The Hegemony of Sparta

769 Words4 Pages
Both Lysander and King Pausanias actions demonstrated their incapability to lead Sparta which consequently resulted in the ineffective leadership of Sparta as hegemon of Greece. Lysander was the dominant figure in Spartan politics presiding the fall of the Athenian Empire in 404 BC, and his and Sparta’s aim was a far as possible to secure Greek hegemony allowing for Spartan Imperial expansion. The ‘anomaly’ of Lysander’s dominance within Sparta’s military and political enterprises, traditionally governed by the Kingships, saw him exploit his foreign policy across the populas of the Aegean much to their discontent “The Spartans reckoned that they themselves, having defeated the Athenians, would now securely dominate the whole of Greece” (Thucydides 8.2.4). Lysander installed a brutal pro-Spartan oligarchy (known as ‘The Thirty Tyrants’) on Athens, reciprocating this system of government in other Greek states in order to suppress prevailing democracies. Installed to govern were pro-Spartan Harmosts, all supported by a garrison of troops who served under the orders of Lysander. Discontent between Lysander’s Aristocratic tyranny of government and the imperialised Aegean states saw various acts of rebellions including the launch of Thrasybulus’ coup against the Thirty Tyrants, resulting in their overthrowing and re-instalment of democracy to Athens. This acts of rebellion resulted from Lysander’s oppressive foreign policy. Furthermore, the naivety of Lysander was highlighted in his involvement in Persian politics by backing the campaign of Cyrus to overthrow his brother Artaxerxes and seize the Persian thrown. This ineffectiveness of the campaign was twofold; it resulted in the lost of Persian subsides, which would now fund revolts by Thebes and Corinth against Sparta, and for a time broke allied ties between Sparta and Persia who had helped them ascend to Imperial
Open Document