WI : Spartan Empire


So I watched the above video about Sparta yesterday, so forgive me as I'm not that familiar with the details beyond what is in that video.

Is there a way to maintain Spartan Hegemony permenantly? It has an interesting constitutional system, and I was thinking that there may be a way to replace the Harmosts with something more acceptable (and permenant).

At the end of the Peloponessian War, rather than establish Harmosts in conquered towns as they did, what if instead the Spartans actively founded new towns in nearby defensible locations - mimicking the structure of Sparta - but with two Harmosts rather than full-on Kings.

In addition, set up a system where the towns elect a leader who is equal to an appointed Harmost of that conquered town.

Could this approach of Spartiate-Towns and Conquered Towns ensure a large Spartiate population, as well as a longer-lasting Empire? Or would there need to be more reforms of the very conservative Spartan system?
 
Greek hegemonies were, almost by definition, short-lived for a series of reason.

An hypertrophied sense of civic identity (greek hegemonies rarely managed to dominate ethnic greek states such as Thessalia or Macedonia, but it's true as well on this regard) : being dominated by another major city was unbrearable, would it be Athenian or Spartan especially when this dominance wasn't accompanied by a Roman-like gradual absorption into a more composite state (as the Romano-Campanian state of the IInd century).
Eventually the lack of relational devices as you had in Rome (trough a legalist-political approach), Carthage (trough an economical-political approach) or even in Gaul (trough a "vassalic"-political approach) prevented to overcome efficiently politeis identitarian features.

You did have koinoi being established from time to time, but it tended to be local and relatively ponctual, varying between alliances and religious gatherings (and in the case of the Boeotian League, a case of a partially unsucessful "orbit cleaning" as Athens did managed in Attic peninsula), at least until the IIIrd century where isopoliteis (basically a federal state where previous entities tend to merge, rather than just federalize) appear out of it.

Persian influence was as well a real problem. The Great King certainly didn't want anyone in Greece to take the hegemon, and funded whoever fought it. There's barely a war or a peace in the Vth and IVth centuries, where the Achemenid Empire doesn't pops up openly or covertly, and it was crippling until Macedonian came out and made everyone agree or else.
Paradoxally, you didn't have a great obvious threat or ennemy to federate cities : it did happened later, when the clear Macedonian will of dominance was deemed an existential and political threat, and where two federal ensemble (the Achean and Etolian leagues) were particularily successful at unifying their immediate regions (respectively Peloponessos and Central Hellade). It does help that Lagids helped funding the heck out of these experiments.

But in IVth century Greece, it didn't existed as such : Persia was considered as a natural partner of Greek political life (another way to say Greek cities-states were dependent on Persian gold to affirm their independence and will to dominate), and Sparta would need to consider itself as a possible isopolity (meaning, gulp, possibly considering other Greeks as equals) which...well, it's not that going to work.

In fact, it appears that Sparta, while bend about establishing an hegemony, had put little tought why or what they were going to do with*, at the point the hegemony became for a time Lysander's own private hegemon rather than Sparta's, which provoked a traditionalist backleash and then even less clear idea what to do with the hegemony safe something something Sparta stronk something something we can't decently leave. Eventually, with the general weariness of Greece after the Peloponessian War, the aformentioned conditions and Sparta having no real strategical guideline...Well, it collapsed under its own weight.

*It's why that, for all its faults, an Attic hegemony would have been maybe more structurating, because Athenians pretty much knew what they wanted out of it.
 
Greek hegemonies were, almost by definition, short-lived for a series of reason.

An hypertrophied sense of civic identity (greek hegemonies rarely managed to dominate ethnic greek states such as Thessalia or Macedonia, but it's true as well on this regard) : being dominated by another major city was unbrearable, would it be Athenian or Spartan especially when this dominance wasn't accompanied by a Roman-like gradual absorption into a more composite state (as the Romano-Campanian state of the IInd century).
Eventually the lack of relational devices as you had in Rome (trough a legalist-political approach), Carthage (trough an economical-political approach) or even in Gaul (trough a "vassalic"-political approach) prevented to overcome efficiently politeis identitarian features.

You did have koinoi being established from time to time, but it tended to be local and relatively ponctual, varying between alliances and religious gatherings (and in the case of the Boeotian League, a case of a partially unsucessful "orbit cleaning" as Athens did managed in Attic peninsula), at least until the IIIrd century where isopoliteis (basically a federal state where previous entities tend to merge, rather than just federalize) appear out of it.

