Spartan Mora regiments at Battle of Plataea

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

No wonder you have named yourself “Xenophon” elsewhere: you are just as excusatory of the Spartans.Oh dear....sorry to see you getting so vexed....from this distance in history, unlike the real Xenophon, I am no 'laconophile' but rather a (hopefully) dispassionate objective spectator of history, keen to discover more about events long ago. If I pick "Xenophon" as a nom-de-plume, it is out of admiration for his skills as a Military Historian rather than his 'Laconophile' tendencies, which annoyingly obscure the facts from time to time, as everyone has noted ! :roll:
I’m surprised you failed to mention the fact that the Spartan king got his senior officers pissed before lunch!
Aside from the fact that this is an untrue exaggeration of one of Xenophon's remarks, what is the relevance to the current point in hand, namely whether Leuktra was a decisive military victory??

You may paint Leuktra as you wish.
emotive language ! ...lots of what is now called 'spin'...I don't 'paint' it any particular way - merely recite what we can glean from the sources, with , hopefully the most likely interpretation of events as they have come down to us. Since matters military are not your forte, allow me to elucidate. Leuktra was NOT a decisive military victory for the reasons I set out above - and mainly because Sparta's military capacity was not significantly damaged. Subsequent events WERE decisive - the desertion of the Peloponnese allies, the loss of Messenia, and the strengthening of Arcadia with the founding of Megalopolis etc. Contrast this with Cannae which WAS a decisive military victory - Rome's military capacity was largely destroyed at a stroke, but subsequent events were NOT decisive - Rome's core allies stayed loyal and Carthage was unable to permanently detach half of Rome's significant territory, or build up a rival city to counter Rome. There's a big difference ! Savvy?
History records it – as did the Greeks at the time – as major defeat. Aaah? You now downgrade Leuktra to 'major defeat' as opposed to 'decisive loss' ? AFIK, only the 'laconophile' Xenophon's account of Leuktra was contemporary - everyone else wrote centuries later with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight; at the time, even Epaminondas recognised that even if his victory had saved Boeotia and defeated the Spartan invasion, it had been a close run thing , the War was far from over, and the issue was still in doubt. Combine that with Xenophon's comments and you get a feel for how contemporaries viewed matters. So uncertain were matters that an appeal from Thebes to Athens to join in against Sparta fell on deaf ears....Athens stayed out because the outcome was uncertain....obviously they didn't feel Thebes had won a "Decisive Victory", even if they were as impressed as everyone else at the shock defeat of the cream ( the 'Hippeis/Homio') of Sparta's army.
Your first * point does you in: the Spartans retired behind a ditch?! Why? Because they had been pushed from the field and were in headlong retreat. Hardly ! We are told they withdrew in good order ( Yeah, I know, that's Xenophon's version - nevertheless all agree that there was no pursuit, and they were allowed to depart unmolested, even after Theban re-inforcements arrived...so defintely not militarily decisive...)Also, many Spartans wanted to renew the battle. 'Headlong retreat' and 'fled' is Theban 'spin' as repeated by Diodorus and Plutarch, writing centuries later....next you'll be telling me, along with Diodorus, that "4,000 Spartans fell" (BTW, if the Spartan army consisted only of six units of 512 men, and only four were present - some 2,000 odd - how could this be credible ?? ....despite the earthquake, did Spartan manpower 'double' by Xenophon's time ? :wink: :lol:
To make it simple: they’d lost the battle all ends up. The terribly excusatory Xenophon describes your “ditch of their camp” as a “trench which chanced to be in front of their camp”. ...not according to my 'Penguin' translation (VI.4.14) -see what I mean about translations? -which simply says "Nevertheless, although many had been killed and they had suffered a defeat, once they had crossed the ditch in front of their camp, they halted and grounded arms..." and then proceed to have a debate about whether to renew the battle but decide not to, largely because they realise the allies aren't up for it, and some are secretly pleased according to Xenophon. No pursuit. No renewal or attack by the Thebans, even when re-inforced by Jason of Pherae and his army ...instead a truce allowing the Spartans to depart in peace. Sounds much more like 'a bloody draw' than a decisive victory to me, and no amount of propaganda/spin can make it otherwise."Res Ipsa Loquitur/the facts speak for themselves" Yes, righto then…

