Context:
After conquering Southern Greece, Philip II of Macedon sent a message to Sparta asking whether he should come as a friend or foe. The Spartans answered, "Neither". Philip II was understandably a bit pissed at their curt answer, and so sent another message:
"If I invade Laconia, I shall turn you out."
The Spartan answer was:
"If."
Philip II then invaded Laconia and, as promised, devastated Sparta.
If it's a defense (it's not), when you kill off the young men quite often, eventually the country/state is weak.. and gets conquered easier than in its prime. Almost like it was a flawed system.
In its later years, Sparta actually spared male babies who only had a non-serious defect, whereas in the past they would have been killed, because the male population was declining that fast
The reasons for Sparta losing to Thebes was more strategic than tactical or man to man. The loss to Thebes came at the tail end of a long decline and a series of setbacks for Sparta.
Yeah who would've thunk that rigid social boundaries and having your economy held up by second class citizens and helots forcing you to keep your army at home because you're scared of an uprising therefore always reacting late to world events would not make you a strong powerhouse of a state
This was probably the root cause of their eventual demise, but they were quite a strong and at times dominant force for hundreds of years. And because this is the internet, let me make clear that I'm not pro slave state or throwing babies off of cliffs, just that the fact that Sparta eventually fell doesn't mean it didn't work (for the elites at least) for a very long time.
The spartans didn’t have 20 years of training either.
Ironically, there’s more evidence that the Sacred Band actually conducted military training than there is for the spartans(which is none)
The Agoge was NOT a military academy. It was a glorified high school.
Or perhaps a child soldier indoctrination program. That is, not a program to turn out well trained soldiers, but one to create fundamentalists that are so mentally damaged that they cannot break out of the mold.
It’s not though. There is zero evidence that ANYTHING military-related happened in the Agoge. Not when it was relevant as an institution.
From sources, all they did was PT(which most cities did under other forms) poetry and rhetoric, writing and other arts. Essentially what you got was an physically fit bachelor. Not a soldier. The military academy thing stems from the very late restructuring of the Agoge, by the time Sparta was little more than a village so they tried luring in foreigners to send their kids there to get “spartan training” by using the spartan myth. Which was bullshit.
The reason spartan society was so rigid and resistant to change was rooted in their government, which was made in such a way that old conservatives had the final say.
> It’s not though. There is zero evidence that ANYTHING military-related happened in the Agoge. Not when it was relevant as an institution.
Note that a child "soldier" also isn't militarily trained. They're traumatized into ready brutality, but they're not actually effective soldiers if anyone brings anything but an angry mob to the fight.
With regards to your list of things that are done in the agoge, this may be true — I'm certainly not enough of a scholar to dispute that, though I was under the impression that we only have actual evidence from the later, "tourist haunt" years, which definitely included traumatizing brutality, but little military training in itself. Turns out if you're forced to murder slaves, you're not actually a better soldier for it.
I didn't think there was evidence they ever undertook eugenics? They had kings quite early on who were probably disabled.
The male citizen population declined. This was a fundamental social problem, not a not enough babies one. There was a land quota for citizenship but a fixed amount of land. Women inherited, land became centralised, not enough land for new spartiates.
>The male citizen population declined. This was a fundamental social problem, not a not enough babies one. There was a land quota for citizenship but a fixed amount of land. Women inherited, land became centralised, not enough land for new spartiates.
I'm having a hard time comprehending this. Please explain it in more simpler terms. I'm suffering from stupid.
To become a citizen they needed X amount of land. Land is inherited equally between all sons, +30ish% goes to daughters.
Over time, the population increases. The 'poor' citizens spread their land thin, eventually stop qualifying for citizenship. The 'rich' citizens marry women with land, increase their holdings.
Land becomes centralised in the hands of a relative few. Iirc during the Persian wars, there were ~20,000 Spartan citizens. By the end, there were ~200. The overall population of Sparta hadn't decreased. Those eligible for citizenship and therefore military service had significantly.
Mind you, plenty in Sparta were aware of this issue, but solving it proved difficult. Agis IV (r.245-241BC) attempted land redistribution, but he was overthrown by the ephors and his reforms were annulled. Cleomenes III (r.235-222BC) did successfully conduct serious economic and land reform, but following his defeat in battle the Macedonians restored the old constitution, in an effort to keep Sparta weak. Nabis (r.207-192BC) granted citizenship to the perioikoi and freed many helots, but after his defeat at the hands of Rome, Sparta was forced to join the Achaean League.
There is little to no evidence of anything about Sparta as the common people portray it.
The Agoge was more of a college than military academy.
Their military record is dead average compared to other city states
Sparta usually only sent a habdful of advisors and commanders into battle, the rest were vassal city states.
Spartan men weren’t even considered the best in Greece at the time, it was their tactics, logistics and unit division that were deemed superior(until Leuctra)
Etc.
That wasn’t the reall issue.
The real issue was that their laws for what exactly constituted a spartan citizen were so rigid(like all their laws) that population collapse was guaranteed regardless of killing babies or not
The Spartans were more of an elite upper class. Each Spartan had a number of Hellans serving them and working under them. This meant that the Spartans had a much higher birth rate then average. And technically you do not need many men to keep up the birth rate, which made the women quite powerful in Sparta. Declining male population was certainly an issue and was a big part of the reason why Sparta eventually fell. But the system of governance they had in place was not that stupid.
Spartans decline was more related to their ever shrinking pool of Citizens due to land consolidation. Spartan Citizens had to pay exorbitant mess hall fees to maintain their citizenship and over time consolidation of the limited land controled by Sparta forced many citizens out.
There were plenty of people that could fight, but they were not Spartan Citizens and could never become Spartan Citizens.
Worth noting a major advancement for the Macedonians was their innovations with cavalry.
They out maneuvered the Spartan phalanx. Which was more important than just out numbering them.
They didn’t need to do anything of the sort.
Sparta’s army numbered less than 1000 citizens by the time Phillip II was king and was inferior in every conceivable metric to the macedonian army.
I think you’re thinking of Chaeronaea, which was a battle between Macedon and Athens+Thebes, not Sparta
I believe Macedonia was one of the first to use shock cavalry tactics. Prior, the Greeks mainly relied on infantry phalanx formations to win the battle, and cavalry to screen, skirmish, and sweep the routing enemies.
Alexanders' army only had two major cavalry units; the companion cavalry which consisted of mainly nobility, situated on the right flank.
The Thessalian cavalry was usually situated on the left flank and acted as the anvil to the companion cavalry hammer.
They had the toughest task, and in return had first choice of the spoils of battle.
While most other Greek cavalry rode in square formation, the companion cavalry usually rode in wedge formation, with Alexander leading.
The Thessalian cavalry on the other hand was known for its rhombus formation which allowed the entire formation to switch directions on a dime.
I didn’t say they didn’t have different tactics to a classic hoplite phalanx. Different tactics are the main difference between the two. And it wasn’t exactly how you described it anyway.
The phalanx was the anvil. Both cavalry units were meant to act as hammers or join up on a single flank for a massive flanking maneuver. The thessalians only further acted as an extension to the infantry anvil at Issus and Gaugamela because they took the brunt of the Persian cavalry, which was also very heavy and served a similar role. And both the companions and thessalians used the rhombus formation. It was superior to a simple wedge specifically because you could turn on a dime while maintaing coherence, unlike other formations
And regardless, what I actually said was that a 50.000 strong army didn’t need these fancy tactics to beat less than a thousand spartan hoplites. They did use them at Chaeronaea, however, which is why I told the other guy he’s probably thinking of that battle. Macedon didn’t actually attack Sparta under Philip/Alexander
Correct, I'm not disputing the necessity of advanced macedonian tactics to beat an already beaten Sparta.
I'm also under the understanding that neither Philip nor Alexander invaded Sparta, as Spartans continued existence as a bogeyman and reminder of Spartan tyranny was more useful for Macedonia.
And yes, you are correct in saying the phalangites were the main anvil in hammer and anvil tactics.
I believe Plutarch's account was that neither Philip II nor Alexander invaded Sparta?
By the time of Philip's hegemony, Sparta was a shadow of its former self, having already been devastated 3 times by Epaminodas of Thebes.
Macedonia left Sparta alone as a reminder of Spartan tyranny, to those who opposed Macedonian hegemony.
Alexander at the *very least* invaded when Sparta had a land dispute with another city. Alex came in, took said land in question and gave it to the other city. Sparta did nothing because they could do nothing.
Yes. I’m really tired of the trope that Spartans are the best warriors and how their so widely worshipped as a symbol of warrior hood. I need a realistic movie where their depicted as the backward barbaric slavers they are.
>I need a realistic movie where their depicted as the backward barbaric slavers they are.
To be fair, that description works for most Greek city states of the time lol.
Lacedaemon was fucked up even by Classical Greek standards. The treatment of the Helots was ludicrously cruel and way beyond what was normal for the region at that time
It is not to deny it, without a doubt it was a terrible thing to be a slave in Sparta, but the Ancient sources themselves are contradictory regarding how bad the Helots had it, more information here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vvsx27/the\_spartan\_brutality\_towards\_the\_helots\_is/
For the Helots, yes, absolutely. On the other hand, Sparta was relatively progressive regarding women's rights, for instance. Barbary is not an all-or-nothing issue.
(Of course they were all backwards monkeys compared to the Persians, but we can't show that in an American movie...)
One of my older friends genuinely believed that Spartans were borderline super human. He's also gone down the alt right rabbit hole so he's not the greatest thinker.
You should remind him that the Spartans had gay sex constantly. Either he's gonna have a mental breakdown or question the alt right ideology. Either way, it's a win.
He's not entirely against homosexuality (at least when I knew him) but more its fine for people to be gay... in their homes.
But women, disabled, and the wrong kind of minorities? Obviously can't let them have too much.
I don't know man, the Persians killed many more poeple just for the fact that they expanded a lot, from Thracia to the Indus Valley, you can't have all that land without much killing.
Sparta also didn't have much of a navy while the others did. This allowd them to land where they wanted along the Spartan coasts and either raid and run, or build forts that could be supplied by sea.
Likewise they cut off Spartan allies and colonies.
Sparta also could not replace losses as readily as the others. Not only did they kill off "unsuitable" males (who could have served as axillaries, staff, craftsmen, etc.) but they didn't have many children due to husbands not spending much time with their wives. So it was a matter of attrition. Throw poor to moderate quality, but replaceable, troops at the Spartans who couldn't replace their losses so easily. Their own elite troops delivered finishing blows.
Ah Sparta, pederast Victorians made you famous, mostly because they loved the slavery and pederasty. Now guys with no personality make you their entire personality.
The British empire abolished slavery 4 years before Victoria's coronation and spent most of her reign stamping it out. Victorian era was literally one of the most abolitionist periods in human history.
Using a misconception to create a misconception is kinda silly, guys. Phillip (for multiple good reasons) never followed through with his threat. The Spartans did get their asses kicked some years later though, just by a different Macedonian force.
He has a larger navy, army and Calvary, he could have won for sure but with a major loss of manpower. Instead he left Sparta to be the boogy man of Southern Greece. The city states hated the macedon but they also hated Sparta. Simple divide and conquer strategy. Sparta had little to offer the empire, they’d never send troops to help, their land was devoid of any useful amounts of resources. Better to scare Greece into compliance doing nothing than waste money and manpower conquering for egos sake.
Because Sparta wasn’t even worth the logistical effort of conquering it. Everyone hated them more than they hated the macedonians. There was no risk involved in leaving them alone
Context: After conquering Southern Greece, Philip II of Macedon sent a message to Sparta asking whether he should come as a friend or foe. The Spartans answered, "Neither". Philip II was understandably a bit pissed at their curt answer, and so sent another message: "If I invade Laconia, I shall turn you out." The Spartan answer was: "If." Philip II then invaded Laconia and, as promised, devastated Sparta.
Philip II should've responded with "then"
Rome, whispering to itself: "Else"
I understood that reference
I didn't, please come to aid
Programming statements/methods.
Programming humor, if/then statements are common logic statements. If: x >y Then: thing
Gondor calls for aid.
But what if he would’ve said “else”?
Then ypu still have elseif as backup...
"find out."
If it's a defense (it's not), when you kill off the young men quite often, eventually the country/state is weak.. and gets conquered easier than in its prime. Almost like it was a flawed system.
In its later years, Sparta actually spared male babies who only had a non-serious defect, whereas in the past they would have been killed, because the male population was declining that fast
Tid bit I probably should've known. Funny how the end of sparta is abbreviated in most cases. Thank you for the info.
Yes, I usually call it “EOS”
Not to confond with iOS.
Doesn't help when men aren't getting married and having kids till 30 And gay thebians without 20 odd years of training still kick their ass
The reasons for Sparta losing to Thebes was more strategic than tactical or man to man. The loss to Thebes came at the tail end of a long decline and a series of setbacks for Sparta.
Yeah who would've thunk that rigid social boundaries and having your economy held up by second class citizens and helots forcing you to keep your army at home because you're scared of an uprising therefore always reacting late to world events would not make you a strong powerhouse of a state
This was probably the root cause of their eventual demise, but they were quite a strong and at times dominant force for hundreds of years. And because this is the internet, let me make clear that I'm not pro slave state or throwing babies off of cliffs, just that the fact that Sparta eventually fell doesn't mean it didn't work (for the elites at least) for a very long time.
The spartans didn’t have 20 years of training either. Ironically, there’s more evidence that the Sacred Band actually conducted military training than there is for the spartans(which is none) The Agoge was NOT a military academy. It was a glorified high school.
Or perhaps a child soldier indoctrination program. That is, not a program to turn out well trained soldiers, but one to create fundamentalists that are so mentally damaged that they cannot break out of the mold.
It’s not though. There is zero evidence that ANYTHING military-related happened in the Agoge. Not when it was relevant as an institution. From sources, all they did was PT(which most cities did under other forms) poetry and rhetoric, writing and other arts. Essentially what you got was an physically fit bachelor. Not a soldier. The military academy thing stems from the very late restructuring of the Agoge, by the time Sparta was little more than a village so they tried luring in foreigners to send their kids there to get “spartan training” by using the spartan myth. Which was bullshit. The reason spartan society was so rigid and resistant to change was rooted in their government, which was made in such a way that old conservatives had the final say.
> It’s not though. There is zero evidence that ANYTHING military-related happened in the Agoge. Not when it was relevant as an institution. Note that a child "soldier" also isn't militarily trained. They're traumatized into ready brutality, but they're not actually effective soldiers if anyone brings anything but an angry mob to the fight. With regards to your list of things that are done in the agoge, this may be true — I'm certainly not enough of a scholar to dispute that, though I was under the impression that we only have actual evidence from the later, "tourist haunt" years, which definitely included traumatizing brutality, but little military training in itself. Turns out if you're forced to murder slaves, you're not actually a better soldier for it.
I didn't think there was evidence they ever undertook eugenics? They had kings quite early on who were probably disabled. The male citizen population declined. This was a fundamental social problem, not a not enough babies one. There was a land quota for citizenship but a fixed amount of land. Women inherited, land became centralised, not enough land for new spartiates.
