Spartan Mora regiments at Battle of Plataea

[Ghostmojo]

We agree and accept that the Spartan kings were not anything remotely approaching an autocratic monarch. In fact many commentators, even in ancient times, disputed if they were really kings at all (given their limited and prescribed powers). However, they were a form of advanced constitutional monarchs and the hereditary nature of their positions; the charisma that surrounded them; their divine roots; the ceremony that surrounded their deaths; the policy about who rose and who remained seated in their presence, and indeed who was even allowed to touch them; all points towards the accepted trappings of royalty. But having said all of that, the state still firmly stipulated their existence as the monthly exchange of oaths between both kings and ephors indicates, and the nine-yearly watching of the heavens for signs of kingly wrongdoing emphasises. That, and the periodic expulsion of kings who had become too big for their Spartan sandals.

I suppose it depends just how much weight you attach to this last word, and at which particular point (historically and specifically) you choose to emphasise it. I don't think Cartledge's objections are solely based upon the Kleomenes/Damaratos affair - the other examples of a king being seemingly instructed/appointed/directed by a power base apart from himself (although possibly including himself) indicate supporting reasons. As I say there are the recorded examples of the assembly and or ephors apparently directing events with Kleombrotos I against Thebes in 371 [size=85:244ejpq7]BC[/size]; King Pausanias against Athens; and even the highly autocratic Kleomenes I against Athens in 510 [size=85:244ejpq7]BC[/size].

Agesilaos II could possibly be the closest thing Sparta ever produced approaching a pan-Hellenic uber-leader - marshalling support throughout the Greek world for his activities in Asia Minor, but even he was subject to recall. Ultimately the Kings' assured place in things was secured by the 'Lykourgan' balanced system. Sparta's unique timocracy/timarchy which combined elements of monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy and even democracy; prescribed the kings' role as largely military - but they also had judicial, limited bureacratic and considerable religious importance. As with many aspects of the Spartan mirage - I think this dyarchic imperative as military arbiter was nominal at best even if it really existed in practical reality. One of the reasons for the continuence of the two houses was to prevent one or other becoming too powerful - and since the Agiads and Eurypontids were usually at odds with each other - if a king was final arbiter; which one was it and who selected him?