Printable View
Who won? Sparte? Athenai? or were they both the losers? I believe it was the latter, Sparte may have won the war, but in doing so they became so weak that both Sparta's and Athen's fate was sealed to be slaves to the world's empires thereafter? your opinions? /discuss
that war costed greece it's power and was a cause of it's fall IMO... heheh but I might be just an ignorant idiot though :smash:
It gave Makedonia a chance to seize power in the Aegean, so maybe there would never have been a huge invasion of Persia's empire and her defeat would either never have happened or happened much later.
/BUMP
im surprised you lot being historically driven are not very eager to discuss such a turning point in western AND eastern history.
Don't forget the Corinthian War and the rise of the Second Athenian Empire in the 4th Century. True, the Peloponnesian War did kill off a generation within the Hellenic world. But I sometimes think that arguments like "the Peloponnesian War left an opening for Phillip II and Macedon" are over stated (accurate, but overstated). In my view, the military revolution that occurred during the 27 year long war between Athens and Sparta resulted in faster, lighter troops, and a more unified force of heavy infantry, skirmishers, and cavalry. I think we can see a shadow of the lessons learned during the Peloponnessian War in the army Phillip used to defeat the Greek Cities decades later.
To answer the initial question: Sparta won the war but lost the peace. Safe bets are on Thebes and Corinth (in that their position relative the other cities had increased the most).
Well yeah, Sparta won and became the dominant power in Greece for a short while, only to be then succeded by Thebes (battle of Leuktra). I think the cause for Makedonian dominance of Greece has its roots more in Philipp's reforms and unification of Makedonia plus the vast cash flow through his newly conquered gold mines in southern Thrace than in the Peloponnesian War.
The big winner was, in fact, Persia, who (in the person of some satraps) funded or considered funding both sides at one time or another, though Sparta got the most support. By playing off the two Greek coalitions against each other, Persia kept their hold on the Greek cities of Asia Minor (now Turkey) and otherwise ensured their influence in a region on the periphery of their empire. It's a mistake to view the Peloponnesian War as a Greek-only affair, out of a larger context.
PS Celtic Punk- This isn't really an EB topic (ca. 150 years too early, and not about the game anyway) so that may explain why there hasn't been a rush to join the debate- not that I care, I'm happy to discuss it. But I'm skeptical about the whole notion of historical 'turning points'- these are usually recognized only long afterwards, and their importance depends on your point of view. Was the Battle of Thermopylae a 'turning point' for Xerxes? I think not- he wiped out some obdurate Spartans (with a little trouble), and went on to burn Athens. He went home after the battle of Salamis and reigned for another 15 years in unimaginable splendour and glory. Doesn't sound like Thermopylae massively changed his life.
True.
The reason, Sparta could not hold onto its victory has mainly two reasons:
1) The Spartan armies was desperately lacking manpower. The elite fighting class of the Spartiates had almost perished. Their defeat at Leuktra destroyed their fame of being unbeatable thus stripping them of their big joker in Classical Greek warfare: the morale bonus. Spartiates considered themselves invincible in "equal" combat and so did the Hellenic world. In a classical hoplite battle, where morale was a considerable factor, this was quite an advantage. Leuktra put an end to that.
2) The government system and institutions of Sparta (their constitution so to speak) was not able to deal with rapid expansion. It was a defensive constitution, meant for a quite hermetic and static state. Sparta tried to establish similar government systems in subdued poleis which would of course inevitably fail because the hermetic and strict organization of Sparta's mostly agricultural state could not work in more dynamic, urban-oriented societies like Athens. This created a lot of resistance and unrest which in turn had to be opressed with military force which of course became harder and harder to achieve due to 1).
Syracuse had a big part to play in the downfall of Athens... Had they not been so bold to send their fleet and manpower to Syracuse they might have won the war. Syracuse was an unwinnable objective. it was even worse that they wouldn't listen to the general in thefield and pull out before it all went to hell... But the eclipse that year worked to Sparta's advantage and after the first defeat outside Syracuse the Athenian general (i cant place his name right now... its starts with an N) saw the Eclipse and refused to retreat till the eclipse was done. allowing sparta to catch up and destroy the fleet what was left of their army.
