Hippeis, not Hippies

[Paralus]

A very different thing than the scenario you presented: "Both of the former two might easily have sacked Sparta" [...] Phillip did not fight his way into Thebes. By this logic, Hannibal "might easily have sacked Rome." Clearly beating an army in the field and having a polis handed to you by the remaining faction of its citizens is not the same as taking a city by storm. Doson did not take the city of Sparta by assault.

I do not wish to hijack the thread so I will be short and final.

Firstly, Philip, had he the time or interest in investing and taking Sparta, will not have shied from it due to any fear of defeat or difficulty. He'd not done so at any other time in his carrer and the man who'd taken Amphipolis, Methone and Olynthus would not start here. He'd far more engaging issues to attend to including, but not limited to, an Hellenic League to set up, a marriage and 10,000 Macedonians and mercenaries he wanted off to Asia. Alexander too will have invested Sparta had he the time and inclination. He too had far more important matters at the time of his elevation to the throne (the 10,000 aforementioned and revolts to name two).

Doson had no need of "taking Sparta by storm" just as Philip had no such need for Thebes: both were completely destroyed militarily in the field and there was no further resistance. The mantra that Doson "never took Sparta by storm" is a comforting straw man for those who wish to promote the continued "inviolate" state of Sparta in antiquity. Plutarch records some 6,000 dead (this might likely be an exaggeration; Polybios says they "suffered severely"). Plutarch says Cleomenes advised the Spartans (the ephors one imagines) not to resist. Polybios states that Antigonus "having surprised and taken Sparta" treated the city humanely.

There was no "storming" for the Macedonian phalanx had already stormed Sparta at Sellasia: there was nothing to resist with and so Sparta suffered complete and utter defeat and occupation.