Spartan Mora regiments at Battle of Plataea

[Paralus]

.......if Xenophon passed all too briefly over the Spartan defeat at Leuktra, he also passed over in equal brevity their victory at "The Tearless Battle" - perhaps recognition that there had been a 'sea-change' in Greece with the shattering of the "myth" of Spartan invincibility. The 'cat was out of the bag', and another Spartan victory would not restore it.

Absolutely on the latter. The “Tearless Battle” is something of an enigma. That Xenophon passes over it so quickly might indicate that it was not any great or momentous clash. Perhaps the enemy did break and run: Sparta was “backs-against-the-wall” and there is little point confronting a tiger pushed into a corner.

More likely is that Xenophon, by the time he came to write it, realised that it was of no consequence as it changed nothing. The reaction of the Spartans is telling though: as I wrote – one might be excused for thinking they’d just rerun Plataea or, more to the point, Mantinea 418.

An excellent and perspicacious post! .....the more so as I can find nothing to disagree with !!! D lol: :lol: :lol:

Most pleasant.

.... and a toast ( with an Aussie 'Cab Sav', naturally ) to healthy debate and good fellowship !! 8) 8)

Hmmmm, the last time we did that it became quite “Macedonian”….

In any event, Theban hegemony was short-lived. What is clearly demonstrated from that period is the power of the charismatic leader since without Pelopidas and then Epaminondas, Thebes soon slid back to its more usual role of Boiotian intrigues.

Yes the “top soldier” and Theban “Pericles”. The vision was Epaminondas’. He stands out starkly as wide-ranging thinker and strategic planner – the more so given the age was replete with strife and confusion. His opposite, Agesilaos, strikes me as not quite as “gifted”; more a case of “rat cunning”. He came within an ace of destroying his hated rival.

I suspect many Greeks in 335 [size=85:20f8g92y]BC[/size] were glad to see the back of Thebes even if it had briefly appeared to have some kind of pan-Hellenic pretentions (liberating Messenia etc.) in the previous generation. The post Persian War policy of punishing Medizers remained a issue with many who had been a part of the Hellenic League, and I can only assume Athens clearly remembered Thebes' own clamouring for the former's destruction after the Peloponnesian War - and was duly happy to stick the knife in when the time came.

That last was not ever forgotten. Athens, though, would use Thebes to her benefit when the opportunity presented: her hoplites were rather useful.

Pretensions to panhellenism were exactly that. Whilst the strategy of Epaminondas benefited the states of the Peloponnesus and can be seen in something of a panhellenic light, it was strictly business as usual for Epaminondas and Thebes. Thebes, like Macedonia after her, was not about to invest significant manpower attempting to control the turbulent and often violent Peloponnesian politics. Better to set up competing blocks, friendly “governments” and alliances and let them sort themselves out. Certainly several of the Boeotian towns saw little panhellenism in Theban policy. The Corinthians, too, could read the inscriptions carved on the stone.

What exactly Epaminondas planned to do with his navy we can only speculate though it is worth remembering that Athens was travelling down the slippery-dip of the "Social War" at the time. Build a fleet and neuter Athens' struggling Second Confederacy? Sounds just like Epaminondas to me...