Sparta Desrves a Better Fate

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 Thermopylae :)eek:) 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:
Re: slavery, Sparta actually was remarkably different from the other Greek city states. Though not for the reason you might think, which makes the helot issue a bit of a common misconception/misrepresentation. Also if there was a taboo against enslaving fellow Greeks, pretty much all Greek states indulged in it anyways, so it may have become irrelevant as time went on.

Anyways as for the helots, yes the helots were enserfed from the conquered Messenian population as state slaves (though some were apparently granted autonomous or allied status). It should be pointed out that this occurred extremely early in Sparta's history (and Classical Greek history entirely for that matter), laying the groundwork of the helot system.

Fast forward to the Persian Wars and by then while Sparta had enslaved the helots 200 years ago in the Messenian War, after that Sparta wasn't enslaving any new helots. There's no references to later prisoners of war or captured civilians (after the Messenians) that were made helots or taken as slaves back to Sparta. In contrast to all the other states where of course that was the norm.

Sparta might not have even had any barbarian slaves, because even Persian prisoners were spared (well not really, they didn't have any problems with other city states enslaving the Persians instead).

At one point Spartans became known as slave liberators because they didn't take slaves and infamous among other states for releasing slaves of states they were at war with (the 'normal' practice would have been to take the slaves as your own).

The one example we have of Spartans participating in the inter-city slave trade, the Sicilian Expedition, we see the Spartans clearly opposing it and the enslavement being carried out by their Sicilian allies instead (who they were only military advisers and guests of so couldn't counter act).

In other words, the situation was rather nuanced and hardly worse than any of their contemporaries. Sparta practiced a system of slavery that was different from the other states, but it also represented an attempt by an empire to integrate a conquered region early in their history. I can kind of agree with the idea that they went to an extreme of contemporary Greek norms, but I wouldn't argue that the norms were actually better considering the above. They were pretty much all equally shitty in different ways.

As an aside, in some cases other states also practiced state slavery, though without the helot system. Slaves who worked (and literally died there due to the conditions unless they were liberated by Spartans of all people) in silver mines tended to be considered government assets or loaned from private owners.

As the general rule of thumb though, if the year is after 699BC, you want the Spartans to be the ones capturing you or your city. The lootings and killings if it happens will be generally quite tame, and prisoners decently treated with likelyhood of being eventually released. They'll install an oligarchy government and be on their way.

On the other hand if you have the misfortune of Athens or anyone else actually capturing your city there's a 50% chance that they start enslaving everyone and a 50% chance that they cut to the chase and start decimating the city instead. Prisoners get the chains.

Of course this also doesn't get into the discussion of how slavery in antiquity was slightly different from what people envision sometimes as what people imagine happening on plantations but that's kind of a different topic.
I was about to post something very similar to this, I'm glad you beat me to it though.
 
Few issues with 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 democracy in sense it was a monarchy and oligarchy. It had elements of all, soemthing that was seen as foundation for their stability since each element was able to keep others in check so that each disatvantage was offset by counter advantages in others.

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...

It is relevant because helot system was reason why sparta was what it was. OOH helots did the work so Homoioi could concentrate on fighting. Unlike other polis where hoplites had to split time between taking care of farm and fighting. OTOH it enforced siege mentality among its popualtion and curtailed their expeditions since they couldn't afford to keep too large force away from home too long because otherwise helots might get some funny ideas.

It was both their greatest strength and their greates weakness

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.

You forgot requrement to contribute to their Syssitia (comunal mess). This became increasingly problematic in later times with more and more people failing to do so and either losing their status or having to rely on sponsorship of better off members. IMO this asspect is hwere reforms could/should happen in order to stop their decline
 
actarian,

My intention was not to outline information about Sparta,but to point out the reason for Sparta's oliganthropy(inadequate population).The point about citizenship was the most important one that king Kleomenes tried to address but it was then too late for Sparta;he was defeated in the battle near Sellasia in 229 BC by the king of Macedon Antigonos Doson(the generous) and the dream of
Sparta's revival died with his assassination.
If the author wants to start a timeline Cleomenes the Great is a good starting point (late 6th century BC)or after the Persian wars(a bit late but not impossible...)
On a point about helots,the greatest threat against Sparta were not the helots but the perioikoi(dwellers around) who,to history's great surprise remained loyal to Sparta even during Epameinondas'famous invasion of Lakonia(Lakedaemon)
Possibly(?) due to the law governing Spartan expeditionary forces.
 
Last edited:
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 Thermopylae :)eek:) 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.

Maybe those 300 guys could have held out longer if they wore actual bronze body armor rather than relying on their giant bare pecs to deflect Persian arrows :p



God, I hated those movies...


Seriously though, the classic Spartan system was extremely inflexible and economically and culturally crippling for the whole region. The fact that it lasted as long as it did and actually achieved hegemony over the other Greek states for a period of time is surprising.
 
actarian,

My intention was not to outline information about Sparta,but to point out the reason for Sparta's oliganthropy(inadequate population).The point about citizenship was the most important one that king Kleomenes tried to address but it was then too late for Sparta;he was defeated in the battle near Sellasia in 229 BC by the king of Macedon Antigonos Doson(the generous) and the dream of
Sparta's revival died with his assassination.

I think you didn't adress it properly. IMO homoioi failing to pay their dues is bigger problem than parental classification. Latter could be adressed with some difficulties but not impossible. Former would be much harder because it would affect those who had amassed larger plots and who would resist it.

If the author wants to start a timeline Cleomenes the Great is a good starting point (late 6th century BC)or after the Persian wars(a bit late but not impossible...)
On a point about helots,the greatest threat against Sparta were not the helots but the perioikoi(dwellers around) who,to history's great surprise remained loyal to Sparta even during Epameinondas'famous invasion of Lakonia(Lakedaemon)
Possibly(?) due to the law governing Spartan expeditionary forces.

