WI : Spartan Empire

Not possible, the demographics just don't allow it

Considering that in the last 25mins you've posted on multiple threads with irrelevant questioning of people's premises or past posts.,or tried to kill discussion of with bland "not possible " type statements I think you're missing the whole point of these forums.

Instead of saying it's not possible because demographics don't allow it, why challenge yourself to find a change somewhere that could ripple and change the demographics so it could work?
 
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.

So basically Sparta was the ancient worlds equivalent of OTL North Korea?
 
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
Think that PoD could have created a Sparta that could have potentially garnered enough power to retain some degree of independence well into the late republic?
 
Think that PoD could have created a Sparta that could have potentially garnered enough power to retain some degree of independence well into the late republic?

I'm not sure "Stronger Sparta" and "Subservient to the Republic" work together.

Although, it'd be amazing to have Sparta keep the Romans out of Greece and be able to have two "Defenders of Greece" style titles.
 
Cleomenes could have done something great for Hellas but we ran into the ''Not Sparta anymore'' caviat once more. The day's of the Polis where long gone when he came around and to keep going he would have had to truly brought on boards other cities into a greater league with him as the hegemon. Such league would inevitably cesse to be ''Spartan'' in due time and would become more of an helenic melting pot.

Bassically, Sparta would have been more a tool used by Cleomenes to create whatever he would create then the real beneficiary of his deeds.
 
Cleomenes could have done something great for Hellas but we ran into the ''Not Sparta anymore'' caviat once more. The day's of the Polis where long gone when he came around and to keep going he would have had to truly brought on boards other cities into a greater league with him as the hegemon. Such league would inevitably cesse to be ''Spartan'' in due time and would become more of an helenic melting pot.

Bassically, Sparta would have been more a tool used by Cleomenes to create whatever he would create then the real beneficiary of his deeds.

By that logic the Roman Empire went from "Roman" to "Latin" to "Italic". Sparta leading, and being the centre of authority would surely make it Spartan no?

At the very least a "Spartan Kingdom" rather than "Spartan Polis"
 
By that logic the Roman Empire went from "Roman" to "Latin" to "Italic". Sparta leading, and being the centre of authority would surely make it Spartan no?

Again, the comparison with Rome is profoundly misleading. Rome actually had the strength to dominate the Latin and the Italic and to make all common decisions without really referring to them for a long time. Besside, even Rome had to eventually give them citizenship so yeah, you could say the empire became Italic in due time, with a capital in Rome.

Sparta didn't have the strength to keep their guys down at that point, it didn't have the population or the economy to pull it out, Cleomenes would have went nowhere hadn't a sizable proportion of the population of the Peloponese outside Sparta bought into the equalitarian mindset of his reforms and rose in the hope that they would be applied in their territories. Had Cleomenes not given to their desire in the event of a victory and/or tried to make the lands who had joined him simple Spartan vassals he would have been stuck with a major revolt couple with foreign invasions by powers who smelled blood, and that would have been the end.

For Cleomenes work to survive you need to have it become a federation like the Achean League, witch preclude Sparta really having a hold on the leadership in the long run, or even being the center of decisions for that long for that matter. At best you could have Sparta in the name of such organization but that's about it.
 
By that logic the Roman Empire went from "Roman" to "Latin" to "Italic". Sparta leading, and being the centre of authority would surely make it Spartan no?

At the very least a "Spartan Kingdom" rather than "Spartan Polis"
Not really. The Roman government was controlled by Romans. Affairs of state we're conducted in Rome, elections were held in Rome, the Senate of Roman citizens convened in Rome, etc. A better comparison to the distinction between Roman and Latin would be maybe the distinction between Spartan and Lakonians.

Also, it's just a fundamental difference in how Rome and Sparta were structured. Rome didn't cease to be Roman in the same sense Sparta would cease to be Spartan because what made Rome Rome was, to a large extent, their ability to co-opt and incorporate other states and defeated enemies into valuable allies and, eventually, into Romans. That was the foundation of the Roman system.

The Spartan system is founded on strict segregation between Spartans and non-Spartans, and there wasn't any way to, say, make Corinthians or Achaians Spartans, or at least a part of the Spartan state, in the way Rome's system was able to do.
 
I'm not sure "Stronger Sparta" and "Subservient to the Republic" work together.

Although, it'd be amazing to have Sparta keep the Romans out of Greece and be able to have two "Defenders of Greece" style titles.
Sparta had been a Roman Ally durring the time period in question and had helped the Romans penetrate Greece. I don't think anyone would object to the statement that Rome's weaker allies quickly became client states.
 
Top