Fair point... no point at which someone might make such reforms?
Even then I feel like the Spartiate manpower base will become overextended. Quality over quantity may win battles, but it doesn't hold territory.
Athens never had Greek hegemony. They fought the Peloponnesian war so they could be considered equal to Sparta, and they lost, even after inflicting several defeats on the Spartans. What really hurt the Spartans after Leuktra was not really the losses in battle -they still had more than enough Spartiates to lead armies, and Lakonia was as densely populated with inferiors, helots, and pereoikoi as ever- but the defection of their allies. Sparta had suffered several defeats before, but their allies had previously stood by them.The fact that Spartan hegemony collapsed following a single loss at Leuctra, when Athens managed to hang on for 30-odd years and only lost after being handed an idiot ball with the word Sicily written on it, suggests otherwise. And you can't really say that it was just the fault of the Corinthian War, since most of the leagues against Sparta were dissolved in that conflict.
The system they had in the Peloponnesian League worked fine. Within Sparta, there was no need to extend citizenship, as the non-citizen body was still a useful font of manpower with Spartiate leadership.Yeah, they'd have to have some way of brining conquered peoples into their system, a la Rome.
Lineage isn't the problem, the fragmentation of inheritance and increasing concentration of the resulting fragmentation into the hands of a few extremely wealthy buyers is. Spartiate men having concubines would make the problem worse since more children means less land for each, making it less likely any of them will be able to meet their monthly contributions to maintain citizen status. The most obvious reform everyone here is missing is primogeniture, which would make sure the Spartiate population remains stable and prevent an entire crop of children from falling below citizen status.I mean... if the City-State suffered a real hit to its male population I could see the city leaders loosening the definition of who could be a Spartan to require only paternal lineage and allow Spartan men to take on non-Spartan wives/concubines in addition to their proper Wife. That could be a start. Still, from that point they'd need a few generations of breathing space to rebuild their manpower, so that limits how strong they can get.
Lineage isn't the problem, the fragmentation of inheritance and increasing concentration of the resulting fragmentation into the hands of a few extremely wealthy buyers is. Spartiate men having concubines would make the problem worse since more children means less land for each, making it less likely any of them will be able to meet their monthly contributions to maintain citizen status. The most obvious reform everyone here is missing is primogeniture, which would make sure the Spartiate population remains stable and prevent an entire crop of children from falling below citizen status.
Based on the resources of it's own territories and its allies in the Peloponnesian League, Sparta had the strength to dominate Greece south of Thessaly, with the possible exception of Athens. Sparta could fight wars quite effectively anywhere 30 men can travel; 30 Spartiates leading forces of allies and mercenaries are a formidable challenge to anyone in open battle. The main limiting factors are their lack of naval expertise, and the overwhelming power of the Persians. The former might disappear from the ledger in the fourth century, as larger warships designed for frontal ramming come into play, and the latter can be mitigated by the civil strife often seen in the empire.
Athens never had Greek hegemony. They fought the Peloponnesian war so they could be considered equal to Sparta, and they lost, even after inflicting several defeats on the Spartans. What really hurt the Spartans after Leuktra was not really the losses in battle -they still had more than enough Spartiates to lead armies, and Lakonia was as densely populated with inferiors, helots, and pereoikoi as ever- but the defection of their allies. Sparta had suffered several defeats before, but their allies had previously stood by them.
The system they had in the Peloponnesian League worked fine. Within Sparta, there was no need to extend citizenship, as the non-citizen body was still a useful font of manpower with Spartiate leadership.
I mean... if the City-State suffered a real hit to its male population I could see the city leaders loosening the definition of who could be a Spartan to require only paternal lineage and allow Spartan men to take on non-Spartan wives/concubines in addition to their proper Wife. That could be a start. Still, from that point they'd need a few generations of breathing space to rebuild their manpower, so that limits how strong they can get.
Sparta is limited to Pelleponnese; they need to control Helots, they only had so many citizen-soldiers, they had no way to increase size of their army or their state.
