and the bulk of his forces were made up of mercenaries.

Assuming he wins at Sellasia (which was a pretty close-run thing), he should be able to carve a decent chunk out of the Achean's Peloponnesian territory, but not much more than that.

Of course, that would make him a Macedonian boogeyman, and pretty much his only chance of long-term survival when that happened would be securing an alliance with Rome, who would of course eventually make Sparta a client state because that's what Rome did with her allies.

 

[Berserker]

Sparta was still in a state of pretty critical decline. Cleomenes' reforms would have slowed the process, but even he couldn't do much about the dwindling population of Spartiates, and the bulk of his forces were made up of mercenaries.

Assuming he wins at Sellasia (which was a pretty close-run thing), he should be able to carve a decent chunk out of the Achean's Peloponnesian territory, but not much more than that.

Of course, that would make him a Macedonian boogeyman, and pretty much his only chance of long-term survival when that happened would be securing an alliance with Rome, who would of course eventually make Sparta a client state because that's what Rome did with her allies.

From what Ive notiched, Sparta frequently align with Rome, but that was mostly after Cleomenes was dead already.

would his succesors be able to secure such an alliance.
but who would this succesor be?
Cleomenes deprieved all the Ephors of power, so he was a (from what I read) a near absolute Monarch.

 

[Skeptic2]

The most critical POD for Cleomenes would have been his OTL demand to the Achaean Commonwealth to be elected general by the leauge assembly, after having thrashed their armies at the field. His demand was initially accepted by the achaean oligarchy, but Aratos procrastinated the final decision, despising and fearing Cleomenes radical approach to social land reforms, chose to turn over important land assets to the macedonian regent, Antigonos Doson, in exchange for military assistance against the Spartans. It has been speculated that Cleomenes could have incited the masses of the achaean cities to revolt against the ruling oligarchies, promising to enact the same reforms he had already put to effect in Sparta.That he did not, choosing to play the part of the spartan warlord rather than a "liberator". It must also be noted that Cleomenes' regime was funded by the ptolemies , who used him as a buffer against macedonian expansionism, and his success pretty much depended on their good will. One could draw analogies between Cleomenes and the Gracchi brothers in Rome.

 

[Berserker]

The most critical POD for Cleomenes would have been his OTL demand to the Achaean Commonwealth to be elected general by the leauge assembly, after having thrashed their armies at the field. His demand was initially accepted by the achaean oligarchy, but Aratos procrastinated the final decision, despising and fearing Cleomenes radical approach to social land reforms, chose to turn over important land assets to the macedonian regent, Antigonos Doson, in exchange for military assistance against the Spartans. It has been speculated that Cleomenes could have incited the masses of the achaean cities to revolt against the ruling oligarchies, promising to enact the same reforms he had already put to effect in Sparta.That he did not, choosing to play the part of the spartan warlord rather than a "liberator". It must also be noted that Cleomenes' regime was funded by the ptolemies , who used him as a buffer against macedonian expansionism, and his success pretty much depended on their good will. One could draw analogies between Cleomenes and the Gracchi brothers in Rome.

so off Aratos gave in to his demands, Cleomenes would have become much stronger.

iff his succecors would maintain such position, they could become a key factor in the wars of the romans and the macedonians.

1 question: how much power was held by the Spartan Kings at that time??
were they Helenic monarchs like the Macedonians? or still an Olarchy?

 

[idomeneas]

so off Aratos gave in to his demands, Cleomenes would have become much stronger.

iff his succecors would maintain such position, they could become a key factor in the wars of the romans and the macedonians.

1 question: how much power was held by the Spartan Kings at that time??
were they Helenic monarchs like the Macedonians? or still an Olarchy?

Actually Sparta by itself was quite insignigicant. The Lacedemonian valley is not very large and cannot sustain a sizeable population. The major blow Sparta suffered was in the previous century when the Thebans liverated the Messenians and the Arcadians and thus severely limiting Spartan arable land. If we take into account the huge defeats in the previous century as well (Leuktra, Mantineia, Megalopolis) it is easy to understand why Sparta had serious issues.

Regarding your question the Spartan kings for most of the city's recorded history had very little power. They were war and religious leaders but had little say in the running of the state. Most people tend to forget this, but the Apella (the citizen/soldier assembly) was the most powerfull institution in Sparta. Regarding its own full citizens Sparta was quite democratic (a little bit like S. Afrika under appartheid). So no Kleomenes ruled in a vastly different style than the average Spartan king.

Now if the Spartans had won the battle of Selasia (say Philopoemen of Megalopolis is injured 40 cm higher and is unable to raly the troops) then the Spartans would propably dominate Peloponese. They lacked the manpower for further expansion (unless they did something radical). It should be noted that there was admiration for Spartan society in the most traditionalist Romans. I could see them surviving as a client state where the Roman senators send their kids to learn humility.

 

[Skeptic2]

The PoD would be before the battle of Selasia, with Cleomenes either assuming control of the aechean leauge's military forces as general, or usurping control of the league by inciting revolts amongs the lower classes. In both cases, the macedonians would have to intervene on their own, instead of helping Aratos in return for significant territorial gains, namely Corinth and Sycion.If they did campaign against Sparta, and I am not certain they would, considering Antigonos Doson's careful nature, any battle fought would be quite unlike otl Selasia. All this under the supposition that the ptolemies would continue to support Cleomenes with funds and merecenaries. It is worth noting that the last spartan tyrant, Navis, tried to emulate the cleomenian reforms in his bid for power