Persian influence was as well a real problem. The Great King certainly didn't want anyone in Greece to take the hegemon, and funded whoever fought it. There's barely a war or a peace in the Vth and IVth centuries, where the Achemenid Empire doesn't pops up openly or covertly, and it was crippling until Macedonian came out and made everyone agree or else.
Paradoxally, you didn't have a great obvious threat or ennemy to federate cities : it did happened later, when the clear Macedonian will of dominance was deemed an existential and political threat, and where two federal ensemble (the Achean and Etolian leagues) were particularily successful at unifying their immediate regions (respectively Peloponessos and Central Hellade). It does help that Lagids helped funding the heck out of these experiments.

But in IVth century Greece, it didn't existed as such : Persia was considered as a natural partner of Greek political life (another way to say Greek cities-states were dependent on Persian gold to affirm their independence and will to dominate), and Sparta would need to consider itself as a possible isopolity (meaning, gulp, possibly considering other Greeks as equals) which...well, it's not that going to work.

In fact, it appears that Sparta, while bend about establishing an hegemony, had put little tought why or what they were going to do with*, at the point the hegemony became for a time Lysander's own private hegemon rather than Sparta's, which provoked a traditionalist backleash and then even less clear idea what to do with the hegemony safe something something Sparta stronk something something we can't decently leave. Eventually, with the general weariness of Greece after the Peloponessian War, the aformentioned conditions and Sparta having no real strategical guideline...Well, it collapsed under its own weight.

*It's why that, for all its faults, an Attic hegemony would have been maybe more structurating, because Athenians pretty much knew what they wanted out of it.

What if the premise was the emergence of a desire for exactly that "Ultimate Power"? I'd be curious to see how the Spartans could transition to that state of affairs. Perhaps simply through a desire to ensure long-term survival via making the Greeks "Spartan". The video may falsely paint a picture of a neurotic concern for their survival - but if it isn't false, that urge could be the motivation.

Could they not determine that it is easier to have a "vassalic"? approach - or (for a lack of a term that comes to mind) a "Scutagate". Rather than having to actively put down rebellions, the Spartans come in, conquer, and set up a system where local don't have to fight or defend their homes, but instead must pay an extra tax if they won't fight alongside the Spartans. That would allow the financial ability for the Spartans to continue their lifestyle, without the need to put down helot rebellions.

Add into that a rule where Spartans lived by Spartan law (with the inheritance laws and public land as described in the video), but non-Spartans lived by their own local laws. BUT, with ability for Non-Spartans to "apply" to become Spartans, and go through gruelling training, or other conditions akin to what Spartans had to go through, to have that right. I can see that being VERY appealing for women, considering the inheritance laws involved, which I think you be a 'pull factor'.

(Men I imagine would need to be subjected to training like Spartan children, and surrendering their property to Spartan Law, women could be introduced via marriage (or a concubine-like status/saltwife status) to a Spartan, where they don't become Spartan, but are protected as such, but their children WOULD be Spartan.)

I'm possibly being naive, but I'm suggesting a form of light-touch hegemony/rule that encourages joining the Spartans - via the women of the Greek world. Light enough that asserting their independence seems pointless. Silver goes to Sparta (or a local Spartan garrison/town), and Sparta fights. (Heck, you could go so far as Sparta being actively ok with Greek cities taking Persian gold, as long as they do nothing. Sparta will protect.)
 
What if the premise was the emergence of a desire for exactly that "Ultimate Power"? I'd be curious to see how the Spartans could transition to that state of affairs. Perhaps simply through a desire to ensure long-term survival via making the Greeks "Spartan". The video may falsely paint a picture of a neurotic concern for their survival - but if it isn't false, that urge could be the motivation.

Could they not determine that it is easier to have a "vassalic"? approach - or (for a lack of a term that comes to mind) a "Scutagate". Rather than having to actively put down rebellions, the Spartans come in, conquer, and set up a system where local don't have to fight or defend their homes, but instead must pay an extra tax if they won't fight alongside the Spartans. That would allow the financial ability for the Spartans to continue their lifestyle, without the need to put down helot rebellions.

