Koinon Hellenon's prospects

[Phalanx300]

Hmm, throwing around facts are we??

Fact is that that the Spartan "new model army" under Cleomenes III performed quite well. Fact is that is Macedonian/Allied army was extremely reluctant to attack the smaller Spartan army. Fact is that the rebellion in Argos forced the Spartan army to retreat and not the Macedonian army.

There are enough interesting "what ifs".

Yes, but before Cleomenes Sparta was basicly nothing. However by his reforms it became a power to watch out for once more.

And his point is that during/after EBs time frame its impossible that Sparta would become a big power again, thats ofcourse not true.

Basicly every city state, yet how weak can become a power, look at Rome, a city state, unlikely? Yes but it still became the biggest power. Carthage, a city state. And like that there are many more city states, they started out as a laughter however became some of the biggest powers ever.

[Ca Putt]

it may have been possible but highly unlikely. if one imagines most possible time strings during the EB time frame there would have been a very large number of strings without rome but still relatively few with Spartans rising above the other Poleis, very few.

Personally I gave up justifying a KH expansion , after i defeated Macedon. from what i read, they were not the people to do so. I've even read that some Historians think The Poleis was not realy a state. but a group of people that have enclosed themselves amung there fellow Hellens. take that aside, imo the most likely way the Hellenes could have rose to a vast empire from the Pillars of Hercules to Kolchis(or baktria^^) would be through first having to face a even bigger challenge than the war against the Persians(over a long period), which would have united them and after that they got some megalomanic Leader who 1. want's to unite ALL Hellens of the World(Massilia etc.) 2. got the taste of power and just could not stop conquering(I had to come up with this one once I crossed the alps :D)
to be honest it realy could fit on my current Faction leader who realy enjoys Looting, pillaging, ransacking, burning and Hellenising(of cource) Gaul with his Veterans :D
so to be frank I'm not behaving very Hellenic at all, but It's still a lot of fun and I am quite impressed by those who try to play their Campaign as Historical accurate as possible, but that's just not my way of playing History related Games, I rather change history than re-enact it.

[Dutchhoplite]

to be honest it realy could fit on my current Faction leader who realy enjoys Looting, pillaging, ransacking, burning and Hellenising(of cource) Gaul with his Veterans :D

Sounds like a great guy :D

[Ca Putt]

yeah, i like him :D. afaik he has got all traits which increace the looting output :D but he's 60 by now :(

[Phalanx300]

it may have been possible but highly unlikely.

Yes thats what I ment, said it a bit wrong, its unlikely but not impossible.

I've even read that some Historians think The Poleis was not realy a state. but a group of people that have enclosed themselves amung there fellow Hellens.

Well, I don't really think thats true, it could be said about all states, even todays ones.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

And what should keep the other Hellenes from just getting rid of the Spartans? Everytime the Spartan army would leave a newly conquered city, it would just revolt. The southern Greeks never felt any urge to unify Hellas under one polis. Conquer them, yes, make them do what they want, yes, forcing them into an "alliance", yes, but they never tried to make a homogenuous state out of Hellas.

Rome had a different approach. They started out very small, but they never ate too much at the same time. Babysteps approach basically. And during EB's starting time, Rome had already huge masses of manpower to command. The troops they could levy were more or less cheap and included all free men. The Spartans had a totally different approach. They wanted to make everyone slaves with a small elitist core of homoioi. Of course the Romans wanted to be the sole masters too but they never told the subjugated, that's the difference.

[Celtic_Punk]

You throw around "spartan empire" like i meant itd be purely spartan. If the KH actually won against Makedonia there would be Athens and Sparta as the most influential states. Perhaps Pella would weigh in somewhat but I don't think so due to years n years n years of war. Just like how everyone didn't (and some don't sadly) trust Germans till recently. Sparta probably would be commanding most of the battles, like in the past. Please don't get worked up just because a few guys think 700 men could kill tens of thousands because they saw 300. (terrain permitting, 700 men could in theory [without being flanked] kill as many as 20 thousand)

[Dutchhoplite]

How would a "Empire" consisting only of level IV governments work ???

Would it work??

Just thinking aloud ;)

[Celtic_Punk]

then its more of an alliance, so a spartan alliance? you belong as long as you give full military control to Sparta?

[Maion Maroneios]

You're in no position to condescend to anyone in this thread. Everything you've said here is absolutist, inflexible bluster. The only reason I'm responding to your troll is that I don't want you to walk away thinking you're right, lest you feel the urge to act up like this again.

I'd better watch your words, Gleemonex. I'm not saying blustering around, just using simple reason as well as known facts. I don't want to think I'm right, as the only reason I'm bothering to reply to every over philo-Laconian here is to bring them back to earth, because truly some people float in the sky. I'm stating my personal opinion, and that's because of what The Celtic Punk said about a possible next AAR of him.

If it wasn't for a single roof tile, Epeirote fanboys would probably be calling a Roman Hegemony complete fiction. Your point?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I say. Unless you can compare Makedonia-Sparte with Roma-Epeiros. If that is so, I think it was a mistake to even bother to reply to your bumbling.

Um.... everyone who plays EB has to change a history of some 2280 years in order to enjoy themselves. They don't seem to have much trouble with it. What's your excuse?

I never said anything against that any time. Nor do I have any trouble about that. As I said before (but clearly you haven't well understood), I have stated my personal opinion. Maybe coming too much in conflict with the rest, ok, but I use reason and facts, while most others just throw out bold assumptions or fictional idealistic theories.

Maion

[Maion Maroneios]

Cleomenes already prooved you wrong.

And if Argos hadn't rebelled Sparta would have had the Pelopponesos. And afterwards who knows, they could very well become the Hegemon of Greece again.

1 Man and 1 reform can change a future of a nation, look at Phillip, at Cleomenes. Without them their nations never would have become so dominant(In Cleomenes case its again).

And I've done quite enough amateur research to know quite some things about Sparta, however you saying that Sparta never could have become dominant again is ofcourse not true.

Hmmm, I kind of thought someone would fall into this trap. Sadly though, that doesn't prove that Sparte could rule Hellas over again.

While a reform, as you very correctly stated, can make big changes, that only wouldn't assure that Sparte would again become Hegemon of Hellas. Why is that? Because Sparte's governmental system, while excellently working within the restricted boundaries of Lakonike and Messenia, was almost useless when applied to a much wider territory. This was proved after Sparte won the Peloponnesian War against Athenai. They won, though they didn't last very long, did they? It would require massive political reforms for Sparte to be able to remain dominant for a considerable amount of time, though those changes would change Sparte completely. So basically, it wouldn't be the Sparte we know anymore.

As you see, Sparte might have dominated Hellas by force (difficult, but I agree possible), they wouldn't have been able to keep hold on their newly conquered provinces for long enough. Then again, I believe we can always leave open room for such a possibility, it's just that the chances are probably such minuscule, that you could probably just consider them as non-existing.

Maion

[Celtic_Punk]

Well I'm still gunna do that AAR, its going to be an Alliance headed up by Sparta and Athens. We'll see where it goes though. I am planing on having a civil war between Sparta and Athens around the 200-150BC range too, and It'll end somewhere around 100BC.

What point of view should I write in in? I was thinking a Spartan hoplite from the Civil war era, and finished by his son.

[Phalanx300]

Hmmm, I kind of thought someone would fall into this trap. Sadly though, that doesn't prove that Sparte could rule Hellas over again.

I see it differently, if Sparte could have gained control over the Peloponessos, and then beated the Macedonians in a pitched battle or a few, they would probably gain control over Hellas, it would be hard but not impossible. And as far as I know about Cleomenes he was quite a good tactician.

While a reform, as you very correctly stated, can make big changes, that only wouldn't assure that Sparte would again become Hegemon of Hellas. Why is that? Because Sparte's governmental system, while excellently working within the restricted boundaries of Lakonike and Messenia, was almost useless when applied to a much wider territory.This was proved after Sparte won the Peloponnesian War against Athenai. They won, though they didn't last very long, did they? It would require massive political reforms for Sparte to be able to remain dominant for a considerable amount of time, though those changes would change Sparte completely. So basically, it wouldn't be the Sparte we know anymore.

I don't really agree with that, it could very well be possible for Sparta to control Hellas. Even with their govermental system. They would probably not expand beyond Hellas, and not forming a new Roman empire, but becoming the hegemon of Hellas again was certainly possible.

As you see, Sparte might have dominated Hellas by force (difficult, but I agree possible), they wouldn't have been able to keep hold on their newly conquered provinces for long enough. Then again, I believe we can always leave open room for such a possibility, it's just that the chances are probably such minuscule, that you could probably just consider them as non-existing.

I also don't think that the chances are that small that it becomes non possible, if history has shown us anything then it is that anything is possible, the same with holding onto it after dominating Hellas. At that time they would be quite wealthy again, their numbers would be increasing, though not that noticable in such a short period(and the other poleis also didn't knew about the real number of Spartiatai).

If they would play their cards right they could very well maintain such a state for a while.

Though yea, all of it is somewhat unlikely, yet not impossible.


Anyways, I would like such a AAR CelticPunk!

[Gleemonex]

I'm not saying blustering around, just using simple reason as well as known facts.

Stating your own highly debatable (and debated) opinions as inalienable facts = blustering.

Also, you might note that Centurio Nixalsverdrus was able to voice his similar concerns civilly (ie. without calling everyone else pie-in-the-sky fools).

If it wasn't for a single roof tile, Epeirote fanboys would probably be calling a Roman Hegemony complete fiction. Your point?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I say. Unless you can compare Makedonia-Sparte with Roma-Epeiros. If that is so, I think it was a mistake to even bother to reply to your bumbling.

Your homework for today is to read about the Butterfly effect. Extra credit if you can figure out how my statement has everything to do with what you say (and, indeed, warfare in general).

As I said before (but clearly you haven't well understood), I have stated my personal opinion.

Followed by:

I use reason and facts, while most others just throw out bold assumptions or fictional idealistic theories.

Well I'm still gunna do that AAR, its going to be an Alliance headed up by Sparta and Athens. We'll see where it goes though. I am planing on having a civil war between Sparta and Athens around the 200-150BC range too, and It'll end somewhere around 100BC.

What point of view should I write in in? I was thinking a Spartan hoplite from the Civil war era, and finished by his son.

That should be fun. What about an emancipated helot, and his son going through the agoge?

-Glee

[Celtic_Punk]

I was thinking about a spartan hoplite because he'd be writing from a first hand account. The helots would be more behind the lines... but they would have also been there I guess.

[Phalanx300]

Maybe as a mercenary?

[Celtic_Punk]

No its definitely going to be a biased account. hehe.

[Gleemonex]

I was thinking about a spartan hoplite because he'd be writing from a first hand account. The helots would be more behind the lines... but they would have also been there I guess.

Well, as I'd mentionned before, there is (albeit scant) evidence that helots served verily in the Spartan phalanx as early as the Battle of Platea.

The reason I mention helots is that you could have a helot archer or hoplite telling the first half of your AAR, with his fully-Spartan son telling the latter half. Just a thought though.

-Glee

[Celtic_Punk]

I'm going to start the AAR once I finish a basic first draft of what i want it to be like, maybe a week depends on work.

[Nobo]

I'm going to start the AAR once I finish a basic first draft of what i want it to be like, maybe a week depends on work.

I don't usually read AARs, but this one sounds pretty fun... make sure to let us know, when you're ready

[Maion Maroneios]

[QUOTE=Gleemonex;2056965]Stating your own highly debatable (and debated) opinions as inalienable facts = blustering.
Where did I exactly state that my opinions are inalienable facts? Look at my replies, I have mentioned again and again that I believe there is a possibility that Sparte could reach such heights anew. Meaning, I agree with everyone else, but just using my statements I considerably decrease that number. So basically that means that you are the one who's blustering here, not me. You're trying to show you're something, debating with me about a topic I already agreed with the rest, but in truth you aren't getting to anything.

Also, you might note that Centurio Nixalsverdrus was able to voice his similar concerns civilly (ie. without calling everyone else pie-in-the-sky fools).

Centurio Nixalsverdrus might do whatever he wishes and that I respect. I never called anyone a fool, mind you, I just want people to start doing some reading/research about Sparte instead of watching movies like 300 for a change. Same goes for you, it seems, or you wouldn't be on fire now.

Your homework for today is to read about the Butterfly effect. Extra credit if you can figure out how my statement has everything to do with what you say (and, indeed, warfare in general).

Your homework for today are the following:
1) Read my previous replies over and over again until you fully understand exactly what I say, for you truly seem to have no idea.
2) Do some research about the "butterfly effect" and I mean some real one. Maybe then you will understand that it is a theory, not a proven fact.

Maion

[Phalanx300]

I never called anyone a fool, mind you, I just want people to start doing some reading/research about Sparte instead of watching movies like 300 for a change.

And what makes you think that people haven't done some research on them? If they are here that means they probably play EB and like historical accuracy, which means they probably know more about Sparte to then your average 300 steriotype.

[Maion Maroneios]

Because of what they state. I agree that most know at least something about Spartan history (aexcluding wikipedia sources), but they just are heavily influenced by the American propaganda of today.

Maion

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The Romans moved from city-state to great power because they allowed two things in the late kingdom/early republic:

1. Men from other Latin cities could move (with their families) to Rome and in time, become Roman citizens.

2. Wealthy Roman citizens could, through time, service to Rome and political/economic success, join the patrician class (Rome's nobility), even if their ancestors were not of patrician blood.

This thinking was anathema to the Spartans. They wouldn't accept other Greeks moving to Sparta and becoming Spartan citizens. And their nobility didn't want wealthy commoners joining their social class, because the more nobles there are in a society, the less power and influence each one has.

The Spartans would have to make similar social reforms to Rome to become a great power. And the Spartans were the most politically and socially conservative of all Greek cultures. Kind of like the 'North Korea' of the ancient world!

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I totally agree, Titus Marcellus Scato.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus might do whatever he wishes and that I respect.

Well, nice, but basically I had the same or very similar opinion like you, so please don't drag me into this because Gleemonex mentioned me.

[Maion Maroneios]

I have no intention in dragging you into anything, belive me. I just answered Gleemonex.

Maion

[Gleemonex]

The Romans moved from city-state to great power because they allowed two things in the late kingdom/early republic:

1. Men from other Latin cities could move (with their families) to Rome and in time, become Roman citizens.

2. Wealthy Roman citizens could, through time, service to Rome and political/economic success, join the patrician class (Rome's nobility), even if their ancestors were not of patrician blood.

I basically agree, but it's not so cut-and-dry. And note (as I have earlier in this thread) that there were multiple instances, and varieties, of helot emancipation.

-Glee