If the Spartans were so focuses on war and the military why didn't they conquer more lands and cities?
>>1257958
Because due to the nature of the Spartan state, they carried around an enemy with them, namely the Helots. (Who themselves mostly descended from locals they conquered)
Sparta was internally stable only so long as the army was there to quash any potential helot revolts, which meant that they couldn't go on long campaigns and leave them unattended.
Plus, as the Peloponesean war showed, even the non-professional Greek militaries weren't pushovers, and taking fortified positions is hard, and that quality advantage is mostly demonstrated in things like being able to march and charge in step, which doesn't mean much in 1 to 1 clashes atop a narrow wall when you try to bring up ladders (much more complicated siege equipment didn't yet exist in their part of the world) against defenders.
>>1257958
They had to be always at home watching over the neighbours they had enslaved and terrorized. It's what allowed them to be focused on war to begin with.
>>1257958
Cause they focused into war not conquest.
>>1257958
They were defence oriented. But even if they chose to go on the offensive and try to conquer places they didn't have enough Spartans to actually settle and maintain garrisons, so they would have had to extensively use local troops which would have probably rose up.
>>1257970
/thread
Spartans did take lands and slaves which is what became their home territory.
The problem came when their slave population massively outnumbered their citizens. As such they had to focus on keeping the locals in check rather than taking more land.
>>1257958
They cared more about taking slaves than taking land.
Sparta was a slightly more competent ancient version of North Korea
>>1258088
This. The Helots would have eaten the Spartans raw if they could.
>>1258088
Sparta fought to free other poleis from tyrants such as Hippias, and, unlike Athens, there never was a tyrant in charge of the polis during its entire history.
You don't see North Korea freeing people from tyrants, Sparta is its exact opposite.
>>1258128
>complete opposite
>both about ruling elite having power over very poor masses
I mean that guys dumb, they're not really alike, but they're far from complete opposites
>>1257958
Because they were basically ancient North Korea.
>>1257958
1) war doesn't always mean conquest. I believe all of the greeks idolized the 'manly' struggle to some extent.
2) Some modern scholars think the Spartans may have been the first city-state (in the West) to have a 100% professional army. This region in the era was filled with city states which had Hoplite Militias. Imagine how god-like a professional drilled army would appear to a bunch of "weekend warrior" potters, farmers, and smiths.
3) I assume you know about the Spartan Caste system, where at their peak 10,000 Spartan warriors were keeping something like 100,000 Helots in slavery so they could focus solely on war. Again, I don't think the Spartans were much into wars of conquest or founding an empire.
>>1258204
The Spartans did have a short lived empire after the Peloponisian war basically involving all victors, in the Peloponnese.
Eventually Thebes however challenged their supremacy and ended any of their ideas of Sparta regulating central Greece.
>>1258167
lelno
best korea is simply an annoying insect that will be completely wiped out of the face of the earth if they manage to do what they want and piss off the usa.
sparta on the other hand were probably the strongest nation in terms of warfare at their peak
they both share the same martial doctrines but the comparison between both are just laughable, if they had the same amount of people north korea has right now they would probably conquer the world.
>>1258249
T. 300 fanboy.
>>1258249
Are an autistic child or just american?
(pro tip nk fucked usa last time)
>>1257958
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War
but they did conquer and claim dominance over Greece.
Because they were afraid of meeting vikings.
>>1258128 >>1258204
As a polis they were basically Clint Eastwood from Gran Torino - foreign affairs rarely extended beyond "get off my lawn" or "get off my neighbor's lawn."
Basically. The Spartans weren't much for managing an empire. They were fine with their Hegemony and making sure no one fucked with them, their slaves, or their vassals/allies.
>>1258211
As a classics prof once hilariously said to me - "after Thebes, Sparta basically took their ball and went home...forever."
From that point on - save for a few reformist/Hellenistic leaning Kings, Sparta completely withdraws from any sort of meaningful foreign policy.
Shit, after the Peloponnesian war they gladly left the Ionian cities to go back to Persia because of how few fucks they gave about empire.
>>1258328
Nk fucked Sk last time, Sk + US fucked NK
NK + choina fucked US+ Sk
>>1258328
Summer /his/ sucks.
>>1257958
Because the best city in Greece in military terms is still only worth about 5 cities. Persia had, what, thousands?
Also, for much of its history it was an unfounded claim. They got their asses whooped by Thespians by the end.
>>1258328
you should be perma banned
>>1257958
Context of image
>>1259982
Uhh that war ended with the chinese getting pushed back across the 38th parallel.
>>1262111
Spartans in the metro.
They mad cause no regular stairs.
>>1257958
Nations focused on nothing but war always suck at it on a greater scale or at the very least at employing it to achieve something meaningful. Lasting conquests are not made by the excellency of your individual soldiers or the strategic genius of your generals but by the reliable manpower and economic output that's behind your war effort.
Pelopidas and company.
Also, that one cuck diplomat who gave up the Greek holdings in asia minor because he didn't like Agesilaus.
>>1257958
anti-interventionism
they didn't believe in conquest
>>1257958
9/10 people living within their borders were Helots, slaves.
Every Spartan man has killed one of their males.
This is why they are were a military state, retard.
#FreeMessenia