Add into that a rule where Spartans lived by Spartan law (with the inheritance laws and public land as described in the video), but non-Spartans lived by their own local laws. BUT, with ability for Non-Spartans to "apply" to become Spartans, and go through gruelling training, or other conditions akin to what Spartans had to go through, to have that right. I can see that being VERY appealing for women, considering the inheritance laws involved, which I think you be a 'pull factor'.

(Men I imagine would need to be subjected to training like Spartan children, and surrendering their property to Spartan Law, women could be introduced via marriage (or a concubine-like status/saltwife status) to a Spartan, where they don't become Spartan, but are protected as such, but their children WOULD be Spartan.)

I'm possibly being naive, but I'm suggesting a form of light-touch hegemony/rule that encourages joining the Spartans - via the women of the Greek world. Light enough that asserting their independence seems pointless. Silver goes to Sparta (or a local Spartan garrison/town), and Sparta fights. (Heck, you could go so far as Sparta being actively ok with Greek cities taking Persian gold, as long as they do nothing. Sparta will protect.)


To maintain Spartan hegemony they would largely have to cease being Spartan, or least get rid of their Social system which drove them to towards having a constantly shrinking pool of manpower ruling over a larger and larger ocean of the disadvantaged, and oppressed. Their system was the very opposite of the assimilationist approach that is mentioned above, or that was practiced with success by the Romans in that it was far easier to lose citizenship than to gain it, which was almost certainly inevitable given the nature of how the Spartan elite became and remained (or not) part of that elite. Another fundamental problem was once they had conquered their more populous neighbours they were essentially locked into a system of brutal oppression. Added to this was the extreme conservatism of Spartan society, once past the initial revolutionary establishment phrase that mitigated strongly against change. So to change matters some sort of devastating disaster needs to happen whilst they still have the capacity to rebuild.
Otherwise we end up with something like OTL where Sparta could temporarily profit from diplomacy or the division of its enemies, or from superior training and discipline, but would eventually find its enemies catching up and overtaking them in ability, numbers and unity.
 
To maintain Spartan hegemony they would largely have to cease being Spartan.

Yes, because the Roman Empire in 1400 AD was EXACTLY like the Roman empire in 300 AD.

Not to be snarky, but besides the desire for an impetus, it could be a popular political situation, a narrowly (Very Narrowly) defeated Helot revolt, or any other impetus to convince them that there needs to be a change. Perhaps combine a major fire in Sparta with a large helot revolt - the fire killing off the majority of the Gerousia and potential candidates. (I mean, the fire might not be an accident, but a political ploy, but that is neither here nor there).

The Gerousia AFAIK was a major conservative element. You limit that for a decade or so (since they need to be over 60), and some radical Ephers and Kings can make some survival changes. Not so radical as to say "All Greeks are Equal to Spartans", but that "All Greeks can try and be Spartans, but Greeks are allowed to be Greeks".

Start with extending "application" to the Perioikoi, and assuming that proves successful, extend the right to "apply" to all Greeks (and freeing the Helots) - perhaps with Athens or Thebes beating the war drum, thinking a reform could nip the risk of rebellion in the bud.

I get that its a change, that is the point, I'm trying to explore how we can take Sparta, and have it form a lasting Empire rather than decline.
 
Yes, because the Roman Empire in 1400 AD was EXACTLY like the Roman empire in 300 AD.

Not to be snarky, but besides the desire for an impetus, it could be a popular political situation, a narrowly (Very Narrowly) defeated Helot revolt, or any other impetus to convince them that there needs to be a change. Perhaps combine a major fire in Sparta with a large helot revolt - the fire killing off the majority of the Gerousia and potential candidates. (I mean, the fire might not be an accident, but a political ploy, but that is neither here nor there).

The Gerousia AFAIK was a major conservative element. You limit that for a decade or so (since they need to be over 60), and some radical Ephers and Kings can make some survival changes. Not so radical as to say "All Greeks are Equal to Spartans", but that "All Greeks can try and be Spartans, but Greeks are allowed to be Greeks".

Start with extending "application" to the Perioikoi, and assuming that proves successful, extend the right to "apply" to all Greeks (and freeing the Helots) - perhaps with Athens or Thebes beating the war drum, thinking a reform could nip the risk of rebellion in the bud.

I get that its a change, that is the point, I'm trying to explore how we can take Sparta, and have it form a lasting Empire rather than decline.

In 464 you had a heartquake that killed 20 000 peoples in Sparta, followed by an Hilote uprising who came close to destroy Sparta and would have if Athens had intervened. That's about how traumatic an event you could get without breaking Sparta back. Not only didn't they reform but they essentially doubled down on their conservatism. Sparta isn't Rome, for all her faults Rome was remarkably adaptable and flexible while Sparta was reputed for her political and social rigidity.

Besside, by freeing the Helots you essentially break the base of Sparta power. Her might came from the fact she had the only professional soldiers in Ancient Greece, she could only do so because she had the Messanians to exploit and use to feed the polis while the Homoios trained. Free the hilotes and the whole system fall appart and in one or two generations Sparta hoplites are now pretty average and her overall economy will likely remain poor. That's not even discussing how unrealistic the Messenians as people accepting anything less then being rid of Spartan domination completely and for good, considering how much the Messenians hated the Spartans and that the former had about six or seven time the population of the latter during the classical era.

Overal, the very factors who had made Sparta great also bore the germ of her inevitable demise as a power of mark. To change that you need a POD so far back, who change things so profoundly, that your Sparta will only have the name in common with our Sparta.
 
Besside, by freeing the Helots you essentially break the base of Sparta power. Her might came from the fact she had the only professional soldiers in Ancient Greece, she could only do so because she had the Messanians to exploit and use to feed the polis while the Homoios trained. Free the hilotes and the whole system fall appart and in one or two generations Sparta hoplites are now pretty average and her overall economy will likely remain poor. That's not even discussing how unrealistic the Messenians as people accepting anything less then being rid of Spartan domination completely and for good, considering how much the Messenians hated the Spartans and that the former had about six or seven time the population of the latter during the classical era.
Bit of an urban feudalism there. Though one that didn't allow skilled craftsmen, yeomen farmers, educated administers/teachrs/priests, etc like in Western Europe many, many centuries later.
 
Bit of an urban feudalism there. Though one that didn't allow skilled craftsmen, yeomen farmers, educated administers/teachrs/priests, etc like in Western Europe many, many centuries later.

Honestly, even with the reservation you put, comparing Sparta to feudalism is giving a bad name to feudalism. Feudalism didn't include the ritual humiliation of serfs, feudalism didn't include the mandated killing of serfs as part of the education of young nobles and feudalism didn't specify that any serfs who show exceptional aptitudes, wheter physically or intelectually, be killed ASAP just to stay on the safe side of things.

If you really want an historical comparaison the Antebellum south would be a better bet and even then I would still consider Sparta nastier.
 
You can't really compare Sparta to Rome. Sparta was, for starters, not expansionistic. They were loathe to send their armies beyond the Peloponnese, and for good reason-their entire system rested on keeping down helots that vastly outnumbered them and could revolt at any moment. Furthermore, Rome could survive defeats and bounce back, and frequently won through their ability to raise army after army, rather than any innate battlefield superiority. Sparta, on the other hand, was perpetually one major defeat away from ruin, and when that defeat came, Spartan power was shattered forever.

If you want Sparta to be an empire, it cannot be Sparta. They would have to ditch the helot system, and as such they would have to completely ditch their whole social system, which was completely reliant on having helots so Spartan men could spend their life as professional soldiers. And even then you would still run into the problem of there is no reason to expect Sparta to ever get the population size necessary to dominate Greece in a world where Spartan soldiers aren't really any more special than their counterparts.
 
Honestly, even with the reservation you put, comparing Sparta to feudalism is giving a bad name to feudalism. Feudalism didn't include the ritual humiliation of serfs, feudalism didn't include the mandated killing of serfs as part of the education of young nobles and feudalism didn't specify that any serfs who show exceptional aptitudes, wheter physically or intelectually, be killed ASAP just to stay on the safe side of things.

If you really want an historical comparaison the Antebellum south would be a better bet and even then I would still consider Sparta nastier.
Indeed, I had thought of Dixie but mostly was just bringing the comparision up to point to how the Spartans would not create anything. Whereas those who wouldn't become lords or warriors in Europe might join the church or administration, any latent talent would be ignored, while the Spartan youth were made to behave in ways that were counter not only to compassion but to natural selection. Getting it to the point where you have women shaved to look like boys so that a groom could steal her from her house and copulate seems like... Well, I know it is symbolic about a person going from one family to another, and that this and banning men form seeing their wives made it more 'desirable', but it is very... I don't think it would lend itself to a good family life.
 