I don't think Phillip would have been able to fight the greeks and won so easily, or maybe not at all if the Peloponnesian war never happened. His slower moving Phalangites would have been outflanked quite easilly because of the extra manpower the greeks would have had at their disposal. because there were many less people around to defend their cities however, the Phalangites worked perfectly.
Except that I think the Phalangites of Phillip were in response to Theban and Athenian changes in Hoplite armament (think Epaminondas and Iphikrates). The longer spear, smaller shield, and lighter cuirass came before Phillip. True, he made it more versatile, but the traditional Greek City states weren't exactly fielding armies equivalent to those at Marathon or Plataia (or even Mantinea or Delion, for that matter).Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Like oudysseos says the one who gained the most was Persia. Though it worked out quite well for others, Thebes for example.
Sure, to the Persians things looked like they were going their way in 404, but don't discount the fact that their Prince invaded Babylon in an effort to depose his brother the King in 401. Also don't forget the "Great Satrap Revolt" of the 360's wherein the Imperial relevance of the Persian King was really tested. And yes, the Great King emerged with his empire intact. But it was a far cry from the strength and solidarity of the empire ruled over by Darius I or Xerxes.
Let's put it all together and see what adds up:
(1) Reform in military structure lead first by dropping heavy armor during the 420's in response to Demosthenes in Ambrakia as well as the success of the Brasideans in Thrace, followed by the defeat of the Athenian army by cavalry in Sicily
(2) Revolution in military technology during the Corinthian War, Social War, and the Third Sacred War led primarily by Athens and Thebes and later perfected by Macedon.
(3) Weakening political ties between the Great King in Persepolis and the satraps on the margins of the Empire.
(4) Increase in Hellenic adventuring into eastern provinces:
(a) Athenian adventures in Egypt during the First Peloponnessian War
(b) The March of the 10,000 to Babylon and then back out to Trapezous led by Cyrus as chronicled by Xenophon
(c) Spartan invasion of Phrygia and Caria during the early 4th Century
What's missing?
Philipp did not win through manpower alone. I think the Greek cities would have been able to cope with the Makedonians manpower-wise. Philipp's superiority came from his revolutionary military doctrine, the famous hammer and amboss tactic. Makedonian heavy cavalry was THE peak of military "technology" of that time and it was them that gave the Greek armies such a headache, not so much the phalangites. Also heavy cavalry in the Makedonian Hetairoi's equipment and numbers was very very expensive. Philipp was only able to build up such a high-class army because of the enormous resources provided by his recent conquering of the Thracian gold mines. Plus the Makedonian army was a battle-hardened army consisting of quite some professional soldiers compared to the levy or militia armies of the Greek city-states. It's not the quantity, it's the quality. If anything proves that, then it's Hellenic warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Of course, the war may have dragged on for some time if Sparta and/or Athens would have been at the peak of their power, but ultimatly the Makedonian war machine was superior in doctrine.
EDIT: Damn, now I'm in the mood for a Makedonian campaign...
Syracuse was a heavy blow to Athens but wasn't fatal. Athens recovered and and had a string of victories between 410 en 406. They even *could* have won the war in 406 (After Arginusae). Unfortunately (for them) they didn't accept the Spartan peace offer and they lost the war less than a year later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
The Syracuse expedition might not have been so doomed if political considerations hadn't prompted Alcibiades to switch sides and warn the Syracusans and Spartans of the whole plan and how to counter it. Alcibiades is an incredible figure in the war, probably my favorite of all. If he had commanded the Syracuse expedition, it might have been successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
My favorite person that was involved is Thrasybulus. Although, admittedly, it mostly for what he did after the war during the Thirty Tyrants than during it. Still, his contributions at Cyzicus were extremely valuable, and, if one takes Kagan's view, probably more important that Alcibiades', although I think there is room for both views.Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf371