Historical discussions

[Mausolos of Caria]

Hello everyone

after getting the permission by the RTR team I decided to open up this thread for historical discussions. These should be related to the temporal and spatial frame of RTR VII and it's main campaign. I think a lot of users who post on this sub forum have a fairly good knowledge of the era, so there should be enough room and potential for fruitful discussions.

To get this thread rolling I'll pick a first topic:

Were the reforms of the Spartan kings Agis IV and especially Kleomenes III and Nabis the right step for the Sparta of the late 3rd and early 2nd century BC? :sparta:
Or should Sparta rather have concentrated on itself without interfering in outer affairs, somehow trying to get the population growing again? Or were the reforms the correct idea, but only without waging aggressive wars (by Kleomenes & Nabis) because Sparta had not enough men to win them?
So in this case Sparta would have sat back, developed a new army and overhauled its economy together with the new citizens until it had been strong enough to reclaim at least the lost Perioeki- communities, and in the long run Megalopolis and Messene as well. It could also be argued that this was impossible just because of the upkeep for the soldiers.

So what's your opinion on it? Please state it and have fun with the discussion

P.S. Please respect the Forum rules and don't insult anyone personally

[Maurits]

Difficult subject to start with

Could you provide some more info on the specific situation back then? I don't really know much about them.

[DukeCanada]

Its an interesting topic, but I would need to read a few sources and academic papers before taking a stance on the issue

[Mausolos of Caria]

I was afraid that this would be the reaction Okay let me summarize this in short:

In the year 244 BC Sparta had become a minor polis on the Peloponnes, which was pretty much under the control of Antigonid Macedonia.
The Achaian League, under the command of their Aratos of Sicyon since the year before, had tried to fight the Macedonian suzerain in the decades before, once together with Sparta, but not only had their resistance against the Attagonids failed, but also the alliance with Sparta, which could neither tolerate the Achaian acceptance of Megalopolis (founded by Thebes during its sucessful was against Sparta in the 370s and 360s, nor the incorporation of Messene, founded during the same times for the former Messenian helots of Sparta, in the league.

The biggest problem for Sparta during this period, though, was the declining number of the Spartan citizen body. Back at the battle of Plataiai in 479 BC Lakedaimon could muster up to 5000 Spartiates for battle alone, but in 244 this number had shrunken to a mere 1300 as a whole.

So when Eurypontid Agis IV, only about 20 years old, became one of the two kings in 244 BC, he had an idea that can only be named as revolutionary: He wanted to give citizenship to a high number of Perioeki, the free non- Citizens (between Citizens and Helots) and even to a number of especially rich and talented Helots. Furthermore he wanted to rearrange the distribution of land to close the gap between the poor and the rich and to abate all the debts of the Spartans.
But Agis tried to go a diplomatic way to implement these reforms and- maybe because he was still young, naive and idealistic- underestimated the ruling class of Sparta, mainly the ephors and the members of the gerousia. They had no problems with arranging the murder of Agis and so the reforms didn't happen.





After Agis was murdered in 241 BC, the gerousia and the ephors seized control of the city. But this situation lasted only until 235 BC, when the Agiad Kleomenes III was crowned as one of the kings of Sparta. He had learned from Agis' mistake (having been at his court when 18 years old back then) and was responsible for the murder and sending into exile of not only a high number of ephors and members of the gerousia, but also of the Eurypontid king.
From now on Sparta was ruled by only one king, a hellenistic basileus who implemented the reforms of Agis IV. Aratos of Sicyon had began invading little poleis in Arcadia when Kleomenes had come to the throne and it was no surprise when in 229 BC Sparta declared war on the Achaian League. Kleomenes now much bigger, but still well trained army routed two Achaian armies near to Megalopolis and laid waste to the rocky plains of Arcadia.

In 226 Kleomenes crushed an Achaian army at Dyme in Achaian home territory which was twice as big as the Spartan force. Aratos and the Achaian League were left with only one option: To apply to their old enemy Macedon for assistance in the war against Sparta. Antigonos III Doson answered the Achaian request positively, but demanded Acrocorinth in return. Aratos agreed with this proposal and so the Macedonians marched South.
After a number of skirmishes both forces met at Laconian Sellasia in 222 BC, where the Spartan army was heavily outnumbered and by the use of Dosons Elite troops and heavy cavalry he routed the Spartan army. Kleomenes had to go into exile to Alexandria, where he died not long after. Doson occupied Lakedaimon for a short time and striped it off most of its Perioeci communities and therefore further weakened Sparta.




After another period of internal turmoil Sparta joined the so called ''Civil War'' in 220 BC, but was defeated by Aratos who had by now turned into an impressive military leader who was respected in all Greece. Aratos died in 213, though, and in 209 BC Philopoemen was named Strategos of the Achaian League.
Philopoemen was involved into another war with Sparta in 207 BC, when Sparta's regent Machinidas had seized power of the polis and both armies met at Mantineia. Philopoemen had reformed the Achaian League in the past two years and therefore defeated the Spartans again.

After the battle Nabis took control of Sparta and became the new sole ruler. Again, like Kleomenes, he liberated slaves and Helots and gave citizenship to the Perioeki. But other than Kleomenes & Agis he didn't abate debts, but rather motivated the Spartans to take up loans and get Sparta's economy more involved with the rest of the world. So foreign trade grew more and more and so did Sparta's wealth. Apart from that, Nabis was also responsible for a growing importance of culture and ceramic products in Sparta.
Of course Nabis also wanted to reclaim former Spartan territories and waged war on little Messenian towns and free Laconian communities from 205 BC on, but it was only in 201 BC, when he tried to capture Messene itself, that Philopoemen intervened and beat the Spartan army at Tegea, so Nabis retreated and stopped his expansion for now. (the map below shows all battles in which Philopoemen was involved.)



The new decisive factor in Spartan foreign relations- and actually in all Greek foreign relations- had by now become the Roman Republic. During the Macedonian Wars between Rome and the suzerain of Greece Nabis joined an alliance with Macedon which gave him Argos as a gift for it, but Nabis never cared when the Macedonians were defeated and joined the Roman alliance shortly before the end of the war.

Sparta stayed in conflict with the Achaians, though, and in 195 BC Philopoemen could convince the Romans that Sparta should be attacked and reduced to a minor factor on the Peloponnes. Nabis had no chance against the Achaio- Roman army, numbering at 50 000 men, and lost not only Argos but also most of his Laconian territory. Rome, which never fully trusted the Achaian League, avoided an occupation of Sparta itself, though. Three years later in another Sparta- Achaia war it was then surprisingly the Aitolian league, formally allies of Lakedaimon, that arranged the murder of Nabis and ended all tries of reformation for Sparta.
Although Aitolia failed in taking over Sparta and the league itself was dissolved in 189 BC, the Achaians sucessfully conquered Sparta in 188 BC, took away its independence and pressed it into their league. The lycurgan agoge was abolished and a oligarchic government installed.

Sources:
- Wikipedia
- Cartledge, Paul, Spawforth, Anthony, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. A tale of two cities, London 1989.

I hope that helps It wasn't that short after all...

[DukeCanada]

You sir, certainly know how to keep my away from my Anatomy notes.

After reading this, and having a little more insight into the period, I think that Kleomenes had the right idea when he applied the reforms of Agis. It seems that Kleomenes was not much of a diplomat though. In hindsight, I think that he should have attempted to negotiate with the Macedonians before going to war with the Achaeans. Ideally he would have offered Corinth in return for a shot at the Achaean League. They were already a thorn in the side of the Macedonians, im sure the Macedonians would have loved to see two of their enemies fighting while taking the city of Corinth for free.

This would have worked well for Sparta because it seems they didnt care too much for Corinth. The only downside is that the Macedonians would once again have a major presence in the Peloponnese.

Now, this suggestion requires quite a bit of foresight on the part of Kleomenes. If I was at the head of the Spartan reformation at the time, I probably would have overlooked the possibility of my enemy calling upon their enemy for support.

I think that the expansion of the citizen class is a phenomenal idea, and it certainly paid off in later years by stimulating the economy, but Sparta simply wasn't prepared for war. A slow and methodical territorial expansion would have been more beneficial for the Spartans, but only after the economic stimulus they could have achieved after expanding the citizen class and opening diplomatic/economic relations with the other Greek states.

[Mausolos of Caria]

You sir, certainly know how to keep my away from my Anatomy notes.

Sorry, but I had the impression I should explain this topic properly

After reading this, and having a little more insight into the period, I think that Kleomenes had the right idea when he applied the reforms of Agis. It seems that Kleomenes was not much of a diplomat though. In hindsight, I think that he should have attempted to negotiate with the Macedonians before going to war with the Achaeans. Ideally he would have offered Corinth in return for a shot at the Achaean League. They were already a thorn in the side of the Macedonians, im sure the Macedonians would have loved to see two of their enemies fighting while taking the city of Corinth for free.

This would have worked well for Sparta because it seems they didnt care too much for Corinth. The only downside is that the Macedonians would once again have a major presence in the Peloponnese.

Yeah that sounds like a decent idea. I think there was a realistic chance to start another war between the Achaian and Macedon, and success in a war against the Achaians would have given Kleomenes the chance to prepare himself for a later confrontation with the Macedonians, should they decide to wage war on Sparta again.

Now, this suggestion requires quite a bit of foresight on the part of Kleomenes. If I was at the head of the Spartan reformation at the time, I probably would have overlooked the possibility of my enemy calling upon their enemy for support.

And that's exactly the problem Even Kleomenes, although he surely disliked the Achaians and their league, probably didn't think that they, as the self-styled Last of the Greeks, would turn to Macedon for support.
Maybe he should just have stopped and offered Aratos a ceasefire after his early sucesses which had greatly improved Sparta's position on the Peloponnese and extended its territory.

I think that the expansion of the citizen class is a phenomenal idea, and it certainly paid off in later years by stimulating the economy, but Sparta simply wasn't prepared for war. A slow and methodical territorial expansion would have been more beneficial for the Spartans, but only after the economic stimulus they could have achieved after expanding the citizen class and opening diplomatic/economic relations with the other Greek states.

Yeah but that's pretty much what Nabis tried to do and partly succeeded with- until the Romans appeared in Greece. It might have been a different case for Kleomenes, though, as he was a bit earlier. But I can't say how Rome had reacted to a quite more powerful Spartan city- state.

I agree with you about the expansion of the citizen body, there seemed to be no other way to stop the steady decline in numbers. In fact, after the sack of Corinth and the destruction of the Achaian League in 146 BC by Rome Sparta stayed formally independet until the 15th century AD and enjoyed a economical and even cultural heyday during the time of the Flavians and the 2nd century AD.

[BattlerBritain]

Cracking maps Grommit

[Mausolos of Caria]

Apparently the Sparta topic was too complicated, let's choose another question then... This time I should just take a simple, popular one, so I'm going for the following topic:

Why did Hannibal not take Rome after the battle of Cannae (or already after the battle of Lake Trasimene) ? And was it a crucial error in Hannibal's strategy, or perhaps the right- maybe even the only possible (?) - decision?

That's me hoping on a better discussion this time

Of course anyone who wants to can also still comment on the first question about Sparta, I'm ready to answer to everyone who comes up with a reasonable point

[Infiltrator]

Wasn't it that Rome's walls would have prevented a straight out storm-and-take and because a large chunk of his army was mercenary, he wouldn't be able to outlast Rome in a siege?

[Caligula Caesar]

Hehe, that's the ultimate cliche question

About Cleomenes: As far as I can tell, he was quite successful, and managed to turn Sparta into a power that got the rest of Greece scared (so much so that Aratus was able to persuade Antigonus that a Spartan-Aetolian alliance was about to march through Thessaly!). That sort of thing hadn't been seen for quite a while, so Cleomenes' reforms can be called a success. On the other hand, he went a bit too far, which enabled the Achaeans to call in Antigonus. He should have either secured an alliance with the Aetolians, or persuaded the Achaeans to make peace with territorial concessions... or he should have found a way to defeat Antigonus.

About Hannibal: Hannibal deduced that Rome's power lay in her allies, and decided to try and isolate them from Rome. This would probably have worked, had they all deserted en masse, but since they didn't, it just meant there would be a long war, one which wouldn't hurt Rome itself much except for the troops risked in combat. Had he instead marched on Rome, he could have gone for the decisive blow, which would have brought the rest of Rome's power down. It's hard for us to say whether he really did have the capability of taking the city, but the possibility is certainly there, and my opinion is that it was the best chance he had of winning the war.

A good question, of course, would be "What would Hannibal have done had he taken Rome or had Rome surrendered to him?"

[Maurits]

He would have proclaimed himself dictator and declared independence from Carthage. That would have left him with Rome, it's allies (= Italy) and the Barcid possessions in Iberia

[Mausolos of Caria]

Hehe, that's the ultimate cliche question

As I said it had to be an easier one than the one before

About Hannibal: Hannibal deduced that Rome's power lay in her allies, and decided to try and isolate them from Rome. This would probably have worked, had they all deserted en masse, but since they didn't, it just meant there would be a long war, one which wouldn't hurt Rome itself much except for the troops risked in combat. Had he instead marched on Rome, he could have gone for the decisive blow, which would have brought the rest of Rome's power down. It's hard for us to say whether he really did have the capability of taking the city, but the possibility is certainly there, and my opinion is that it was the best chance he had of winning the war.

A good question, of course, would be "What would Hannibal have done had he taken Rome or had Rome surrendered to him?"

Yeah I pretty much agree with that. In the case of a longer siege of Rome his mercenaries would have probably become a problem since Hannibal had to legitimate himself as their leader again and again, like all the hellenistic generals had to. So that might have been a point that he thought the risk was too high.

I like Maurits' idea for your question, but it may be possible that some Carthaginian senators would have intrigued against him anyway and maybe would have tried to assasinate him when he had taken Rome. On one hand because he would have become too powerl and on the other because they didn't ''need'' him anymore (like Aetius was assassinated as soon as Attila was dead).

About Cleomenes: As far as I can tell, he was quite successful, and managed to turn Sparta into a power that got the rest of Greece scared (so much so that Aratus was able to persuade Antigonus that a Spartan-Aetolian alliance was about to march through Thessaly!). That sort of thing hadn't been seen for quite a while, so Cleomenes' reforms can be called a success. On the other hand, he went a bit too far, which enabled the Achaeans to call in Antigonus. He should have either secured an alliance with the Aetolians, or persuaded the Achaeans to make peace with territorial concessions... or he should have found a way to defeat Antigonus.

Haha yeah Achaia's alliance with Macedon was quite remarkable indeed. I have to agree again with most of your points, a peace with the Achaians would have probably been the best option as Antigonos army was just too big and well trained at this time to be beaten by a little city like Sparta.

[ahowl11]

Very interesting topic about Kleomenes. I'm trying to put myself in his shoes, and after reforming the military and granting more people citizen status I think it would be a good idea to yes, stay away from the Achaeans, but instead look to seizing most of Laconia, consolidating it, and then what about an invasion of Crete? I mean wouldn't both sides benefit? Sparta, for getting more man power and port cities that would increase trade and possibly a strong navy? Crete for getting some balanced power and control, to stop all the chaos, and essentially better living conditions? How is that for an alternative?

[demagogos nicator]

It is not bad alternative but I think it would not prevent war with only delay it Achaians and if the Saprta had been succesful, than Antigonids would have joined soon. IMO Sparta and its warriors had just too high reputation so the local powers could not risk to just sit and look how the Sparta is bacoming a powerhouse. They would interfeere sooner or later.
I think the ideal solution for sparta would be to settle their dipute with Achaians, ally with Aitolians and lead toogether a war to freed all greece from Macedonian influence. Offcourse I understand how idealistic this solution would be. Even if Spartans, Achains Aitolians would manage to unite and overthrow Antigonids, than thei would probably start fighting together and greece become an easy target for some of the powers in neiborhood (Rome, Antiochus III..) or some new rising power which will use the power vacoom in Macedon.

[Mausolos of Caria]

As demagogos said, trying to conquer only the Laconian towns first always prompted a response by the Achaians, as Nabis experienced in 205/204.
And the Spartans did indeed fight on Crete, but because of their meagre resources and the complicated relations of all the different little Cretan poleis they never really suceeded there. It was more about increasing their influence and getting new bases for mercenaries anyway I think, Spartans don't feel well on an island

[Caligula Caesar]

Incidentally, I'm not sure who came up with the idea that Sparta has no cavalry, because it is clearly stated in Polybius that they do (they put cavalry on the flanks in battles, and contribute 2,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to an alliance at least once - I'll find the places if anyone wants to contest me on this ). So we may have got that wrong in VII.

[Maurits]

There have been more discussions about this and I'm pretty sure that HB always had good reasons not to include them

[Mausolos of Caria]

As far as I know the Hippeis in Sparta where really only the men who had enough money to own a horse. They might have had a little number of cavalry in the time of Plataiai, but I'm not sure if they cold have afforded them in the 3rd century. I think the fact that you can recruit all of the greek Mercenaries in Laconia depicts that well enough.

[Caligula Caesar]

Well, I disagree. No historian is ever always right. Here's a few passages that imo offer some good proof, coupled with the fact that I have not encountered any remarks by Polybius that the Spartans didn't have cavalry (this is up to book 5). Obviously, he isn't always right either, but on this matter, I do think he would have known, being an Achaean himself.

Next, that the Strategus of the Achaeans should enrol five thousand foot and five hundred horse, and [...] arrange with the Lacedaemonians and Messenians how many horse and foot were to be supplied by them severally for the service of the league. [...] Those who were appointed to serve on these embassies to the allies proceeded to carry them out; while the Strategus at once, in accordance with the decree, set about enrolling the troops from Achaia, and arranged with the Lacedaemonians and Messenians to supply each two thousand five hundred infantry and two hundred and fifty cavalry, so that the whole army for the coming campaign should amount to ten thousand foot and a thousand horse.

Perceiving Philip's design, Lycurgus [the Spartan king] began getting his men ready, and exhorted them to face the battle, and at the same time displayed the signal to the forces in the town: whereupon those whose duty it was immediately led out the troops from the town, as had been arranged, and drew them up outside the wall, with the cavalry on their right wing.

Those are just two examples. I think there were a few more in the 2nd book, but I didn't mark their places. Besides, on the point of wealth, since everyone else could afford their small armies of horsemen, were the Spartans really that poor?

[Mausolos of Caria]

Well, I disagree. No historian is ever always right. Here's a few passages that imo offer some good proof, coupled with the fact that I have not encountered any remarks by Polybius that the Spartans didn't have cavalry (this is up to book 5). Obviously, he isn't always right either, but on this matter, I do think he would have known, being an Achaean himself.


Those are just two examples. I think there were a few more in the 2nd book, but I didn't mark their places. Besides, on the point of wealth, since everyone else could afford their small armies of horsemen, were the Spartans really that poor?

Well as long as they didn't use horses, considering the Spartan's mentality it was probably a sign of cowardice to ride on a horse, at least Herodot said the Spartans thought that about the Persians (to answer that last question ).

These two examples from Polybios are from the end of the 3rd century BC (around 210) , so maybe it was part of the Kleomenean reforms to introduce ''proper'' cavalry into the Spartan army? That's just my theory now, but we know that Kleomenes' ''new'' army caused the Achaians severe problems and adding cavalry to his army would certainly have strengthened him and his forces.
What do you think about that solution?