• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Least favorite alt-history story?

If you make Sparta survive a bit longer, you got the Draka, but then a bit more realistic.


Well, not really. Despite their reputation, Sparta lost battles as often as they won them. They weren't the unstoppable military force, and they certainly didn't have the longevity of many powers, lasting at its peak for around one century.
 
Well, not really. Despite their reputation, Sparta lost battles as often as they won them. They weren't the unstoppable military force, and they certainly didn't have the longevity of many powers, lasting at its peak for around one century.
I say this as a guy who loves all that theme park machismo (Kratos, supersoldiers in Halo called Spartans, military tattoos of the Spartan Lambda... of which I have one of... The whole array of badass horseshit) but it's amazing how fucking good the PR department was for Sparta in the wake of Thermopylae considering that as a city-state, it was questionably stable at best, despite it's size, and were practically hated by everyone in Greece.

In military matters... sure they were one of the stronger land forces in Greek Antiquity but they also had Zero Navy to speak of and they were dogmatic in their doctrines to the point of rigid inflexibility which is how they got fucking shitstomped by Thebes at Leuctra. They only survived the Persian Invasion by throwing their lot in with Athens and they only won the Peloponnesian War by becoming a Persian Client State.

Again, I enjoy theme park Sparta as much as the next jumped up retired grunt, but the historian in me is baffled at how a relatively typical Greek Oligarchy with more slaves than normal and an isolationist diplomatic bent became known as literal Demigods in battle.

The best "modern" equivalent I can think of is if the Cape Colony became known for producing Super-soldiers.
 
Well... as Walter Bagehot put it:

It would be schoolboyish to explain at length how well the two great republics, the two winning republics of the ancient world, embody these conclusions. Rome and Sparta were drilling aristocracies, and succeeded because they were such. Athens was indeed of another and higher order; at least to us instructed moderns who know her and have been taught by her. But to the 'Philistines' of those days Athens was of a lower order. She was beaten; she lost the great visible game which is all that short-sighted contemporaries know. She was the great 'free failure' of the ancient world. She began, she announced, the good things that were to come; but she was too weak to display and enjoy them; she was trodden down by those of coarser make and better trained frame.
 
I say this as a guy who loves all that theme park machismo (Kratos, supersoldiers in Halo called Spartans, military tattoos of the Spartan Lambda... of which I have one of... The whole array of badass horseshit) but it's amazing how fucking good the PR department was for Sparta in the wake of Thermopylae considering that as a city-state, it was questionably stable at best, despite it's size, and were practically hated by everyone in Greece.

In military matters... sure they were one of the stronger land forces in Greek Antiquity but they also had Zero Navy to speak of and they were dogmatic in their doctrines to the point of rigid inflexibility which is how they got fucking shitstomped by Thebes at Leuctra. They only survived the Persian Invasion by throwing their lot in with Athens and they only won the Peloponnesian War by becoming a Persian Client State.

Again, I enjoy theme park Sparta as much as the next jumped up retired grunt, but the historian in me is baffled at how a relatively typical Greek Oligarchy with more slaves than normal and an isolationist diplomatic bent became known as literal Demigods in battle.

The best "modern" equivalent I can think of is if the Cape Colony became known for producing Super-soldiers.
And thus brings us neatly full circle back to the Draka.
 
Well... as Walter Bagehot put it:

It would be schoolboyish to explain at length how well the two great republics, the two winning republics of the ancient world, embody these conclusions. Rome and Sparta were drilling aristocracies, and succeeded because they were such. Athens was indeed of another and higher order; at least to us instructed moderns who know her and have been taught by her. But to the 'Philistines' of those days Athens was of a lower order. She was beaten; she lost the great visible game which is all that short-sighted contemporaries know. She was the great 'free failure' of the ancient world. She began, she announced, the good things that were to come; but she was too weak to display and enjoy them; she was trodden down by those of coarser make and better trained frame.

Bagehot, full of shit as usual. Athens lost a war with Sparta. Within one year, it overthrew the Sparta-imposed form of government. Within ten, it had rebuilt its fortifications and had resumed waging war on Sparta. It took part in Greek politics until Roman provincialisation and beyond, though not at the levels it previously enjoyed. It was rebuilt even after disasters, remained a centre for schooling and thought long beyond Sparta was an abandoned tourist curio. It remained one of the largest cities in the Eastern Mediterranean for centuries.

I won't even explore how absolutely insane it is to call the aristocracy the secret recipe for Rome's success when its expansions and propensity to conquest come after its constitution evolves to include more and more people as citizens as well as introducing the plebeians in its ruling class.
 
Bagehot, full of shit as usual. Athens lost a war with Sparta. Within one year, it overthrew the Sparta-imposed form of government. Within ten, it had rebuilt its fortifications and had resumed waging war on Sparta. It took part in Greek politics until Roman provincialisation and beyond, though not at the levels it previously enjoyed. It was rebuilt even after disasters, remained a centre for schooling and thought long beyond Sparta was an abandoned tourist curio. It remained one of the largest cities in the Eastern Mediterranean for centuries.
And even in our time, present-day Athens is the Capital of the Modern Greek nation-state with a population of four million, and is one of the most beloved cities in Modern Europe for tourism and archaeological/historical practices, as well as a large economic hub for the Eastern Mediterranean.

Present-day Sparta is a small town in Laconia with a population of less than 20,000 that mostly serves as a layover destination for those interested in seeing the ruins of the Ancient Spartan City State.

Nice little town and I'm not looking down on the people there or anything, but it it's pretty clear that the ancient rivalry's conclusion ended in an Athenian Victory.
 
Last edited:
And even in our time, present-day Athens is the Capital of the Modern Greek nation-state with a population of four million, and is one of the most beloved cities in Modern Europe for tourism and archaeological/historical practices, as well as a large economic hub for the Eastern Mediterranean.

Present-day Sparta is a small town in Laconia with a population of less than 20,000 that mostly serves as a layover destination for those interested in seeing the ruins of the Ancient Spartan City State.

Nice little town and I'm not looking down on the people there or anything, but it it's pretty clear that the ancient rivalry's conclusion ended in an Athenian Victory.
Does that mean that if next week a meteor wipes out Athens the Spartan's win the historical argument?

But also like Athens got pretty comprehensively crushed into dirt quite a few times, the usual for an ancient City, there were times when it was a small village. People moved back or got moved back by the power's that be, economic and military realities changed over decades and centuries.

Its something of a historical accident Athens came back as the unrivalled metropolis of Greece, in a world where Constantinople wasn't Istanbul or the Greek Revolt went differently or whatever then it could easily have remained just another place with an ancient name.
 
Does that mean that if next week a meteor wipes out Athens the Spartan's win the historical argument?

But also like Athens got pretty comprehensively crushed into dirt quite a few times, the usual for an ancient City, there were times when it was a small village. People moved back or got moved back by the power's that be, economic and military realities changed over decades and centuries.

Its something of a historical accident Athens came back as the unrivalled metropolis of Greece, in a world where Constantinople wasn't Istanbul or the Greek Revolt went differently or whatever then it could easily have remained just another place with an ancient name.
yeah I'm seeing a lot of words but the proof is in the pudding sir, no "well actually" here, especially since this is referring specifically to Bagehot.

Seriously though, and I know I sound a bit rude but... what exactly is the point of quoting me here? I'm not championing the infinite wisdom of the Athenian people or claiming it's a super special smart guy city, it got rolled a bunch over the centuries like any old city. it's just a rebuttal of the logic of an old essayist with a lot of fucked up opinions using his own logic (his business and economic doctrines) against him.
 
Last edited:
yeah I'm seeing a lot of words but the proof is in the pudding sir, no "well actually" here, especially since this is referring specifically to Bagehot.

Seriously though, and I know I sound a bit rude but... what exactly is the point of quoting me here? I'm not championing the infinite wisdom of the Athenian people or claiming it's a super special smart guy city, it's just a rebuttal of the logic of an old essayist with a lot of fucked up opinions using his own logic against him.
The gist of it is basically that the Athens of its day did get stomped by Sparta, then Thebes, then Macedonia, then Rome etc. As a system of government it did alright in a certain time period and poorly after and became a historical footnote for a while then came back and went away with the tide.

I honestly actually do not know who Bagehot is, don't particularly care either. Just think its kind of gets very silly to bring up Modern Athens existing and prospering when its literally a different city that stands on the ruins of Classical Athens and several other Athens afterwards. It just doesn't have any relevance to a city state rivalry thousands of years ago.
 
The gist of it is basically that the Athens of its day did get stomped by Sparta, then Thebes, then Macedonia, then Rome etc. As a system of government it did alright in a certain time period and poorly after and became a historical footnote for a while then came back and went away with the tide.

I honestly actually do not know who Bagehot is, don't particularly care either. Just think its kind of gets very silly to bring up Modern Athens existing and prospering when its literally a different city that stands on the ruins of Classical Athens and several other Athens afterwards. It just doesn't have any relevance to a city state rivalry thousands of years ago.
That's fair and I think we all know that it's silly to bring up arguments like mine if you're in a historical debate or publishing an article to be judged by peers, but I was coming at it from more of a philisophical standpoint since Walter Bagehot was arguing in a similar fashion.

For what it's worth I agree with you. sorry for getting snippy, it's been a long day.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top