I don't find perioikoi loyalty surprising at all. They were to some degree most free of all Spartans. They weren't slaves, were allowed to travel and took profession other than military. Yes, they were excluded from political process but they were compensated (not deliberatly) elsewhere. They had a stake in maintaining existing system as much as homoioi did so no wonder they fought for it.
 
Maybe those 300 guys could have held out longer if they wore actual bronze body armor rather than relying on their giant bare pecs to deflect Persian arrows :p
They would have probably held out if Sparta sent their full force as promised, rather than sending a token expedition while maintaining the rest of their force to build a giant fortification across the Isthmus of Corinth.
 
They would have probably held out if Sparta sent their full force as promised, rather than sending a token expedition while maintaining the rest of their force to build a giant fortification across the Isthmus of Corinth.
Does anyone els find it wierd that 300 is the only dramatisation in history where the Thespians have been left out in order to make things MORE dramatic?
 
Does anyone els find it wierd that 300 is the only dramatisation in history where the Thespians have been left out in order to make things MORE dramatic?

They were? Aren't they mentioned and dismissed as brawlers and as such not up to Spartan standards?
 
Scenario 1:

Better Thermopylae :)eek:) results in Persians getting stalled longer, amd Leonidas (probably one of the greatest Greeks to have ever lived) lives.
Leonidas's sole claim to fame was his death at Thermopylae. He was not anything exceptional up until that point, and his background along with factionalism within the Agiad dynasty would have probably seen to his swift end should he attempt to enact any radical reforms. More importantly, why would he wish to do so? The flaws in the Spartan system were only exposed after the Peloponnesian Wars, when Sparta found itself horribly overstretched. At the time of Leonidas, the manpower issues that would rear their ugly head later on were not readily apparent, for Sparta had no wish to establish hegemony over Greece. Sparta, especially at this time, was at heart an isolationist society.



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.
You are better off having some POD in the 4th century, after Leuctra most likely, to have any chance of getting any kind of significant radical reforms to Spartan society to allow them to at the very least arrest their decline. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, the Spartans aren't going to change, and even then, any reformist king is going to meet with incredible pushback. Just ask Cleomenes, who attempted his reforms a century and a half after the collapse of Spartan hegemony and still faced a lot of internal resistance.

Are either of these scenarios viable/plausible? Any other scenarios are welcomed and I really want to see what you guys think about this!:)[/QUOTE]
 
Can we all just agree that 300 is a crappy quasi-porno and has no real bearing on history and just move on?

They also abused slow-motion to the extreme. If all the slowmo down scenes were run at regular speed the entire move would be like 20 minutes. I guess that's what you have to do to make a full length film when your writers have no talent.

As to why the battle is so famous, doomed rearguard actions where the defender fights to the last man always catches the public's imagination, even if the strategic effect of these battles are minimal (see Custer's last Stand or The Alamo for American examples)
 
They would have probably held out if Sparta sent their full force as promised, rather than sending a token expedition while maintaining the rest of their force to build a giant fortification across the Isthmus of Corinth.

Sly,please allow me to clarify something here:Sparta had promised to sent its army forward AFTER the Carnean religious festival,since according to the laws
of Sparta no expedition of the Spartan army outside the bounds of Lakedaemon
was permitted for the duration of religious festivals.Leonidas,as king of Sparta,
like any king of Sparta,could move outside Lakedaemon with his personal guard consisting of 300 Spartiates;here the information is incomplete for the simple fact that for any military operation,(even a routine reccon.) every Spartan should be followed by one perioikos armed as heavy infantry and five(for some historians seven) helots as auxilliaries,slingers or javeliners.
That would raise his force to nearly 4000 men including the Thespians.Leonidas estimated correctly that with such force,given the morphology of the terrain ,he would have been able to hold the Persian army for a week.
Here Sly I will comment on your Historical evaluation of Leonidas:the Greeks had decided a year before at Corinth to agree on a certain strategy with regard to the conduct of the war.Sparta,being the leading power in the council of Corinth and also supported for the formulation of the Greek strategy by the main members of its alliance(Peloponnesian Alliance), was represented by one of its kings and that king was Leonidas.The Spartan kings were not the same as any such monarch perceived by the western European historical backround.The kings importance was centred in the command of the army mainly and their(two kings) presence in the deliberations of Gerousia equally with other twenty eight members;but in Corinth
the one king present was in reality the CinC and mainly responsible for the formulation of the Greek strategy down to the smallest detail.The plan included the mobilisation of the city states time required for concentration of forces and supplies and of course the Greek strategy was dictated here by the facts of geography the corolation of forces(Xerxes uncle had already voiced his opinion to the great king that the campaign was in danger of turning into a massive failure having taken into account the same facts as the Greeks did.).The above depicts Leonidas as an excellent general who knew how to take risks.
What is unfortunate Sly was that Leonidas must have been 62 years old at that time and he wouldn't have the time even if he had survived Thermopylae(impossible since he was apparently forcing the realization of the Delphi oracle divination that to save Sparta a king had to be sacrificed) he wouldn't have the time to effect reforms needed.
 
Last edited:
OK, I think I should have made my point clearer. The problem other Greeks had with Spartan system is that is involved other Greeks that were enslaved an masse when Sparta conquered Messenians.Few slaves here and there were OK, even if they were Greeks. Enslaving entire nation (so to speak) which was also Greek, in one go (so to speak) was something that was a problem.

The penestae (in Greek oι Πενέσται, hoi penestai) were a class of unfree labourers in Thessaly, Ancient Greece. These labourers were tied to the land they inhabited, comparable in status with the Spartan helots.
 
Top