Spartan Empire- why not?

[Paullus Scipio]

....but sure is fun, though, eh?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ironhand]

You're right about those two putting an end to Spartan dominance, but it was hardly a sudden thing, more like the death knell that had been coming for some time. The Spartans were a great military power, but while you could make comparisons with the Roman military the Spartans as a people were very different. The Spartans were often too stubborn and inflexible that it at times even hurt them militarily and one of the major obstacles is that as a people they are too focused on fighting. I see them falling like the Assyrians except much sooner. Once they expanded to a certain point and they hit a stall point things would begin to fall apart. Spartans did not have as much to exchange to foreigners as Rome did. Few places would have wanted to be Spartan without the big hammer over them. One of the greatest strengths of Rome was that people wanted to be Roman and benefit from involvement with them. As strong as Rome was it could not have held out under too much rebellion that is spread out. On the whole the people that Rome "conquered" were happy with their arrangements and Rome had the liberty to use the resources of the empire to engage whatever enemies they had to when they had to. I am of the opinion that Rome was more fragile than most people realize, but more impressive in its strengths because of it. It really is a cunning, well wrought system.

[Paullus Scipio]

...you are right about that, Derek - contrast the way Spartans treated the conquered, with the way Rome did in their respective empires.....

[hoplite07]

Pardon my ignorance, but didn't one Epaminondas rather badly munch the Spartan's fairly shortly after the war with Athens? And could that not have stopped Spartan expansion?

Who was this? And what year was it in.:?:

[Arthes]

the basic difference is that Romans had a national mentality while Greeks had a slight ethnic one only in times of need. In my mind i think they acted alike with Scots or the Irish. The clan was stronger than the nation concept.

Slightly off subject, but that is true. I am a quarter Irish and feel a bond with the Southern Irish and moreso the Scots. Having West Country Devon/Cornwall on the other side gives me a fairly Celtic bias...!
My mother and aunt who are half Irish are very proud of their Irish ancestry and like to mention it.
My 'British' pride comes from things such as seeing the Battle of Britain memorial flight....which is more to do with our country pulling together as one and giving their lives for a common cause.
The Spartans were (and are still) a very proud people. Their concept of honour meant that the safety and survival of Sparta and her citizens came before all else.
The selection procedure at birth and the harsh upbringing of children was to ensure Sparta's strengh, on a principle of quality not quantity...
A small well trained army that fights as one family group gives much more than a larger army consisting of mismatched troops, no matter how strong the individual elements are.
A Spartan never lost their aspis in battle, as that meant they left fellow warriors unprotected and was considered a shameful crime. Hence the saying as the aspis was handed to the Spartan warrior by his wife or mother - 'e tan e epi tas' 'with it or on it'
If you think about it, both the Spartans and the Macedonians (historical context) were of a comman Dorian ancestry, both had a strong tribal identity and developed two of the most sucessful fighting armies of the period.
When you come to Romans, the actual proportion of soldiers from Rome itself was very small, many early soldiers were from the provinces and city states they conquered. As the conquests grew, the 'Roman' had a European nationality, rather like being a member of the EEC....!
regards
Arthes

[geala]

Pardon my ignorance, but didn't one Epaminondas rather badly munch the Spartan's fairly shortly after the war with Athens? And could that not have stopped Spartan expansion?

Who was this? And what year was it in.:?:

Epameinondas was a Theban soldier and politician and one of the men who crushed Spartas short hegemony after the second Peloponesian war. He was Boiotarch (an elected leading politician of the Boiotian league) in 371 BC and a commander in the great battle of Leuktra this year where the Lakedaimonians were decisively beaten. He used the new tactics of the Theban army, partly introduced by Gorgidas, very advantageously. Another important leader was Pelopidas (presumably Epameinondas prior lover) who commanded some times the hieros lochos of the Thebans. In the years after Leuktra Epameinondas led some military expeditions against the Lakedaimonians but failed to conquer Sparta herself.

The most fundamental thing Epameinondas achieved was the liberation of the Messenians from Spartas rule, a big blow from which Sparta never recovered totally in my opinion. But Thebans rule was as delusive as Spartas. Pelopidas died in a battle against the Thessalians in 364. Epameinondas was killed in the battle of Mantineia in 362 BC (against the Spartans, Athenians et al.) and Theban hegemony soon dwindled after this date.

[PMBardunias]

A case could be made that it was the Persians who defeated Sparta and that Cnidus, not Leuktra was the pivotal battle. Their moeny started the Corinthian war and recalled Agiselaos from his iromp in Persia. Once expansion East was cut off there was little that a Spartan empire could do but eat itself.

I agree that the spartan social structure was not easily exported, but opening the system is probably what Lysander intended to champion before he was squelched (If only to make himself demagoge). Reforms were actually enacted by 3rd century spartan kings that would have opened citizenship to some degree, but it was too little too late.