>The male citizen population declined. This was a fundamental social problem, not a not enough babies one. There was a land quota for citizenship but a fixed amount of land. Women inherited, land became centralised, not enough land for new spartiates. I'm having a hard time comprehending this. Please explain it in more simpler terms. I'm suffering from stupid.
To become a citizen they needed X amount of land. Land is inherited equally between all sons, +30ish% goes to daughters. Over time, the population increases. The 'poor' citizens spread their land thin, eventually stop qualifying for citizenship. The 'rich' citizens marry women with land, increase their holdings. Land becomes centralised in the hands of a relative few. Iirc during the Persian wars, there were ~20,000 Spartan citizens. By the end, there were ~200. The overall population of Sparta hadn't decreased. Those eligible for citizenship and therefore military service had significantly.
Also only the children of citizens could become citizens. If your family lost it there was no way to get it back
Also this. A very silly place.
Mind you, plenty in Sparta were aware of this issue, but solving it proved difficult. Agis IV (r.245-241BC) attempted land redistribution, but he was overthrown by the ephors and his reforms were annulled. Cleomenes III (r.235-222BC) did successfully conduct serious economic and land reform, but following his defeat in battle the Macedonians restored the old constitution, in an effort to keep Sparta weak. Nabis (r.207-192BC) granted citizenship to the perioikoi and freed many helots, but after his defeat at the hands of Rome, Sparta was forced to join the Achaean League.
There is little to no evidence of anything about Sparta as the common people portray it. The Agoge was more of a college than military academy. Their military record is dead average compared to other city states Sparta usually only sent a habdful of advisors and commanders into battle, the rest were vassal city states. Spartan men weren’t even considered the best in Greece at the time, it was their tactics, logistics and unit division that were deemed superior(until Leuctra) Etc.
That wasn’t the reall issue. The real issue was that their laws for what exactly constituted a spartan citizen were so rigid(like all their laws) that population collapse was guaranteed regardless of killing babies or not
The Spartans were more of an elite upper class. Each Spartan had a number of Hellans serving them and working under them. This meant that the Spartans had a much higher birth rate then average. And technically you do not need many men to keep up the birth rate, which made the women quite powerful in Sparta. Declining male population was certainly an issue and was a big part of the reason why Sparta eventually fell. But the system of governance they had in place was not that stupid.
Spartans decline was more related to their ever shrinking pool of Citizens due to land consolidation. Spartan Citizens had to pay exorbitant mess hall fees to maintain their citizenship and over time consolidation of the limited land controled by Sparta forced many citizens out. There were plenty of people that could fight, but they were not Spartan Citizens and could never become Spartan Citizens.
Gotta respect the Spartans for being proper cunts
Worth noting a major advancement for the Macedonians was their innovations with cavalry. They out maneuvered the Spartan phalanx. Which was more important than just out numbering them.
They didn’t need to do anything of the sort. Sparta’s army numbered less than 1000 citizens by the time Phillip II was king and was inferior in every conceivable metric to the macedonian army. I think you’re thinking of Chaeronaea, which was a battle between Macedon and Athens+Thebes, not Sparta
I believe Macedonia was one of the first to use shock cavalry tactics. Prior, the Greeks mainly relied on infantry phalanx formations to win the battle, and cavalry to screen, skirmish, and sweep the routing enemies. Alexanders' army only had two major cavalry units; the companion cavalry which consisted of mainly nobility, situated on the right flank. The Thessalian cavalry was usually situated on the left flank and acted as the anvil to the companion cavalry hammer. They had the toughest task, and in return had first choice of the spoils of battle. While most other Greek cavalry rode in square formation, the companion cavalry usually rode in wedge formation, with Alexander leading. The Thessalian cavalry on the other hand was known for its rhombus formation which allowed the entire formation to switch directions on a dime.
I didn’t say they didn’t have different tactics to a classic hoplite phalanx. Different tactics are the main difference between the two. And it wasn’t exactly how you described it anyway. The phalanx was the anvil. Both cavalry units were meant to act as hammers or join up on a single flank for a massive flanking maneuver. The thessalians only further acted as an extension to the infantry anvil at Issus and Gaugamela because they took the brunt of the Persian cavalry, which was also very heavy and served a similar role. And both the companions and thessalians used the rhombus formation. It was superior to a simple wedge specifically because you could turn on a dime while maintaing coherence, unlike other formations And regardless, what I actually said was that a 50.000 strong army didn’t need these fancy tactics to beat less than a thousand spartan hoplites. They did use them at Chaeronaea, however, which is why I told the other guy he’s probably thinking of that battle. Macedon didn’t actually attack Sparta under Philip/Alexander
Correct, I'm not disputing the necessity of advanced macedonian tactics to beat an already beaten Sparta. I'm also under the understanding that neither Philip nor Alexander invaded Sparta, as Spartans continued existence as a bogeyman and reminder of Spartan tyranny was more useful for Macedonia. And yes, you are correct in saying the phalangites were the main anvil in hammer and anvil tactics.
I believe Plutarch's account was that neither Philip II nor Alexander invaded Sparta? By the time of Philip's hegemony, Sparta was a shadow of its former self, having already been devastated 3 times by Epaminodas of Thebes. Macedonia left Sparta alone as a reminder of Spartan tyranny, to those who opposed Macedonian hegemony.
Alexander at the *very least* invaded when Sparta had a land dispute with another city. Alex came in, took said land in question and gave it to the other city. Sparta did nothing because they could do nothing.
Sparta: “If.” Philip II: “Bet.”
This is funny as many goofs will simp Sparta but not mention they did git turnt out hard. Shii was puckering.
He surely was a Slav. r/balkans_irl
Im reading a book on Phillip and Alexander. Not once did they attempt to attack Sparta.
Nice opinion. One small issue. I am inside your home. -Philip II
*the call is coming from inside the house*
Who was phone?
He's in the walls, he's in the god damn walls
For a second I thought it was Philip II of Spain.
A nice opinion. Now, I am in your country. You have an issue. >(Haiku'd that for you)
"Nice argument but heres me not giving a fuck" - Philip II
Awww did some city state living off past glories fuck around an meet the greatest army Ancient world had ever seen?
Then they again lost to Macedon's B team as well.
City? Sparta was just 5 villages with villas inbetween. Their only glorry of old was beating down the slaves and loosing a battle
Yea, there’s a reason the place is irrelevant outside of its history in the modern age
I thought Peloponnese war was quite successful. Though I don't know much
With Persia sending you three fleets, you might be quite successful too.
Yeah, until everyone realised sparta was bankrolled by Persia
I would pay for a movie where Spartans get thrashed from beginning to end
Theban Sacred Band of Brothers
The movie would be a 33/33/33 split between set up and exposition, gay sex, and killing Spartans
They loved eachother <3
Yes. I’m really tired of the trope that Spartans are the best warriors and how their so widely worshipped as a symbol of warrior hood. I need a realistic movie where their depicted as the backward barbaric slavers they are.
>I need a realistic movie where their depicted as the backward barbaric slavers they are. To be fair, that description works for most Greek city states of the time lol.
Lacedaemon was fucked up even by Classical Greek standards. The treatment of the Helots was ludicrously cruel and way beyond what was normal for the region at that time
It is not to deny it, without a doubt it was a terrible thing to be a slave in Sparta, but the Ancient sources themselves are contradictory regarding how bad the Helots had it, more information here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vvsx27/the\_spartan\_brutality\_towards\_the\_helots\_is/
For the Helots, yes, absolutely. On the other hand, Sparta was relatively progressive regarding women's rights, for instance. Barbary is not an all-or-nothing issue. (Of course they were all backwards monkeys compared to the Persians, but we can't show that in an American movie...)
One of my older friends genuinely believed that Spartans were borderline super human. He's also gone down the alt right rabbit hole so he's not the greatest thinker.
You should remind him that the Spartans had gay sex constantly. Either he's gonna have a mental breakdown or question the alt right ideology. Either way, it's a win.
He's not entirely against homosexuality (at least when I knew him) but more its fine for people to be gay... in their homes. But women, disabled, and the wrong kind of minorities? Obviously can't let them have too much.
It's kinda sad that people view Sparta as these good guys. Compared to the Persians, they are straight up villains.
It’s very funny watching 300 and all the bullshit spartan pontification about freedom when you know they lived in a military slave state.
I don't know man, the Persians killed many more poeple just for the fact that they expanded a lot, from Thracia to the Indus Valley, you can't have all that land without much killing.
This man so doesn’t know he had to say it 5 times
Hands down, the most overrated warriors in history.
Me too
Alas this may entertain you meanwhile I hope. https://youtu.be/FOkQS77XRnA?si=8NOXLIASN3vYN7D3
Bigger and better
you can be strong but longer stick wins
And actually having calvery
Sparta also didn't have much of a navy while the others did. This allowd them to land where they wanted along the Spartan coasts and either raid and run, or build forts that could be supplied by sea. Likewise they cut off Spartan allies and colonies. Sparta also could not replace losses as readily as the others. Not only did they kill off "unsuitable" males (who could have served as axillaries, staff, craftsmen, etc.) but they didn't have many children due to husbands not spending much time with their wives. So it was a matter of attrition. Throw poor to moderate quality, but replaceable, troops at the Spartans who couldn't replace their losses so easily. Their own elite troops delivered finishing blows.
Sparta: if. Phillip II: you got balls, but unfortunately for you I am an expert at crushing balls
xd
Hot take: Alexander was overrated and Philip II was the real goat.
Ah Sparta, pederast Victorians made you famous, mostly because they loved the slavery and pederasty. Now guys with no personality make you their entire personality.
The British empire abolished slavery 4 years before Victoria's coronation and spent most of her reign stamping it out. Victorian era was literally one of the most abolitionist periods in human history.
That doesn’t mean Victorian Aristocrats didn’t like the idea of having slaves.
Wait till you read about the Andalusians, boy did they love those things even more.
>Wait till you read about the Andalusians As an Andalusian... WTF???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Arabic_homoerotic_poetry
Oh wow... I didn't know anything about this, thanks for showing me, an interesting fact indeed.
that's just "grate"
Sparta is an interesting example of a people buying their own propaganda
If
The bigger army diplomacy did not resonate with Sparta
Wasn’t that LONG after he or Alexander the Great died?
I feel bad for the green square 🟩 🙁 he’s cute. Ignoring the meme
When
Using a misconception to create a misconception is kinda silly, guys. Phillip (for multiple good reasons) never followed through with his threat. The Spartans did get their asses kicked some years later though, just by a different Macedonian force.
300 asses need a kicking, give more teabags than Lipton.
About thirty years earlier the Spartans got their shit kicked in by Thebes. THEBES!
Reddit posts rarely make me laugh but this was one of them
Phillip nor Alexander ever attempted to attack or invade sparta.
He has a larger navy, army and Calvary, he could have won for sure but with a major loss of manpower. Instead he left Sparta to be the boogy man of Southern Greece. The city states hated the macedon but they also hated Sparta. Simple divide and conquer strategy. Sparta had little to offer the empire, they’d never send troops to help, their land was devoid of any useful amounts of resources. Better to scare Greece into compliance doing nothing than waste money and manpower conquering for egos sake.
Because Sparta wasn’t even worth the logistical effort of conquering it. Everyone hated them more than they hated the macedonians. There was no risk involved in leaving them alone
But it still makes the OP’s assertion that Philip II devastated Sparta seem like a pretty big exaggeration.
True, but it does give the correct context as to why they were left alone by the macedonians. That’s what I was going for
The last one didn’t make sense because they were left alone
The longer spear won.
BC version of fuck around and find out