Sacred Band of Thebes

[Paralus]

The Spartans (and other Greeks) would make use of Persian influence or money or even military activity as a lever against each other. That is true of course. Never so much as during either Peloponnesian war or uprisings against Makedonian Hegemony.

That might better be said the other way around. The Persians, after the diplomatic detente known as the Peace of Kallias, were far more intent on getting their own house into order. Even as the Peloponnesian War raged the Great King refrained from taking advantage of Athens' distraction. Spartan wavering over the terms of possible Persian aid (never telling "the same story") kept it that way until Athens' alarmingly stupid support of Amorges.

From the moment negotiations began between Sparta and Persia in 412, the Great king set about restoring his rule over the Asia Minor littoral. Once Sparta agreed to those terms the King's business was in keeping the Greeks "occupied" in Persia's interest. The "King's Peace" of 387 (originally negotiated in 392) was the end game of that diplomacy. Sparta would be "hegemon" and sign the peace with the King as his "policeman". The other States would also sign up and thus the mechanism for "controlling" the Greeks was set in place. Yes it broke down and wars eventuated - this did not bother the King so long as the policeman could interpret "autonomy" in its own interest and enforce same. All the while the Greeks of Asia settled back to their pre-Persian War vassal status.

It was this common peace that Thebes tried to organise in 367 and to which Thebes appealed in 335. The Persians, too, could do so in 334/3. Persian support of one side or the other always brought the major combatants to the table (Sparta in 392 and Athens in 388/7). The Greeks did indeed "make use of Persian influence or money or even military activity as a lever against each other"; that lever was, though, always Persia's.

I agree Spartan pan-Hellenism wavered from time to time. I agree all Greeks were self-interested (I think I said that before as a basic caveat) and the Spartans no less than anybody else.

Xenophon's idealism and his hero Agesilaos aside, I don't believe there were too many pan-Hellenists in Lacedaemon. Sparta was notoriously insular and Peloponnesian in its outlook. Her attempt at empire rudely showed up her unsuitability for such and eventually destroyed that long standing diplomatic construct (the Peloponnesian League) which had served her so well and for so long. Yes she led during the Persian invasion but that was a rather different matter. The danger over she retreated to her ancestral interests.

Despite her desultory Asian campaigning and Agesilaos' flag waving and treaty-making in the shadows of Cyrus' abortive rebellion, Sparta was never likely to lead any pan-Hellenic invasion of the East. She had very little choice in having a bet each-way with Cyrus as he'd financed Lysander's victory. With Cyrus dead the King took a wholly different view of his ally who'd clearly broken their alliance and reacted accordingly. If Sparta had forgotten whence came her backing for empire she was starkly reminded by the destruction of her naval power by a Persian fleet at Cnidus (this was not the only time the King would so remind his errant ally). With a resurgent Athens, financed by Persia and re-girt by long walls, Sparta "pulled her head in".