Personally, I think Sparta deserves a better fate than OTL. But for that to happen, they need to reform, which is well-nigh impossible under normal circumstances. But, as they say, desperate times require desperate measures...
Scenario 1:
Better Thermopylaeeek
results in Persians getting stalled longer, amd Leonidas (probably one of the greatest Greeks to have ever lived) lives. Now after making it through the pass they Persians are defeated by combined Greek armies, and they are pushed back. But, Leonidas now "reforms" Sparta, and sets in place fundamental changes that will result in more stable Sparta, along with the victory which results in Sparta being a major part of any alliance as long as Persia is still around. And with the other Spartan king being indecisive I can see the two-king system being largely discredited, all paving the way for a much more successful Sparta.
Scenario 2:
The Persians do not fight Salamis, but instead blockades and uses their superior fleet to outflank the Greeks, and advance on Corinth. Anyhow pretty much all of the Greeks are down and out except for Athens and Sparta, but through mistakes, blunders, or any other mishap the Persians lose, and the desperate times and conditions forces the Spartans to do something, and they change their mindset enough to survive in the long run.
Are either of these scenarios viable/plausible? Any other scenarios are welcomed and I really want to see what you guys think about this!![]()
You have focused your argument at the incident of the Persian Wars which in fact is a remarkable part of history but of secondary importance in relation to the decline of Sparta.
I suggest that you consult the site of:"elysiumgates/helena-Sparta reconsidered" to get a ground knowledge and the rudiments of Spartan constitution that makes Sparta the first democracy of Greece,150 years before Athens;at the same time that constitution was the cause of Sparta's downfall.
Sparta was in essence a fortified camp in the middle of enemy territory and as such Spartans lived in a state of total alert.
The system of serfdom/ helots is not relevant in this tl.Generally Greeks had slaves from prisoners of war and serfdom was exclusive to Sparta,but this discussion is fruitless since discussing slavery(a common status in the ancient world) with21st century standards...
Sparta,which was aknowledged as the leading Greek state and frequent arbitrer of disputes between states since the beginning of the sixth century BC,started having troubles with her population in the fourth century BC due to the fact that citizensip primary requirement was that BOTH parents should be Spartans;that of course excluded the entire class of 'Neothamodes' who were children of a Spartan,usually,with a 'perioikos'woman.Had it not been the case,Sparta would have been invincible.Someone alleged that a Spartan phalanx could be routed;none in human memory had ever broken a Spartan centre...the first defeat of the Spartan army at Leuctra near Thebes consisted of 14000 men out of which only 1400 were Spartans and the total Spartan population was 2100 'homioi' (Spartiates citizens).A century before the Spartans,in command of the Greeks,had been victorious in every engagement against the Persians which means that professionally Sparta bread generals (don't forget Gylippos in Syracusae 415 BC or Agisilaos in 4th century).
It was obvious that the citizenship requirement was destroying Sparta since the city could not recover its losses in the many wars it was involved in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.Phoney enough the same reason was the downfall of Athens(much later because of greater population) due to the law put forward by that idiot Ephialtes in 451 BC;with that law even Miltiades,the victor of Marathon,wouldn't qualify for citizenship...
Start your scenario after the Persian wars and the execution of Pausanias....
Last edited: