The Rise and Fall of Sparta Following the Great Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.)

"Can someone explain to me how mighty Sparta was finally subdued?" 

(question posed by roland678, reddit.com; /r/history)

My humble response:

"After her victory in the Great Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) against the Athenians and her allies, Sparta became the regional hegemon. Instead of remaining insular, as was her typical foreign policy orientation up to the war, Sparta exercised a more adventurous and aggressive posture towards the Peloponnese and greater Greece. Two major developments arrested Spartan aggrandizement: (1) Persian resistance and (2) the rise of Thebes.

Following the defeat of Athens in 404 B.C., the Spartans emerged as the leading Greek city-state and, led by Lysander, the Spartan hero-general of the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans acted to subdue the Greek world. In addition to her mainland aspirations, Sparta engaged in an risky foreign endeavor in the heartland of the Persian empire. Along with a host of other soldiers drawn from the Greek world, the Spartans supported the rebellion of the Persian satrap Cyrus who aimed to dethrone the new Persian king, Artaxerxes II, whose recent ascension in 404 B.C. purportedly offered to Cyrus and his Greek mercenaries an opportunity to grab absolute power. Such was not the case. This rebellion ended disastrously for Cyrus: he died. His hired Greek mercenary army faired no better. The Greek army suffered a total defeat in battle and were forced into a hasty retreat from ancient Babylon, the whole while victim to harrassment by Persian cavalry upon its flank and rear. These events were chronicled in detail by a Greek soldier, Xenophon, who was present during the initial campaign and pitiable conclusion (see:Anabasis). 

In spite of her overseas misfortunes, Sparta nonetheless continued to pursue an aggressive domestic policy vis. a v. her immediate Greek city-state neighbors. Accordingly, an anti-Spartan alliance was formed by a resurgent Athens -- supported financially and materially by, yes, the Persians -- Corinth, Argos (Sparta's historical and mortal enemy), and Thebes. These formerly self-interested city-states fought to free themselves from Sparta's hegemonic aspirations. Events culminated in the Corinthian War (395-386 B.C.), the conclusion of which saw the Spartans reaching an accommodation with the Persians who had supported the anti-Spartan alliance with financial and material support during the war. This accommodation, so called the King's Peace, guaranteed Persian control of the Greek city-states in Anatolia, on the one hand, and Spartan hegemony of the Greek mainland, on the other.

Following the Corinthian War, a formerly second-rate Boetian power, Thebes, rose to challenge Spartan aggression. Led by the statesmen and generals Epamanondas and Pelopidas, Thebes engaged in a warring struggle with Sparta. The two powers, and their respective allies, fought intermittently for a decade, but superior Theban generalship subdued the mighty Spartan army, poignantly so in two separately decisive land battles: the Battle of Leuctra (371 B.C.), and the Battle of Mantinea (362 B.C.). Thebes leveraged her victories by freeing the Spartan helots -- a subjugated class of local slaves who were both crucial for, and a threat to, the Spartan way of life --, thereafter establishing them as freemen somewhere on the Corinthian Gulf.

At this point, Spartan prestige and material dominance both depreciated. In hindsight, however, Theban ascendancy proved to be a Pyrrhic development: strong relative to her Greek neighbors, Thebes nonetheless exposed herself to the machinations of her menacing neighbor to the north, Macedon. In an ironic reversal of fortunes, Philip II of Macedon learned valuable lessons from the progressive military tactics pursued by the Thebans under Epamonondas. Philip coupled these tactics with a professional army and a deft foreign policy in order to ultimately subdue the Greek world.

Spartan dominance -- in-and-of-itself a short-lived reality -- stemmed from her overwhelming defeat of the Athenian empire during the Great Peloponnesian War. Instead of consolidating her dominant position in Greece, Sparta reoriented her foreign and domestic policies toward a more uncharacteristically aggressive position. Her example, and many more from historical records, have shown that expansion based upon hubris can have disastrous effects. Outright defeat overseas jolted the Spartan state. Her mainland posture elicited an immediate -- no less damaging -- and determined response from, inter alia, the Athenians, Argives, Thebans, and Persians. Spartan material power eroded after a period of inter-Greek warfare which, incidentally, paved the way for Macedonian hegemony."

Thanks to roland678 for piquing my interest in this intriguing period of antiquity. More to come on this topic, for sure, very soon. So stay tuned!

-Cato

Absit Omen: "Let this not be a bad omen"

To whom it may concern,

Now might be a good time to forget the controversy surrounding former Speaker Gordon Fox and his actions -- indeed, to force Mr. Fox from our collective memory altogether -- in order to fix Rhode Island politics. However circumstances proceed with Mr. Fox, the upshot to his personal betrayal of the public's faith is the opportunity now presented to Rhode Island -- the seventy-five members of the House, specifically -- to elect a responsible, professional, and pragmatic Speaker of the Rhode Island House. 