After the archaic period, Sparta did not reduce defeated cities to helotage like they did the Messenians, but incorporated them into an unequal alliance system which exclusively taxes military labor, exactly like the Romans. Servitude to Sparta is not something a city outside the Peloponnese would have to consider; the rich who control these cities would sometimes even have cause to welcome the Spartans, as it would give them a chance to impose oligarchic control over their cities and expand their influence. Within Classical Sparta, there was never a civil war in Lakonia, no matter how small the citizen population shrunk. By restricting citizenship to the rich alone, the Spartans were able to achieve unique concord within their state, and foster a culture of obedience among all Lakedaemonians that made them the best in pitched battles.Until the allies thought that Sparta was becoming a hegemon and a possible threat to their own interests, Sparta will never become a major power relying on such "allies".
Just contrast republican Rome; for whom lenient treatment were given to those that give up easily, good treatment to allies, and harsh treatment to enemies. Whereas Sparta went out of its way to make it known that the conquered are second-class citizens at best and subject to consistent abuse and violence. How does the honor-obsessed man of the ancient era justify bending the knee to Sparta?
There has never been a point in history where having a narrow base of support has been anything but a weakness, its ludicrous to rule any large region with a citizenry in the thousands. The non-citizens were useful, but unreliable since they were treated poorly.
@CountPeter 's proposed reforms relating the expanding the Spartan manpower pool and getting over the cultural hurdles in the way of them was what I was addressing, which will I admit inevitably require an increase in the amount of territory/productivity directly under Spartan control in order to sustain (though this would be the case for literally any state using the citizen-soldier landowner model). Though, I'd argue primogeniture dosen't fundimentally solve the problem as you STILL end up with a large number of younger sons who won't be able to maintain their citizen status in that case unless they can obtain land by some other means (Which means you, again, have to get more land under direct Spartan control), and that in order to expand Spartan power you need... well, a larger Spartiate population. Your proposal to expand its strength via expanding the League without that power directly increasing the city-state won't work for establishing Spartan hegemony as such an expanded League would inevitably see Spartan influence dilluted to the point a collection of the other members will be able to usurp dominance from her, and if the Spartiate are divided in small groups among much larger groups of allies they're going to be spread way too thin for the city leaders to enforce their will if their allies decide they aren't fond of the policy being dictated. Athens could pull it off with control of the purse strings and the fact she had a foot on the seaborn windpipe of prosperity.
If anything, polygamy would be a great way to justify a change in inheritance law as well, as the odds of having no male heirs would shrink and the maintenance of the estate out of the direct control of a single wife (to maintain the others) would help prevent the rise of the Spartan Heiresses and with it help styme the excess concentration of wealth
You have 9000 Spartans this generation, if they all have sons, you're guaranteed 9000 the next generation, whereas a Spartan with just enough property with two sons permanently removes a line of citizens from the collective body. The second and third sons would still be culturally Spartan and identify with the state, so they'd be perfectly useful manpower.
Where would they get all the extra women from? Oh right, slaves.
But then, that raises all sorts of questions of the paternity of children born from female slaves, their legal status, etc., and probably an added degree of resentment from just about every social constituency.
That's literally the OTL situation, but at least with more Spartiates left. Fragmented inheritance produced a huge population of former Spartiate families, called the Inferiors, and they never took up arms against the citizens. In Classical Spartan history, the only domestic unrest came from the Messenian helots; in Lakonia proper, there was never any bloody unrest by the pereoikoi, Inferiors, mothakes, or helots against the citizens.... or a large pool of young men who are a toxic cocktail of highly militarily trained, politically disenfranchised, the only jobs practically availably being beneath their birth station, and devoid of cultro-religious scrupples holding them back. Sounds like the perfect situation for a Demegouge to rise up and use this ready made army to seize control, and if the Spartan population falls into civil war expect their system to fall in on itself. Perhaps you disagree, but I think that's the most likely outcome if you just try to crame through Primogeniture at any point.
That's literally not how it worked. The laws of Lykourgos didn't actually exist anywhere except in the common consensus of the citizen body; if they decided to change their way of doing things, they would just call whatever they decided to do the Laws of Lykourgos.On the other hand, Spartan education caused issues (due to young boys causing damage while raiding for food) and Spartan inheritance law was... Not healthy for the state's military. Add to that the Spartan constitution was such that any reform was basically impossible (apparently by design).
Without a different constitution, I can't see Sparta growing more powerful than OTL. However, with a constitution that wasn't built to ensure that reform was beaten down no matter what part of the system it originated in, it's possible to imagine Sparta growing stronger. But we pretty much need a PoD that starts with Lycurgush.
fasquardon
Why do you need a large state to make conquests? Sparta possibly failed due to having such large numbers of regulations upon its military capabilities.
Mind you, the Abbasids had a very small state in comparison to Byzantium and we may claim that in many respects, the Abbasid could accumulate a larger military force than the Byzantines in a shorter time.
After the archaic period, Sparta did not reduce defeated cities to helotage like they did the Messenians, but incorporated them into an unequal alliance system which exclusively taxes military labor, exactly like the Romans. Servitude to Sparta is not something a city outside the Peloponnese would have to consider; the rich who control these cities would sometimes even have cause to welcome the Spartans, as it would give them a chance to impose oligarchic control over their cities and expand their influence. Within Classical Sparta, there was never a civil war in Lakonia, no matter how small the citizen population shrunk. By restricting citizenship to the rich alone, the Spartans were able to achieve unique concord within their state, and foster a culture of obedience among all Lakedaemonians that made them the best in pitched battles.
What? Did you miss the gigantic list of battles the Romans lost? The Romans lost at least 90 major battles during the early-mid republican period; they lost against Gauls, they lost against Italians, they lost against Carthaginians and Greeks and Spanish and Numidians and Parthians and Germans. They lost against every kind of army imaginable in every kind of terrain. Their state managed to survive these losses with legitimacy intact, and also won their fair share of battles against the odds, but it simply does violence to the facts to argue the Romans were unbeatable because of their tactical system.As for ability, no army historically was able to withstand the Roman Legions in a head on fight; ie the preferred fighting style of the Spartans. IOTL the Spartans proved rather stubborn and unwilling to adapt outside of phalanx warfare.
Besides cavalry, the Byzantine armies seemed to be formed on the way to a battle rather than permanently being maintained. Not only was maintaining an army expensive but also to try to avoid constant rebellions. Perhaps this explains why the Abbasids were able to accumulate forces quicker than the Byzantines
That's literally the OTL situation, but at least with more Spartiates left. Fragmented inheritance produced a huge population of former Spartiate families, called the Inferiors, and they never took up arms against the citizens. In Classical Spartan history, the only domestic unrest came from the Messenian helots; in Lakonia proper, there was never any bloody unrest by the pereoikoi, Inferiors, mothakes, or helots against the citizens.
What? Did you miss the gigantic list of battles the Romans lost? The Romans lost at least 90 major battles during the early-mid republican period; they lost against Gauls, they lost against Italians, they lost against Carthaginians and Greeks and Spanish and Numidians and Parthians and Germans. They lost against every kind of army imaginable in every kind of terrain. Their state managed to survive these losses with legitimacy intact, and also won their fair share of battles against the odds, but it simply does violence to the facts to argue the Romans were unbeatable because of their tactical system.
Because Spartan State is rather small ? Abbasid managed to absorb Merv and Khorasani Arabs, numerous mawali, persian bureaucrats, and former buddhist into its state and army. Spartan had difficulty of absorbing lower class of citizens (pereoikoi, Inferiors, mothakes, etc) into its citizens. Absorbing outsiders, merceenary and conquered people seem impossible. City-State its conquered failed to integrate and turned to rebel, Thebes defeated and conquered multiple times, but eventually become destroyer of Sparta.Why do you need a large state to make conquests? Sparta possibly failed due to having such large numbers of regulations upon its military capabilities. Mind you, the Abbasids had a very small state in comparison to Byzantium and we may claim that in many respects, the Abbasid could accumulate a larger military force than the Byzantines in a shorter time.