Indeed, I had thought of Dixie but mostly was just bringing the comparision up to point to how the Spartans would not create anything. Whereas those who wouldn't become lords or warriors in Europe might join the church or administration, any latent talent would be ignored, while the Spartan youth were made to behave in ways that were counter not only to compassion but to natural selection. Getting it to the point where you have women shaved to look like boys so that a groom could steal her from her house and copulate seems like... Well, I know it is symbolic about a person going from one family to another, and that this and banning men form seeing their wives made it more 'desirable', but it is very... I don't think it would lend itself to a good family life.

Sparta essentially sacrificed everything to produce good hoplites, and they did. But by doing so they essentially made themselves incapable of doing anything else: appart from the complete lack of science, arts and academic achievements they where also pathetic in siegecraft and at sea and Brasidas and Lysander are pretty much the only two spartans who ever mustered some sense of strategic and tactical creativity. Politically and administratively, well, it was a widespread saying that the Spartans where the easiest to corrupt among the greeks while the athenians where the hardest (getting a but load of money in that manner and managing to flee somewhere else was pretty much the only way you could have a decent life) and the necessity to keep the Hilotes down tended to prevent them from taking geopolitical initiatives.

Even at hoplite making, one can make the argument that they weren't as good as they where made out of to be. On a one on one basis I would take the Theban Sacred Band against Spartan Homoios anytime.
 
What if the premise was the emergence of a desire for exactly that "Ultimate Power"?
Thing is, Sparta managed to be the spearhead of the anti-Attic alliance specifically because it wasn't seen as harbouring such an obvious desire of domination : in fact, its this relative passivity and isolationism that not only propelled her as such (with her formidable army, of course) but also annoyed her allies (Argos, Thebes and Corinth) that had to form a league of their own to really feel efficient.
If Sparta really demonstrated a desire, would it be only half the obvious and barely veiled way Athens did, it's debatable it would be able to impose an hegemon over Arolide or Boetia, as Sparta's allies would be much more wary.

Of course, it would ask as wel a major identitarian shift in Sparta itself. I think your comparison with Roman Empire to be faulty there : of course, Romania changed in centuries, but it didn't changed overnight and up to the end the identitarian principles if changed, were considered continuously. There, to ask Sparta changing from an isolationist, ultra-traditionalist polis to an imperialist, inclusive archê would be confusing the searched ends with means.
Could they not determine that it is easier to have a "vassalic"? approach
This kind of approach does work well in a society highlighting personal ties : if Spartan kings had a more important political role, basically having Sparta being a royal state as in Epirus or Macedonia, it could have worked.
But for all its distinctiveness, Sparta wasn't an ethnic Greek state, but a civic Greek state, where the rule of assembly was supposedly the decider. Which is institutionally hard to make compatible with the personal relationship that characterise vassalic ties. You'd argue that late Gallic states managed to form confederations on this ground, true, but the assemblies largely remained aristocratic then.
 
Yes, because the Roman Empire in 1400 AD was EXACTLY like the Roman empire in 300 AD.

Well no it wasn.t of course, but in a way that's the point. Sparta had a primarily insular mind set the very definition of NOT INVENTED HERE, plus its system drove its elite to constantly shrink its numbers in ever more "competitive" ways, whilst Rome's solution to problems was usually about expanding the pool of man power or resources (not always I admit) Just look at Sparta's attitude to even military technology. Archery is not acceptable in war its cheating. hmm, good luck with that one long term. Oer time their armies got smaller, their resources scantier and their friends fewer. To change this they would (IMO) have to go back almost to the heroic age and start again.
 

trajen777

Banned
A good time frame would be during Cleomenes reforms: These reformed the army, expanded the population, redistributed the land, and allowed for long term population growth:

You would need him to :
1. (CHANGE): Carry the reform to the rest of the Pelop (which the people wanted and would have expanded perhaps a 2nd level Spartan citizenship towards) similar to the Roman citizenship (i would create the two tiered
2. Have Illiyarians attack Macedon in 226 vs 224 and have to occupied to attack Cleomenes. Have him die of disease there -- throwing Macedon into chaos.
3. Have Sparta continue reforms, unite the Pelo, continue to recieve financial support from Egypt, and stay allied with Rome against Philip V. Have Sparta conquor the rest of southern Greece and extend their reforms making the people happy.
4. Now you need them to stay as allies and not become a colony of Rome.

