Sparta!

I know Sparta had a lot of problems that made it impossible to have an empire or even remained as a independent nation, falling against Macedonia. But what if thay had reformed / an independent thinking Spartan changed things?...

My point is not to have " Sparta " as it is rule the world as that's ASB but have an alternate Sparta where it does. I know that it probably won't be Sparta as we know it, but I just want to have the epic nation state survive and thrive!


( of course this is inspired after I watched 300 ):D
 
I know Sparta had a lot of problems that made it impossible to have an empire or even remained as a independent nation, falling against Macedonia. But what if thay had reformed / an independent thinking Spartan changed things?...

My point is not to have " Sparta " as it is rule the world as that's ASB but have an alternate Sparta where it does. I know that it probably won't be Sparta as we know it, but I just want to have the epic nation state survive and thrive!


( of course this is inspired after I watched 300 ):D
The Spartans did attack against Persia, but by then the Persians knew how to deal with the Greeks and simply mobilised General Lucre.
The Spartans hadvto return home and deal with the problems with their neighbours. Fortunately for them the Persians simply swapped sides and joined them, but the message sent was clear. Don't mess with us
 
Watching 300 was your first mistake there...

Yes, it's stylised; impressionistic, even. Metaphorical. Similistic. Art rather than substance.

Excuses made and grains of salt accounted for, it is also anti- history of the most despicable sort, deliberately intended to obscure, delude, and hide the actual truth of the past.

Start with Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War- easily Gutenbergable, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142, for a more general take and specifically the turning point when something like that, a surviving and thriving Sparta, was closest to being within reach.

The problem is that the prime candidate for your reformer is probably Lysander, who was largely a self made man, which cuts both ways- on one hand ego and determination, on the other contempt for those who didn't claw their way up as he had- had strong ties to Persia, was notoriously personally vindictive and according to some commentators at the time- Nepos, Duris, Argesilaus- enough of an egomaniac to attempt to have himself deified, possibly successfully.

If you look ahead another moment, Athens makes a comeback in the 370s, a generation later, because the Spartans make for intolerable overlords, even worse than the Athenians. The Athenians regain their independence, the Thebans defeat the Spartans on land,- Leuctra- and the lower Greek powers are basically in a state of cold war/ winding up for another go when Macedon intervenes and squishes the Athenians, largely suppresses the Spartans.

Subsequently, hm, there's something definitely flawed in the Spartan character, something of the beta male about their relations with Persia, Macedon and later Rome.

Leonidas was the exception that proves the rule; he stood, on a point of principle, for Greek freedom, to the death- and very few of his predecessors and descendants chose the same. They accepted Persian help against the rest of Greece, they growled at Alexander but did nothing, they were allies and later submitted to Rome.

That glorious exception aside, they were seldom if ever willing to fight for a cause and against the odds. In the face of Persian divide and conquer, they were all too willing to be divided from the rest of Greece. Power and pragmatism, and very little culture and civilisation behind it.

I can't think of an obvious point where they could have changed; most of the historical turning points that could have made them different would have destroyed them, if anyone would break but not bend it was them.

Although willing to side with Persia, they never assimilated Persian culture to any noticeable degree, the exchange of ideas (as opposed to money) was almost nil; they avoided the great Hellenic surge eastwards- perhaps that might work. Have Alexander of Macedon make them an offer they can't refuse, have them dragged into that. Perhaps they might learn. (Bit late, though.)
 
So, the first problem that Sparta had was that the Persians had their measure. In fact they were Persias ally of choice. The second was that as far as the Greeks were cocerned the highest form of Polity was the city State. And they would tend to line up against any City that was getting to powerful.
 
Watching 300 was your first mistake there...

Yes, it's stylised; impressionistic, even. Metaphorical. Similistic. Art rather than substance.

Excuses made and grains of salt accounted for, it is also anti- history of the most despicable sort, deliberately intended to obscure, delude, and hide the actual truth of the past.

Start with Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War- easily Gutenbergable, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7142, for a more general take and specifically the turning point when something like that, a surviving and thriving Sparta, was closest to being within reach.

The problem is that the prime candidate for your reformer is probably Lysander, who was largely a self made man, which cuts both ways- on one hand ego and determination, on the other contempt for those who didn't claw their way up as he had- had strong ties to Persia, was notoriously personally vindictive and according to some commentators at the time- Nepos, Duris, Argesilaus- enough of an egomaniac to attempt to have himself deified, possibly successfully.

If you look ahead another moment, Athens makes a comeback in the 370s, a generation later, because the Spartans make for intolerable overlords, even worse than the Athenians. The Athenians regain their independence, the Thebans defeat the Spartans on land,- Leuctra- and the lower Greek powers are basically in a state of cold war/ winding up for another go when Macedon intervenes and squishes the Athenians, largely suppresses the Spartans.

Subsequently, hm, there's something definitely flawed in the Spartan character, something of the beta male about their relations with Persia, Macedon and later Rome.

Leonidas was the exception that proves the rule; he stood, on a point of principle, for Greek freedom, to the death- and very few of his predecessors and descendants chose the same. They accepted Persian help against the rest of Greece, they growled at Alexander but did nothing, they were allies and later submitted to Rome.

That glorious exception aside, they were seldom if ever willing to fight for a cause and against the odds. In the face of Persian divide and conquer, they were all too willing to be divided from the rest of Greece. Power and pragmatism, and very little culture and civilisation behind it.

I can't think of an obvious point where they could have changed; most of the historical turning points that could have made them different would have destroyed them, if anyone would break but not bend it was them.

Although willing to side with Persia, they never assimilated Persian culture to any noticeable degree, the exchange of ideas (as opposed to money) was almost nil; they avoided the great Hellenic surge eastwards- perhaps that might work. Have Alexander of Macedon make them an offer they can't refuse, have them dragged into that. Perhaps they might learn. (Bit late, though.)

Phew ok thnx;)

Now let me spend the next ten hours trying to apply what you said:D

P.S. It's just I can't find a good Sparta TL on this forum so I want to make my own:p
 
So, the first problem that Sparta had was that the Persians had their measure. In fact they were Persias ally of choice. The second was that as far as the Greeks were cocerned the highest form of Polity was the city State. And they would tend to line up against any City that was getting to powerful.

You' ve never heard of General lucre also known as filthy Lucre? Sometimes he just went by the name, money. He was a very valuable asset in many wars.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:p

But but but the Spartans kicked them down a well!

In all seriousness I think my pod will be sometime before the Spartans joined the Persians:)

Would that work or will it have to happen when they're allied with the Persians :eek::eek:....
 
Last edited:
of course this is inspired after I watched 300

First mistake. Despite what the movie shows Sparta wasn't the undefeated war machine that the movie tries to show. Modern estimates indicate some 7000 to 20000 greek soldiers, from all over the city-states, against a persian army of 75000-100000 men. Leonidas was just the commander. But yes 300 Spartas plus a couple good hundreds from other cities stayed as a rear guard.

I know Sparta had a lot of problems that made it impossible to have an empire or even remained as a independent nation, falling against Macedonia. But what if thay had reformed / an independent thinking Spartan changed things?...

First, that is going it ASB territory because Sparta was terribly traditionalist, you would need that an outsider to come and force, by military means, Sparta to change and even then they wound't!!!! Even under roman control they keep with their costumes, what ironically made them into a tourist location for rich romans.

Second, Sparta only allowed citizens to become soldiers and after losing the battle of Leuctra, the number of citizens was now heavily outnumbered by the helots. The revolts were a problem, but since working on the fields was bellow the Spartans, they needed to keep large populations of Helots, that could and would revolt when given a chance.

Third, Sparta's traditionalist nature putted them behind. Even during the Hellenic period, when the phalanx was the lord and master of the battlefield they insisted in going hoplite stile against their enemies.

Basically you need Zeus himself to come from Olympus to meet the Spartans and tell them "Change your ways." and even then they would probably go with a "Who does Zeus thinks he is? Fuck him and his change of ways."
 
Last edited:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:p

But but but the Spartans kicked them down a well!

In all seriousness I think my pod will be sometime before the Spartans joined the Spartans:)

Would that work or will it have to happen when they're allied with the Persians :eek::eek:....
I'm not sure what you mean by the Spartans joining the Spartans.
A major motivation of Greek foreign wars, was liberating the Greeks of Ionia. The trouble is that Ionia was ruled by the Persians. Maybe if they captured Macadonia first, or somewhere like that. But once the Spartans start attacking the Persians there is a Good chance that the Persians will be financing other Greek states. Why is why Philip placed them under his hegemony.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by the Spartans joining the Spartans.
A major motivation of Greek foreign wars, was liberating the Greeks of Ionia. The trouble is that Ionia was ruled by the Persians. Maybe if they captured Macadonia first, or somewhere like that. But once the Spartans start attacking the Persians there is a Good chance that the Persians will be financing other Greek states. Why is why Philip placed them under his hegemony.

Woops I mean the Persians, fixed now, thanks!
 
The way I see it is that things that made sparta what it was were also things that prevented it from creating soemthing like athenianhegemony. At best it could band together with some oligarchic states and keep down others by force.

But overall it was ingrained conservativism and social structure that prevented them from doinating others. When you need your army at home to prevent your slave class from revolting you can't sustain long term campaigns, at elast not alrge ones. and when those with power refuse to reform society then society will stagnate or decline because top class will continue to shrink
 
The way I see it is that things that made sparta what it was were also things that prevented it from creating soemthing like athenianhegemony. At best it could band together with some oligarchic states and keep down others by force.

But overall it was ingrained conservativism and social structure that prevented them from doinating others. When you need your army at home to prevent your slave class from revolting you can't sustain long term campaigns, at elast not alrge ones. and when those with power refuse to reform society then society will stagnate or decline because top class will continue to shrink


In the OP I had said that it doesn't have to be Sparta as we know it, just a Sparta that survives and thrives. Kinda similar to the Byzantine empire-they're really Greek, but they believe themselves to be Roman and have Roman traditions.
 
In the OP I had said that it doesn't have to be Sparta as we know it, just a Sparta that survives and thrives. Kinda similar to the Byzantine empire-they're really Greek, but they believe themselves to be Roman and have Roman traditions.

And I'm saying that Spartan social and governmental structure will prevent it from evolving. So it wouldn't be "Byzantium in 1453 was evolved Byzantium of 476" because saprta couldn't evolve. It could be violently overthrown, either form inside or outside, but then you get "Ottomans are Byzantines" idiocity.

It's possible that early Sparta develops differently but that wouldn't make it necessary great polis we know and their society and military would be different.
 
Persia

After slogging through the book, I think I have a few conclusions...

1. The ONLY time Greeks had ever unified is during the Persian wars.
2. Spartans at that time hated the Persians, but turned later on.
3. Large number of helots v.s the Spartan soldiers forced small or no campaign.
4. Spartans were very (too) traditionalist.


I think I have a VERY rough scenario-a Persia that was more successful in the invasion of Greece causes more Spartan casualties, so more helots in proportion now than IOTL. A Spartan leader, hopefully a war hero and forward thinking, decides to train helots into Spartans-VERY rough training, and very cruel-in the times of emergency. At first this doesn't quite work, and the Persians capture most of the government, removing most of the traditionalist opposition and the reformer/war hero was able to grant the helots Spartanhood. Now fighting for freedom as well as their way of life, they counterattack the Persians, who were overextended anyway and mired in a huge geurilla warfare, and successfully pushes them out. But the Spartans realize the Persians will try again, especially since the conquest of Greece was so close at hand, they adopt modern tactics and a much more relaxed form of government, and helots can be granted Spartanhood, as long as they have been proven in battle. The new government will be made up of mostly the war veterans and most of the traditional Spartans are now either killed in fighting or captured.

Do you think this will work? Or still too ASBish?:eek:
 
Last edited:
300

I know what people thinks about the movie, but what I meant was that this thread was inspired by the movie-I did not say that's what my vision of Sparta is.:)

Also concerning Leonidas, he was the exception rather than the rule?:eek::(


BTW comments are very welcomed, as I want to make a TL on this!
 
Last edited:
After slogging through the book, I think I have a few conclusions...

1. The ONLY time Greeks had ever unified is during the Persian wars.

Except they didn't. There were plenty of Greek states that went over to Persians, mostly northern ones.

2. Spartans at that time hated the Persians, but turned later on.
3. Large number of helots v.s the Spartan soldiers forced small or no campaign.
4. Spartans were very (too) traditionalist.


I think I have a VERY rough scenario-a Persia that was more successful in the invasion of Greece causes more Spartan casualties, so more helots in proportion now than IOTL. A Spartan leader, hopefully a war hero and forward thinking, decides to train helots into Spartans-VERY rough training, and very cruel-in the times of emergency. At first this doesn't quite work, and the Persians capture most of the government, removing most of the traditionalist opposition and the reformer/war hero was able to grant the helots Spartanhood. Now fighting for freedom as well as their way of life, they counterattack the Persians, who were overextended anyway and mired in a huge geurilla warfare, and successfully pushes them out. But the Spartans realize the Persians will try again, especially since the conquest of Greece was so close at hand, they adopt modern tactics and a much more relaxed form of government, and helots can be granted Spartanhood, as long as they have been proven in battle. The new government will be made up of mostly the war veterans and most of the traditional Spartans are now either killed in fighting or captured.

Do you think this will work? Or still too ASBish?:eek:

You are ignoring the periokoi who would be much better candidates for this new model army, considering they fought as hoplites anyway. There were attampts to integrate Helots into army later (mostly during peloponnesian war).

Mass emancipation is out of the question since everybody knew that whole economy and system relies on large number of Helots to work while Homoioi fight.

Besides, if Persians capture Sparta then they'll free Helots anyway so why would they fight for their former asters agaisnt people who fred them just then?

Not to mention that if Persians reach sparta they have pretty uch conquered Greece, making those greeks fight for them (or flee, like athenians were planning to do)
 
Top