Our state suffers from acute corruption at the highest levels of government as recent events have made clear. That type of institutional weakness has corroded the public's faith in government, -- representative government more specifically -- wasted tens of millions of dollars of public funds, and strangled economic and social progress at the state, municipal, and local levels. These shortcomings are and were allowed by, were arguably pursued outright by, the office of the Speaker of the House. Gordon Fox was only the latest individual to enjoy the Speakership's position, but he maintained a shady and morally questionable leadership of Rhode Island legislative politics. Corruption, nepotism, and stagnation followed naturally from the mishandling of his office's powers and responsibilities.  

For the public to remedy the state's many economic and social weaknesses it must first challenge the existing political culture by rooting out corrupt officials through the electoral process. Normally, elections provide the public with a means of availing themselves of corruption, nepotism, and political intrigue. In theory, democratic safeguards exist in order to replace incumbent public officials with new, hopeful ones in proportion to the public's satisfaction, or dissatisfaction, with current events. But for too long now candidates who run on platforms to reform Rhode Island General Assembly politics, and to moderate the decisions made by that legislative body, have time and again seen their election hopes dashed by voters. 

It's no secret that ordinary Rhode Islanders strongly disapprove of continued partisanship at the state level. They bemoan the political maneuvering, government inefficiencies, and rampant corruption. Rhode Islanders have historically expressed low opinions of incumbents and yet the turnover rate of General Assembly members is low. Moreover, an exclusive cadre of career politicians at the state level have governed for decades while simultaneously securing for themselves the most influential legislative positions. It's not enough to point to the advantage incumbents enjoy versus challengers as the only reason career politicians have safeguarded their seats. No, the voters are unwilling to respond accordingly. 

Some unknown quality so typical of Rhode Islanders, perhaps a lack of imagination, makes them risk averse. This translates, tragically, into a high re-election rate of incumbents, the very source of the public's anger and frustration. The innocents, the hopeful reform candidates, find that they are the victims of this schizophrenic repetition of electoral cycles.  Ask the Rhode Island Republican caucus how they have fared in elections over the past twenty years, study their election records, and you will see that reform candidates rarely experience success through grass-root, bottom-up efforts. No such organic remedy exists where ordinary Rhode Islanders can or will act in order to correct state problems. 

No doubt, responsible officials exist in the capital, and some are powerful forces in their own right who champion moderate solutions to Rhode Island problems. But few of these men and women command large voting blocs in the General Assembly, and an even fewer number of these folks are likely or probable candidates for the now vacant Speaker position. 

The logical conclusion to these realities is that there is a tragically slim chance that Rhode Island political culture will enjoy a much needed recovery following the election of a new House Speaker. Tragic because Mr. Fox's ignominious exit provides for such an immediate application to remedy Rhode Island political corruption. The Speakership lies at the center of this scenario and it is towards the upcoming, at-large election of a new Speaker by the House that we should focus our attention.  

Rhode Island government, politics, legislation, and the general public welfare all derive their health and vigor from the state leadership. More than most states of the U.S., Rhode Island legislators command and control the state's agenda. And no Rhode Island legislative leader is more influential, more powerful, or more vital to progress than the office of the Speaker of the House. That is why Speaker Fox's resignation is a gift, not an ill omen. In one fell swoop, the state has the chance not only to rid itself of an individual unfit to lead the state but also to fill his position with a leader who is both capable and willing to apply the powers of his office responsibly in order to to the rehabilitate Rhode Island's political culture.

So, to those electing a new one: forget the past and relegate the legacy and memory of Fox's Speakership -- his crimes, too -- to the very dustbin where they belong. Consider Rhode Island's future and act upon the opportunity before you to guarantee a positive conclusion to recent events. Your decision could affect a dramatically positive change, on the one hand, but it could cement the political status quo of today, on the other. Elect a professional. Vote for a Speaker who will engender healthy debate upon a legislative agenda that addresses pressing issues for Rhode Islanders. Elect a Speaker who will introduce sound legislation to the floor, who will subdue his or her political rhetoric and maneuvering, and who will temper the passions of his colleagues in the House rather than inflame them. Install a Speaker who will use his leadership role to instill an overriding sense of duty into his fellow representatives so that ordinary Rhode Islanders can once more trust in representative government. 

I want a Speaker elected who, more than anything else, allows me to feel proud of Rhode Island politics. Give us back our state! 

-Cato