The reforms:
After having removed the ephors, who obstructed his political will, Cleomenes used the character of Lycurgus the lawgiver, which allow him to legitimize the violence, and he began his reforms. He first handed over all his land to the state; he was soon followed in this by his stepfather and his friends and the rest of the citizens. He divided up all the land and gave an equal lot to every citizen, a unique achievement. The land was pooled and redistributed in equal portion to some 4,000 citizens (although the first Agis plan projected 4,500 citizens). These citizens were half old citizens who had been exiled, and half new citizens who for the most part were mercenaries who fought with the Spartan army. There were also Perioeci granted land for their dedication to Sparta. Those 4,000 citizens enhanced the body of Spartan citizens, which had suffered from oliganthropia .[17]

For the first time the amount of produce the Helots had to surrender to each klaros-holder was specified in absolute quantities rather than as a proportion of the annual yield. Cleomenes trained 4,000 Hoplites and restored the ancient Spartan military and social discipline.

The citizens' children were required to pass through an agoge, and the adult citizens had to practise again the old austere diaita centred upon communal living within the framework of the military-minded masses. More significantly, Cleomenes decreed that his new army should follow the model of the Macedonian army, a century after the bitter defeat of Chaeronea. This was characterised by the use of the Macedonian sarissa, a five-meter spike, which performed well over the next two campaigning seasons. Cleomenes completed his reforms by placing his brother, Eucleidas, in charge, making him the first Agiad king on the Eurypontid throne.[12]
 
I was going to weigh in here. But I found that most of the main points have been covered.
2 other key reasons why they couldn't (and sorry if someone else has mentioned them in the above:

-Their location- look at Sparta is on a map. Then look at the rest of the Greek states. Now whilst not impossible,unlike Athens and Boeotia who are pretty centralized in what we consider "Greece". The fact that it would be very hard for them to become a naval power given Athens superiority in that field makes it hard for them to create colonies elsewhere and therefore their only means of expansion is through conquest. a
I was going to weigh in here. But I found that most of the main points have been covered.
2 other key reasons why they couldn't (and sorry if someone else has mentioned them in the above:

-Their location- look at Sparta is on a map. Then look at the rest of the Greek states. Now whilst not impossible,unlike Athens and Boeotia who are pretty centralized in what we consider "Greece". The fact that it would be very hard for them to become a naval power given Athens superiority in that field makes it hard for them to create colonies elsewhere and therefore their only means of expansion is through conquest. and as others have pointed out other than fighting Athens on and off they didn't have a huge interest in conquering all of Greece.
greecemap.jpg



The other huge issue was Persia who throughout the whole ancient period spent it's gold actively attempting to harbour discontent and disrupt Greek Unity. Hence why from the defeat in the Greco-Persian Wars didn't evolve into a proper conquest until Macedonia acheived the Hegemony under Phillip II.


(^Yes I'm aware this is vastly oversimplified.But much of the detail has been covered above and I wasn't sure how deep to go at this stage)


To make this work I would say you would need a POD very early pre-Grec/ Persian wars. Or a pod that halts Sparta's decline and gives them an empire much later during the Macedonian/Diadochi period.

A good time frame would be during Cleomenes reforms: These reformed the army, expanded the population, redistributed the land, and allowed for long term population growth:

A and interesting suggestion to implement a pod from
 

So I watched the above video about Sparta yesterday, so forgive me as I'm not that familiar with the details beyond what is in that video.

Is there a way to maintain Spartan Hegemony permenantly? It has an interesting constitutional system, and I was thinking that there may be a way to replace the Harmosts with something more acceptable (and permenant).

At the end of the Peloponessian War, rather than establish Harmosts in conquered towns as they did, what if instead the Spartans actively founded new towns in nearby defensible locations - mimicking the structure of Sparta - but with two Harmosts rather than full-on Kings.

In addition, set up a system where the towns elect a leader who is equal to an appointed Harmost of that conquered town.

Could this approach of Spartiate-Towns and Conquered Towns ensure a large Spartiate population, as well as a longer-lasting Empire? Or would there need to be more reforms of the very conservative Spartan system?
Interesting that the video neglected to mention Nabis who did try to reform and rejuvenate Sparta (and ended up a war with both the Roman Republic and Macedon in the process).
 

trajen777

Banned
Interesting that the video neglected to mention Nabis who did try to reform and rejuvenate Sparta (and ended up a war with both the Roman Republic and Macedon in the process).

Yep i would go with Cleo he predated Nabis in the reforms. This would give you more time to build up a better power base, population, and alliances (Rome). Nabis carried on the reforms of Cleo but was in a diminished capacity at that time. If Cleo had been successful you would have had the rest of the Punic wars to build your base, be an ally of Rome vs Philip V to gain a stronger footing vs the rest of the world
 

trajen777

Banned
I was going to weigh in here. But I found that most of the main points have been covered.
2 other key reasons why they couldn't (and sorry if someone else has mentioned them in the above:

-Their location- look at Sparta is on a map. Then look at the rest of the Greek states. Now whilst not impossible,unlike Athens and Boeotia who are pretty centralized in what we consider "Greece". The fact that it would be very hard for them to become a naval power given Athens superiority in that field makes it hard for them to create colonies elsewhere and therefore their only means of expansion is through conquest. a
I was going to weigh in here. But I found that most of the main points have been covered.
2 other key reasons why they couldn't (and sorry if someone else has mentioned them in the above:

-Their location- look at Sparta is on a map. Then look at the rest of the Greek states. Now whilst not impossible,unlike Athens and Boeotia who are pretty centralized in what we consider "Greece". The fact that it would be very hard for them to become a naval power given Athens superiority in that field makes it hard for them to create colonies elsewhere and therefore their only means of expansion is through conquest. and as others have pointed out other than fighting Athens on and off they didn't have a huge interest in conquering all of Greece.
greecemap.jpg



The other huge issue was Persia who throughout the whole ancient period spent it's gold actively attempting to harbour discontent and disrupt Greek Unity. Hence why from the defeat in the Greco-Persian Wars didn't evolve into a proper conquest until Macedonia acheived the Hegemony under Phillip II.


(^Yes I'm aware this is vastly oversimplified.But much of the detail has been covered above and I wasn't sure how deep to go at this stage)


To make this work I would say you would need a POD very early pre-Grec/ Persian wars. Or a pod that halts Sparta's decline and gives them an empire much later during the Macedonian/Diadochi period.



A and interesting suggestion to implement a pod from


Your sort of right, however in the Peloponnesian War Sparta won the naval war. Also during Nabas reign the captured Crete by a naval campaign
 
Your sort of right, however in the Peloponnesian War Sparta won the naval war. Also during Nabas reign the captured Crete by a naval campaign

Nabas was much later than the period I am referring to I believe,closer to Roman times? But not knowing much about it fair enough.


And whilst I suppose technically Sparta eventually "won" the Naval side of the war against the city of Athens, I would argue that their navy wasn't of the same quality and capable of continuing successes to facilitate and maintain an Spartan Empire covering the Aegean.

(I say "won" because by the time Lysander came along and decisively defeated them the Athenian navy had been squandered fighting in Syracuse and then had continued to weaken itself through multiple missed chances and exceedingly bad policy back in the city itself . And yes I realise people may disagree with this point as it is more of an opinion than historical fact :D )


EDIT: and back to OP, If Nabas came close to capturing Crete that could be another point to explore as a possibility for a spartan empire. I might have to do some research into that as It's not something I've looked at before.

It still means that the reforms and pod's can't really be realistically introduced until the Diadochi period onwards then?
 
Last edited:
(I say "won" because by the time Lysander came along and decisively defeated them the Athenian navy had been squandered fighting in Syracuse and then had continued to weaken itself through multiple missed chances and exceedingly bad policy back in the city itself . And yes I realise people may disagree with this point but it's not really relevant to OP:D )

Most of the technically ''spartan'' fleet was in fact made of revolted allies of the Delian League, who rose after the Sicily disaster, so I'm not inclined to give Sparta much prop on that one. After the war they did manage to secure part of the allied fleet on a more permanent basis but it was destroyed at Cnidus a few years latter.
 
Top