Were the Spartans actually great warriors or did they just have

>>33968359
Why is a Greek guy using a Falcata?

>>33968359
>what is battle of thermopoli
>what is Roman battle field reports
>what are historical Greek texts and accounts

>>33968365

Its a kopis

>>33968375

Greek accounts tell of Spartans losing like bitches to Thebans, Athenians and Macedon

>>33968359
they were the first "professional" army. but they have been overhyped in modern culture. they were not seen as extremely exceptional by their peers.

>>33968365
Because its a kopis.

>>33968359

Why didn't people just stab at the Spartan's feet?

>>33968544
Because people were kept at bay by Spartan spears.

>>33968359
They were probably hands down better in much earlier periods of hoplite warfare (maybe like 800ish BC).

However as >>33968387 pointed out, they got their ass handed to them plenty of times by other Greeks from about 400 BC and onwards.

As for how they compared to other peoples, that's a pretty long answer, but they'd likely fare well against the vast majority of peoples from a defensive war by invader standpoint. "People say what about X", but fail to realize they list a couple nations in a particular time out of dozens upon dozens or more in a moderate sized region.

They couldn't ever do anything like Alexander could, because they were always worried about their slaves revolting for one, and even more so they were one of the least innovative people of all time, in all aspects but especially warfare.

File: download.jpg (14KB, 271x186px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 271x186px

>500 B.C
> not using motorized warfare of the day


what cucks

>>33968615

>Greece
>possessing terrain becoming of Cavalry actions of any sort beyond very small recons

Stop

>>33968622
Persia had mountains too and still got fucked by the long cock of the Scythians

>>33968661
>What is the Persian plateau

>>33968359
In early greek history they stood out as the strongest city state in the region. Even alexander the great decided not to risk invading them, even though at that point they had already declined quite a bit.

Spartan males pretty much lived within their unit, there was a strong sense of cameraderie and that cohesion was very important for phalanx to be an effective formation. They were pretty much a permanent standing army, With neighbouring populations enslaved to work the fields. There were two big issues, the slave population was constantly on the brink of revolt, and for a spartan male to be consider a full spartan citizen he had to be able to afford paying for himself in food and other goods. Over centuries the retarded spartan inheritance laws meant that a plot of land would be divided between sons, and eventually this lead to the entire spartan system collapsing because fewer and fewer could maintain their status as full-time spartan.

They were feared by the other greeks for a long time, but eventually declined Beyond recovery. Propaganda didn't exist in that sense at the time either, the modern boner everyone has can be attributed to greekabo historians of the renaissance, then later hollywood blowing it out of proportion.

>>33968908
>Alexander the Great decided not to risk invading them

I hope not
His father already conquered them

>>33968927
I'm at work and can't be assed to write a full paragraph about why you are wrong. Here you go;
>Sparta never fully recovered from the losses that the Spartans suffered at Leuctra in 371 BC and the subsequent helot revolts. Nonetheless, it was able to continue as a regional power for over two centuries. Neither Philip II nor his son Alexander the Great attempted to conquer Sparta itself.

>>33968359
It's been turned into something different by popular culture since the 300 comic.

Before that, spartan used to mean something ascetic, not homoerotic badassery. What made them special is how they shunned material wealth and comfort, more so than their martial prowess.

>>33968359
They were good but had no ability to replenish their losses. By the time they got their asses kicked by Thebes there were only a few hundred true-born Spartans left and they were controlling things mostly on reputation at that point.

>>33968576
People forget that they treated their slave sooo badly that they were constantly worried about revolt. They would stop successful campaigns all the time just to go back to stop or head off another revolt.

>>33968359
If Frank Miller hadn't existed, you wouldn't be asking this retarded question.

Because Spartan warriors were the first full time warriors in Greece who trained and drilled consistently. On the battlefield they were disciplined and worked together in their formations. Other Greek city states called up militias during war and so the men in them weren't always at the peak of physical condition, and simply didn't practice war as much. They also built a culture of war, and what a warrior can and cannot do.
As soon as city states like Thebes started using professional units they BTFO Sparta.

In "Greek warfare: myths and realities" hans van weese argues that the Spartans weren't extra special, they were just the only ones who practiced warfare at all, making them stand out among amateurs.

>>33970032
This is largely the extent of it. Because they could practice more far more often, they were more effective in earlier years of hoplite warfare. Overtime militias were probably able to be trained more effectively so even sparing training here and there helped close the gap. Other city states would usually fair somewhat poorly against Spartans in battles, but within a 2+ battles would be beating them or roughly breaking since they weren't so fresh.

Spartans also were mostly comprised on helots, which were not slaves but sort of 'in betweens' between them and their slave population. So if there were say 20,00 troops fielded by Sparta, maybe only like 2,500 would actually be Spartans.

Lastly, other city states were far far FAR more likely to adopt other methods of warfare that were deemed 'less honorable' or of status of lower classes who couldn't afford hoplite armor. The Athenians in particular made very to good effect peltasts in the later half of the Peloponesian War, I believe they also employed more archers and slingers as well.

If you want to look at one of the most deadly forces in Greek history look up Jason of Phyrae. He was the son of some arisotcrats in Thessaly (although of a lesser powerful family), but used his funds and very talented leadership and rhetoric skills to try and unite Thessaly and conquer Greece. He very likely would have succeeded had he not been assassinated. Anyway, he realized that both a more balanced army was needed compared to what the rest of Greece was using, and that much more important than numbers was training. He'd give 2x, 3x or even 4x pay to soldiers who showed excessive determination in training and battle and soon had an small-medium sized army composed of nothing but elite soldiers and literally decimated anyone he ran across. Like absolute slaughters, everyone was terrified of someone employing his mercenary army to help their side in the war.

>>33968359
They are famous for getting wiped out.

>>33970424
they killed thousands of taliban

Imagine this
>You're a greek equivalent of a roman Principe
>Even though you're technically "the best" you were forcefully drafted into the army a couple weeks ago
>With what little money you have from selling farmstuff you have bought very basic armor
>After marching for half a month, you finally meet your opponent and get into your formation
>It's a rag-tag group of sobs, most with far worse armor than you
>The only military experience you have is a few years as lowly shitter who maybe saw combat a few times but was never actually in it
>Your opponent forms himself into solid formations and march in sync
>Complete coordination on their part while your side is essentially just a giant wall
>Every single Spartan has full metal kit, standardized weapons, and is a complete muscle-bound freak who have decades of combat experience and training
Doesn't take much for some peasants to freak out and start routing. Basically, what the others above me have said: they were tactically and logistically more advanced than other warring nations but their warrior society and "survival of the fittest" attitude also contributed

>>33970418
con't

This is largely want the Spartans were, but to a far lesser extent because only a small portion of the army were actual Spartans, and they were VERY against any change to what their forefathers left them in every aspect of life, including military tactics.

There's an interesting exchange between a Spartan captain (or general I forget) and some athenian generals and captains about the use of bows and slingers being the marks of a unhonorable and pathetic men, to which the Athenians roughly replied with a smirk that the fact remains the honorable Spartans were killed and yet the Athenians who employed such things lived and thrived.

When Rome was taking over Greece none of them adapted quickly enough, but the Spartans put up the most resistance to their fighting style and did worse than a lot of other city states who had far lesser reputation for war than them.

>>33968359
They were great fighters. Same bitch who probably says "lol Marines weren't good fighters" just propaganda...

No idiot. They were great fighters. Maybe crack open a book instead of watching the movie 300. I'm not doing much today. If you need further enlightenment I'm here.

>>33968359
They were very good during their prime. They were the only standing professional army in existence. The other greek hoplites were only a militia. This changed later in time, with many city states creating standing or semi-standing forces, and often hiring those forces out as mercenaries to not only pay for themselves, but also gain experience. This lessened Sparta's advantage in skill, but that's not to say that it disappeared entirely. Some people are talking about "kicking the Spartan's asses", but let's be real here, it'd be strange if the Spartans DIDN'T lose battles on occasion.

File: 200_s.gif (14KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x200px

>be 12
>teachers divide class into Greek city states as a history lesson
>get put in based Athens
>mfw Sparta-shits lose every game we played

The War Nerd had a lot to say about the Spartans - none of it good. The original article is behind a paywall, but I found someone who copy/pasted it in some forum, so you can read it here:

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?319163-The-War-Nerd-on-300&s=501c182943cc75235b9277fbaf041bc7

>>33968615
I think horses were still too small at that time for anything besides chariot

>>33970943
You'd be horrifically wrong and this shows your lack of knowledge of history. Now, at that particular point they weren't as big as later horses, this didn't mean they weren't used as cavalry. In fact, the Persians were known for their cavalry. Instead, the horse couldn't carry as heavily equipped a rider or wear much armor for itself. Hence, horsemen tended not to carry shields or wear metal armor.

>>33970943
>horses were too small
>Herodotus literally tells of Scythian horse archers fucking up the Assyrians, Medes and Persians every now and then.

pls go

>>33970455
>and they were VERY against any change to what their forefathers left them in every aspect of life, including military tactics.
Another example of this is the fact that the Thebans destroyed a Spartan force by having the ingenious new tactics of "deeper ranks with longer spears". Something like an 80 man deep phalanx clashed with a Spartan phalanx that was 12 ranks deep, and they had only recently gone to 12 ranks.
The Spartan warrior class was proficient for sure, but the Spartan state only produced a few thousand "true" Spartans for war, and once they got massacred they were left with relatively shitty troops drawn from their slaves and helots.

>>33968359
>Were the Spartans actually great warriors

Yes, because they were full time, and not part time like the rest of the city-states. That meant they trained all year round, and not just during campaign season, or just before a fight.

Interestingly enough, the Spartans were usually placed on the right side of the fighting formation, which was considered the place of "honor", reserved for the best units because the entire formation dressed to the right. Put a shitty unit on the right, and they fall back, and you lose the integrity of your formation, making it easier for the enemy to disrupt you. Since the Spartans were always on the right, that means they were most often pitted against the WORST fighting formations of their Greek enemies, that were always put on the left side of the formation. The fact that the Spartans beat the shit out of a lot of losers helped increase their reputation.

Towards the end of Spartan dominance in Greece, one of the Greek leaders decided to put his best formation on the left, rather than the right, which meant they faced the Spartans, and they won the fight as a result.

Regardless, professionals that train consistently are almost always going to have an advantage over those that don't, and that's why the Spartans were so much better than their peers.

File: Peloponnesian_war_alliances_431_BC.png (33KB, 482x747px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 482x747px

>>33968359

They conquer Athens at some point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

Great historic read.

>>33968359
Certainly they were amazing warriors but ultimately numbers and general strategy beat out amazing tactics and quality. That's the sad truth.

The Spartans killed hundreds of thousands of rank and file troops with pikes.
Tactics

The Persians accounted for that and still won at a later date by seeing their men as an expendable commodity
Strategy

>>33968359
So called "warrior cultures" tend to suck at actually winning wars, despite having a fearsome reputation.

>>33968359
They make the Mongols look weak and they make the Talibans look non threaten

They are fierce as fuck and they are selected through birth and judged upon being born on whether they should live or die and from the day of being allowed to live they are trained nonstop from childhood all the way to adulthood and are expected to never surrender period.

So you tell me.

>>33972450
Hollywood logic right here

>>33968359
Yes and no. The spartan warriors of the day were top notch and far and away the best soldiers in Greece, but the city-state itself had a ton of problems that came with this elite force.
1.) To train as much as they did (No other force trained as much as they did) they had to rely on Helots to do the work. They basically lived in fear of Helot rebellions and this really made them stay near home and when they did go abroad, they came home really quickly.
2.) The cost to train this army that was essentially all middle class in an era without a middle class meant that their army was never all that big.
3.) This emphasis of Spartan hoplites meant they never had a navy, which cities like Athens could field with their much larger population and use of the lower class

Luckily, they had Hegemony over the Peloppenesian League and brought them into every war with them. Effectively, they did very well during general phalanx warfare, but after many wars, especially the Peloppenesian War, the spartan populace had been bled too much to field many full spartans and by the time of Philip II, the army was too small and tactically too inflexible to deal with the combined arms approach of Philip II and the peltasts of the Thebans to project power and accepted Macedonian rule without a fight.

>>33973585
>This emphasis of Spartan hoplites meant they never had a navy,
That's incorrect. Sparta actually beat Athens at the navy game during the Pelopponesian War. And they had always had a substantial navy, if not usually the equal of the Athenian.

File: Mariusz_Kozik_04.jpg (285KB, 1920x1056px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1920x1056px

>>33968359

Sparta was definitely the strongest Greek City-State in terms of it's military.

The reason why Sparta failed was her resistance to change. While the rest of the Hellas were advancing in tactics and technology in warfare, Sparta kept her dedication to the Hoplite infantry. Spartan heavy infantry had not changed since her birth and to her downfall.

I'm a historian.

>>33973676

*Spartan heavy infantry & tactics had not changed...

>>33973676


The strongest may survive, for a while. It's the ones who can adapt will flourish.

>>33973662
False, it was the spartan side in the Peloppenesian war that beat Athens at sea, but not Sparta. Sparta itself had a navy, manned mostly by Perioikoi, but relied on its allies in the war for naval conflict. The spartan side initially didn't have the navy to defeat Athens, instead ravaging the Attic countryside while Pericles kept Athens imported grain from the Delian League. It wasn't until Pericles died and Athens pushed out and especially after the disastrous Sicilian campaign that the Athenians were bled enough to lose supremacy of the waves.

>No one linked this for this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurpA8m91nw

File: fate of empires characteristics of the outburst are energy and courage.png (221KB, 1161x922px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1161x922px

>>33973731
This. The Fate of Empire rules apply here

>>33968391
It's not like their peers were much better. Most of those city states failed because they spent so much time, effort, to attack their own people in subtle ways that the people they relied on to defend them physically was a very small pool of candidates with a whole lot more of people that had interest in them failing.
Sparta seemed more like some kind of psychotic experiment in trying to turn that small group into sociopaths.

>>33968980
Sparta was a declining city-state in Alexander's time. He didn't invade them because it wasn't worth his time. When he went East, he invited all of the Greek city-states but Sparta, humiliating them and denying them the honor of war.

The whole "If" bullshit was also a bluff by the Spartans. Think, the Black Knight from Monty Python. Sparta, in Hellenic times, were only holding onto their reputation from Classical times. They were a shell of their former glory.

>>33974863
>He didn't invade them because it wasn't worth his time
He didn't invade them because Philip had already secured all of the greek city-states as vassals. He didn't need to conquer them utterly because that simply wasn't how things happened in that time. The persians had just established each new kingdom as satrapies and Alexander took them over as a continuation of Darius's rule. He may have "invited the other city-states" but his army was the macedonian one and wasn't seen as a greek army. In fact, after Philip died, he had to invade the city states, because they revolted. This would repeat with Antipater after Alexander's death. Sparta being notably absent because you are correct with Sparta being much weaker than it's pre-pelopennesian war state, but it should be realized that its helot problem meant that Sparta was a lot weaker in projecting power, keeping them out of a lot of local politics, but they were still plenty strong enough to defend themselves pretty damn well if the Peloponnese was invaded

>>33975113
I agree with your points. I meant to emphasize that between Sparta and Macedon, Alexander would have wiped the floor with them.

>>33972264

Rome....

>>33968544
They did. Leg and foot wounds are fairly common in ancient battlefield graves.

Can we just appreciate the delicious irony of the oppressive, slave owning Spartans being re-written by holllywood jews as noble white men fighting brown Persian (middle eastern) hordes in defense of democracy at the height of the Iraq war? I had friends in the army who were all about Spartans and 300 to a fucking dumb extent until I pointed that out to them.

>>33977858
If you really want to be this anachronistic, you're probably too retarded to understand history. No society in history was perfect. At best, there were instances of high progress. Either way, this was a fucking movie.

What most people don't seem to realize is that Sparta was wholly focused on defense. There were 10,000 ish Spartans, dedicated to keeping the slaves they conquered in line, and neighbors outside.

Sparta fucking sucked. sure they won stunning defensive victories, but they never expanded beyond what they already had because they basically couldn't due to the way the state was set up. Chances are, you are born a helot, and hate your life. you might be born a perioikoi who basically ran the economy and had a normal life, but actual Spartans got "mentored" by older Spartans, to the point that other Greeks joked that they didn't know how to have sex with their wives (gross, pre-basic hygiene butt sex). They essentially failed at dominating Greece militarily so they moved on to failing diplomatically.

Spartas best equivalent is North Korea, though less retarded of course. They had a system that worked, that was focused on isolationism, and shockingly it just became less viable as the world moved on (obviously the comparison isn't 1:1, Sparta really was a major power in Greece for a long time).

What made the Spartans great for their time was twofold:

-They were professionals
-They had the hype and reputation of invulnerability and stoic endurance which meant anyone else was more liable to break with the othismos push of phalanx to phalanx because "those spartan faggots aren't going to break and I don't want to die".

Once other people started to do the gnostic secret mystery of actually training themselves the first advantage was lost, once the Spartans were proven to be god-kings who could bleed the second was lost. And when one let alone two of those advantages were lost all of a sudden the Spartans disadvantages in their society/system/organization/doctrine became so significant and severe they were not the best but arguably the worst off.

All the monastic lifestyle element to their upbringing is really worth fuck all because city-dwellers or farmers given enough standard training manage to completely rival them and do not require creating a state-system akin to North Korea in anachronism and isolation to pull it off

Sparta is pretty sad in modern day. There are no ruins or relics like in every other Greek city. Just a fucking statue.

>>33968359
When? Because their Army was vastly different at different times.

During the Peloponnesian war they were most tactically proficient, well led, and well moraled hoplites in Greece.

A few generations later they were a shadow of their former selves, drained from suppressing helots and defeated in battle by Theben deep phalanx tactics (which with the adoption of pikes became the Macedonian tactics that conquered persia), and A hundred years after that weren't even a minor threat to the Roman conquest of Graecia

>>33971460
The right side of the battle line was reserved for the best because that's the side without shields, and is especially vulnerable to flanking maneuvers

>>33968359
>Leuct
They got completely destroyed at Sphactyria (and throughout most of the Peloponnesian War) and at Leuctra. Also, at Thermopylae :^)

>>33968375
>300 meme

>>33970444
>>You're a greek equivalent of a roman Principe
In terms of armor, sure.
In terms of training, no.

>>33975352
Romans were soldiers, not warriors.

Warrior societies train warrior classes whose purpose in life is to fight. Their upbringing was built for the specific purpose of war.

Soldier societies train soldiers over a much shorter period of time. Their life largely didn't prepare them for war, so the training must be especially tough to condition the men into soldiers.

>>33968359
Sure, the actual Spartans were. But remember that they numbered no more than about 2,000 at their height. Actual army composition varied depending on the campaign and time period with many later armies being composed primarily of a mix of Perioeci, Helots and Spartan allies all fighting under Spartan officers.

File: HOMO.png (502KB, 700x516px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 700x516px

>>33977886
>Autism

>>33968359
Warriors yes, but as a military country they were meh. Stupidly small numbers

>>33968359
Skill of individual warriors means almost nothing in warfare.

>>33982600
Wrong.

1000 retards can indeed overrun 10 good men, but 100 can't.

>>33982636
If by retards you mean starving peasants with no training equipped only with farming equipment, that might be true. Being outnumbered 10 to 1 is some serious shit

Spartans were black.

>>33968359
Having a majority of your country as slaves and the rest as the army to keep them in line doesn't work too well once you actually have to actually fight a war.

>>33968359

>Were the Spartans actually great warriors

Yes. They trained very hard from early childhood, and were respected by everyone else for their skill both in fighting, and strategy.

>But Sparta lost [this battle]! Sparta btfo!!!!

The vast majority of people in a Spartan army weren't Spartans.
Spartans were too few in number.
Their slave and non-citizen economy made it almost impossible for them to expand, and their traditions made it almost impossible for them to get more Spartan citizens.

>>33982670
>If by retards you mean...

...militia, or the standard apathetic conventional force trained by their incompetent and egomaniacal officer corps to meet the bare minimum of standards in order to check the block of some retards idea of a combat readiness checklist matrix.

Maybe 1 in 10 conventional Joes are actually worth a fuck, but the rest are usually garbage.

>>33982600
But most of what made Sparta good was that they were so well disciplined and worked together very well...

For the time, really.

>>33982770
>Maybe 1 in 10 conventional Joes are actually worth a fuck, but the rest are usually garbage.
"“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
-Heraclitus

The Greeks recognized this. The phalanx actually accounts for this by design. All of your best and bravest men should be at the front of the formation, where they can fight. Your worst men should be somewhere in the middle of the formation, where they can't run away, because they are surrounded by their fellow soldiers. Regardless, those in the rear generally won't feel like they need to run very much, because they're far away from the front lines where all the danger is.

>>33982770
Like I said, what you're referring to is pretty redundant and meaningless if we're talking 10 to 1 ratio. Life is not some comedy film where "incompetent" means "whoops I just tripped over my own sword and killed three of my comrades in the process"

>>33982858
>Life is not some comedy film where "incompetent" means "whoops I just tripped over my own sword and killed three of my comrades in the process"

No, "life" is not taking the time to aim, or being shit at shooting because you're not trained, or because you're too apathetic to learn, or too incompetent to properly zero your weapon. It's not using cover and concealment, exposing yourself, or your entire element to direct fires. It's not being able to coordinate your fires with your maneuver element. It's using the same assault positions and routes that failed to succeed before, or falling for the same baited ambush over and over again. It's allowing yourself to be fixed or channelized by obstacles. It's using poor target selection, getting fixed in place, and destroyed by well placed direct fires, indirect fires, and close air support.

That's the real fucking world.

>>33975352
>>33980553
I think it was actually Von Clausewitz, the "first" Western military theorist that said that civilized societies use strategy, doctrine and training to overcome the natural ferocity of "warrior cultures" and tend to win out over them.

>>33982978
Cool story, but we were talking about ancient warfare

>>33983032
>What is Thermopylae.
>What is Gaugamela.

So was I.

>>33983244
So the Greeks had adjustable sights on their bows? and they didn't use volley fire?

>>33983292
New anon here, technically the Greeks didn't really use bows much at all.

>>33983394
want to chime in about the skill vs numbers thing we were talking about?

>>33983425
I said my piece here >>33982850

There might be a few absolute retards, but the damage they can do is minimal given the nature of the phalanx. Most joes will perform well enough to not muck things up, but they're not going to win you the battle.

Now, there is a certain truth that the more depth a phalanx has, the more likely it is to win. Some people hypothesize that means winning an actual pushing match. I'm not necessarily certain I'd agree with a literal pushing match, but we can be certain that it usually helped. However, it wasn't a certainty. Shallower phalanxes were known to beat deeper ones. That likely had something to do with the quality of the men in the smaller phalanx, at least those on the front line.

File: muhmines.jpg (106KB, 634x501px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 634x501px

>>33968375
>thermopoli
had like 7000 Greeks with them. The Greeks leave when they find out the Persians can cut them off. Spartans stay because muh honor and all die.

>>33983679
Spartans stayed to hold off the Persians and allow the other Greeks to escape you retard.

>>33983679
Moreso as a rearguard action. And don't forget the guys the Spartans forced to stay behind and help.

>2476 years for the Thespians to get a single plaque

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae#Thespian_monument
>"In memory of the seven hundred Thespians."

>>33983292
No, the Greeks used the incompetence and inferiority of their enemies against them.

We're done, here, skippy.

>>33983901
Other anon here, you didn't make that argument in the slightest. If you wanted to, you didn't convey that. But not quite. The Greek way of warfare was entirely different to the Persian. It was two different systems clashing. The Persians lacked heavy infantry in sufficient numbers. The Greek forte was shock tactics with heavy infantry. The Persians were ill equipped to deal with them.

>>33975352
Very militaristic compared to most large civilizations, but not what most would call a "warrior" culture, like zulus, iroquois, pashtuns.

Hell, most of the barbarians that rome consistently beat the tar out of had more of a warrior tradition.

What Rome had was the economy and population to support a large professional army, the technology to arm it and the logistical know how to keep it in the field. A far more useful combination.

>>33975204
from what I remember Alexander knew that his army could take Sparta but to do so would mean you'd have to commit to fighting mostly everyone in the damn place which could have lead to a decent amount of losses, plus after the outcome it'd have ment likely keeping a sizable amount of soldiers stationed there to keep shit from hitting the fan once the main units moved on..

Basically it was just easier to just keep the peace with Sparta

>>33985067
>>33985067
This. Retards always seem to think that having the biggest, scariest, most battle hardened motherfuckers in the world in your army is the key to success. But if you look at any historically significant empire, they didn't always have the baddest motherfuckers fighting for them, but they had the numbers, and the tactics, and most importantly the logistics to keep all that shit in the field. Armies win by fighting smarter, not harder.