Greek States

[Banana Jelly]

There are so many. Sparta, Athens, Thebes, and etc. From my knowledge, Sparta was the most dominant and militarily powerful state. It would go to war mostly every summer with another state, and are savages in battle. Though they are not really good with there economy, or handling there citizens fairly. Athens however was the beacon of civilization, with more rights to citizens then mostly all the kingdoms surviving during there time, however there military wasn't as great.

But, why couldn't they unite? Why couldn't Sparta just capture Athens, and all of Greece? Why couldn't Athens team up with other weak States, and team up on Sparta, so there greatest enemy dies, and has no competition, so it can conquer all of Greece?

Wouldn't history have changed significantly if there was one uni government rather then different governments in different areas?

[hellheaven1987]

Because not everyone agree with Athens or Sparta, hence there were different alliance formed to counter eachothers; it is just like how nations today can never form an United Earth Government, and I have no doubt our descents would criticize us in far future as some ignorant fools that can never work together.

[saxdude]

When one state got to powerful the others joined up and debunked them, when the other one got to powerful they joined and debuked as well, the spartans, athenian, boiotians, etc. were proud greeks, but were also proud -ians, and would not be willing to join as a single greece, because that notion did not exist, they were first and foremost whatevercitystatetheycamefromians.
You can see it in the peloponisian war when Athens grew to powerful and was developing into a kingdom of its own, After Sparta won the war and started growing later it lost hegemony to Thebans after Leuctria and so on and so on.
Besides, most city states could not be bothered with conquering another city state and would settle with imposing there demands after a victory.

[PointOfViewGun]

There have been certain unifications of city states but most of the time there was a balance of power and individuals cities having very strong ties with their desire for independence they never really formed the ultimate Greece.

Bear in mind that the cities that you talk about appeared to be as powerful as we know after the dark age which ended around 700 BC. Before that there have been the Myceneaen Greeks and Minoan Cretans which spans over at least a century.

[SigniferOne]

But, why couldn't they unite? Why couldn't Sparta just capture Athens, and all of Greece? Why couldn't Athens team up with other weak States, and team up on Sparta, so there greatest enemy dies, and has no competition, so it can conquer all of Greece?

You just need to read the History of the Peloponnesian War for instance, or Xenophon's Hellenica -- the answer is that the city-states all jealously looked out for any single one of them rising to overall prominence. This is what leads to the extreme frustration for a modern reader when learning e.g. 4th century Greek history:

Sparta allies with Corinth, defeats Athens. Athens allies with Sparta, defeats Corinth. Sparta defeats all, then Thebes comes out of nowhere and defeats Sparta. Athens allies with Sparta and defeats Thebes. And so it goes. Shortly after this last, Greece is conquered by Philip and Alex the Pretty Good.

Now prior to the Delian League and 4th century, Sparta indeed did have an unquestioning dominance over all of Greece, not so much through actual conquests, which they did little of, but through moral superiority which Spartan discipline and Spartan civic judgment were perceived to have over all other states of Greece. Also, as can be seen in the Pelop. War, prior to the 4th century the siege warfare of Greece (and indeed the whole world) was simply impotent at taking a walled city, where Spartan uberhoplites would come beneath Athenian walls and basically just camp out, unable to do anything.

[hellheaven1987]

Sparta allies with Corinth, defeats Athens. Athens allies with Sparta, defeats Corinth. Sparta defeats all, then Thebes comes out of nowhere and defeats Sparta. Athens allies with Sparta and defeats Thebes. And so it goes. Shortly after this last, Greece is conquered by Philip and Alex the Pretty Good.

I always wonder how Thebes could come out from nowhere.

[alhoon]

And so it goes. Shortly after this last, Greece is conquered by Philip and Alex the Pretty Good.

*Cough* Except Sparta.

Whatever we credit Phillip for, he didn't actually unite all of Greece. It took the Romans to do that. No Greek state ever dominated the whole of Greece. Sparta was out of Phillip's and Alex's empire and I also think the Sicilian Greeks were out too.

[Londinium]

*Cough* Except Sparta.

Whatever we credit Phillip for, he didn't actually unite all of Greece. It took the Romans to do that. No Greek state ever dominated the whole of Greece. Sparta was out of Phillip's and Alex's empire and I also think the Sicilian Greeks were out too.

Mainly because there wasn't much point, Sparta was a pale shadow of it's former glory. Alexander wasn't particularly bothered by the continued existance of an independent Sparta, indeed when he conquered Persia he mocked the Spartans. He sent 300 suits of Persian armour with the following inscription "Alexander, son of Philip, and all the Greeks except the Spartans, give these offerings taken from the foreigners who live in Asia [emphasis added]"

[cardnals100]

Shortly after this last, Greece is conquered by Philip and Alex the Pretty Good.

Didn't Philip just turn Greece into a puppet state by creating the Corinth League rather then conquer them?

[SigniferOne]

Didn't Philip just turn Greece into a puppet state by creating the Corinth League rather then conquer them?

Pretty much, but I don't see the practical significance of making this distinction. The 338 BC battle of Chaeronea is a factual conquest of Greece by Philip, whether he installed his puppet rulers or let the Greeks have a pretence of self-rule.

Pelopidas and Epameinondas, who breathed life back to the 5th century practice of political and military strategies being engineered by the same person or clique. Their way to hegemony nonetheless, would not have been possible if not for the sharp decline of the Spartiate manpower (oliganthropia).

I don't see what's the significance of this. As I remember the Spartans actually outnumbered the Thebans, in all the engagements where they ended up losing to them.

[Darth_Revan]

:sparta::sparta::sparta:

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

I don't see what's the significance of this. As I remember the Spartans actually outnumbered the Thebans, in all the engagements where they ended up losing to them.

Not the Spartans, but the Spartan-led armies. The Spartan contigents themselves were smaller than the Theban ones, except for the minor battle of Tegyra, which is indeed very spectacular. But at this point Spartan or more accurately Lacedaemonian contigents(terminus ante quem 424BC) were composed by Perioecic hoplites merged with the Spartan peers in common units, in god knows what analogies. Come on Sig, on the eve of Leuctra there were less than 1500 Spartan peers left. If Thebes had to face Sparta of 480s, with the Lacedaemonian numbering 8000 Spartan peers and an equal number of Perioecic hoplites, do you think a defeat like Leuctra would have touched Sparta or that Epameinondas would have dared invade the Peloponnese as a follow up?


Edit:
It's not only that there was no point in conquering Sparta for Philip and Alexander as well as Antigonos Doson a century later, but there were actually two very good points for NOT conquering them:
1) By pointing to the Spartan exception, they could make the claim that participation in the Hellenic Leagues was an act of free volition of the Greek poleis for the shake of Panhellenic goals and not an enforced settlement dicated by Macedonian kings aiming to act in Macedon's interests.
2) The Peloponnesian allies of Macedon would stay firm in the Macedonian camp as long as Sparta was left alone in its weakened state, since the Spartans were still strong enough to eat them up if left unchecked, but not strong enough to threaten Macedon itself.

[SigniferOne]

Come on Sig, on the eve of Leuctra there were less than 1500 Spartan peers left.

What's the proof of this?

[conon394]

but through moral superiority which Spartan discipline and Spartan civic judgment were perceived to have over all other states of Greece.

What Sig really meant to say is early polis unification and the conquest of the rest of Laconia along with neighboring Messenia (whose citizens were given over to to perpetual slavery) allowed Sparta to field a very large professional army that the rest of Greece feared err respected their virtue yep that's it.

[MAXlMUS]

ye, moral superiority???? the only admirable aspect of their culture was their system of ephors. besides that, they were the nazies of ancient greece

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What Sig really meant to say is early polis unification and the conquest of the rest of Laconia along with neighboring Messenia (whose citizens were given over to to perpetual slavery) allowed Sparta to field a very large professional army that the rest of Greece feared err respected their virtue yep that's it.

At the height of their power the Spartans could only field 8,000 hoplites.

At the start of the Peloponesian war Athens could field 30,000 at least.

It wasn't the size of their army, but their skill and the respect they earned as a people that gave them dominance.

[SigniferOne]

What Sig really meant to say is early polis unification and the conquest of the rest of Laconia along with neighboring Messenia

But come on, that's almost laughable on a world scale, to apply the term 'conquest' to such an area. It was as big as Attica. What a veritable empire!

(whose citizens were given over to to perpetual slavery) allowed Sparta to field a very large professional army that the rest of Greece feared err respected their virtue yep that's it.

Why did they fear this army, if it wasn't in the Spartan interest to conquer and imperialize other states? No in fact the moral force of the Spartan state far extended the immediate sphere of influence of their army, which was most of the time stationed in Laconia. During the Spartan classical age, they were adhered to because of their perceived equanimity and very high civic qualities. This is a factual record of Classical literature, no matter how much you may chomp at the bit about the fact. I'm not saying it was 'better' than the Athenian classical age or anything like that; I'm merely saying that they did have a classical age, and these were the attributes for which they were known. They were never an imperial army (except for the short disastrous stretch of 30 years following the Pelop. War, which started with their dominance and ended with near destruction).

[PointOfViewGun]

Hey, Athenians, tell me your professions! Spartans! What is our profession?

[saxdude]

Hey, Athenians, tell me your professions! Spartans! What is our profession?

Athenian 1: *cough* boy loving faggot*cough*
Spartan 1: what the hades was that?
Athenian 1: You damn well heard me!
Spartan 2: Oh now it is on! nobody mess with the spaartans *snap* (femenine voice)

Spartans win the peloponisian war

[hellheaven1987]

Spartans win the peloponisian war

With pajama men's cash, of course.