Of course Epaminondas wanted the next battle in Lacedaemon: the Thebans had fought quite enough on their own territory and, as history would prove, the Spartans were in no position to stop him from taking the fight to Sparta.
Epaminondas' statement was in response to those who urged him to attack the Spartans after Leuktra - this was his response for not doing so, at a time when he had no intentions of invading Lacedaemon...In fact, if our sources ( e.g. XH VI.5.23-24) are to be believed, even with the desertion of the major Peloponnesian allies such as Mantinea and Tegea, Epaminondas was reluctant to invade....

Your Pollyanna view of Leuktra fails Tssk...tsssk! Such sarcasm is misplaced and unwarranted....I could respond in kind but won't - let us keep a debate civilised and not descend to parliamentary levels !! :wink: :wink:
– utterly – to take into account the state of the Peloponnesian League at this time. Not only did the Theban refused right not take part in the battle, nor did the Spartan left. This part of the League army – composed of the allies – stood back and near applauded the Spartan rout. Once again, an exaggerationXenophon is at his understated best when he records that “the allies were one and all without heart for fighting, while some of them were not even displeased at what had taken place”. Not displeased indeed. aah ! That's better....stick to what the sources actually say, or epitomise it without distortion. I have referred to this allied atitude above - and the subsequent "desertion" of the allies, so we are largely in agreement here. Had the Allies been enthusiastic, and the battle been renewed, one can visualise a very different sequence of events playing out, perhaps....

Epaminondas – as he would prove – well knew the weakness of his adversary.
On the contrary, he showed an abundance of caution, was well aware that the Spartan Tiger still had plenty of bite ( enough to kill him at second Mantinea!), and perhaps his true genius was to realise that the best way to destroy Sparta's power was OFF the battlefield....

You might paint it as a “bloody draw”. That, in my view, is incorrect: your view is myopically Spartan I’d suggest.
You distort my meaning: I said " was more a 'bloody draw than a decisive victory", and I hope I have demonstrated that this is correct
The “tearless battle” of the following year shows just how badly Sparta had been defeated. Petty border confrontations become the equivalent of Plataea....More hyperbole? The battle was clearly more than a border clash, since although we are not told much about it, the Arcadian League (Sparta's former allies Tegea and Mantinea plus others ) together with the Argive army faced the Spartans, who were evidently in full force. Potentially, we may estimate that the Argives could put 5-7,000 troops in the field, and the Arcadian League perhaps 4-6,000, but that they probably numbered about the same as the Spartans - 7-8,000 plus around 1-2,000 Celtic and Iberian mercenaries plus Cavalry sent to Sparta's aid by Dionysius of Syracuse - about 8-10,000 on each side will be the right order of magnitude. The Spartans lost not a single man ( largely because the Allies broke before contact -says something about the reputation of the Spartan Army after Leuktra, does it not?)), hence the name "Tearless Battle". The Celtic and Iberian mercenaries together with cavalry carried out a ruthless pursuit, and the Arcadians and Argives (XH VII.1.31 ) "were cut down in great numbers". The Arcadians evidently suffered significant losses, , since they then hastily built the walled city of Megalopolis. In purely military terms - one sided major battle, serious pursuit, significant damage to one side's military capacity, this was arguably more 'decisive' than Leuktra, though of course the strategic consequences were not....though Sparta too survived ( which she would not have had Archidamus' army been destroyed), and Sparta recovered territory too... :wink: :wink:

P.S: I find insertion gives more of a feel of dialogue, and saves the reader having to flick to and fro.....Pip! Pip!, dear boy.....I am thinking this debate has run its course....so wash it down with a fine glass of 'vin rouge', and we can joust again on another topic !! D lol: :wink: