Alcibiades

Theban general and statesman who led Thebes out of Spartan subjugation,and into pre-dominant position in Greece.Victor at famous Battle of Leuctra,one of the most important battles of inter-conflicts of Greek states.

Invented and implemented for first time several major battlefield tactics(oblique order,refusing of a wing).It was Epaminondas,more than any other Greek of 4th century(excluding Macedonians)who reshaped the political map of Greece.

Sparta was for the first time defeated by a numerically inferior enemy.Enemy army for the first time came to the outskirts of Sparta(city).He formed Arcadian League.He freed Messenians after centuries of slavery and formed for them a state.By putting these two new political unions,he forever delegated Sparta to a 2nd class power.

Howerer,at the time of his death,Thebes was no longer effectively predominant power in Greece,and,it could be argued that the wars of 371-362 BC left the doors wide open for Philip and Macedonians for conquest of Greece.Only a quarter of a century after his death Thebes was destroyed.

What is your opinion on this fascinating(if largely forgotten,at least among general public)figure?How does he ranks as a general,statesman,philosopher?How important was he for the greater picture,and for subsequent events.Why do you think he is so underestimated today?
Alcibiades

okamido

Epaminondas was the right man at the right time, but certain factors should be noted. Even though the Spartans led a slightly larger numerical force, they in fact were highly undermanned, and this was the reason for the invention of the "oblique" formation. It most likely was not some great leap in innovation rather than a quick adaption to a tactical observation. Pack your left side, rather than the traditional right, in order to overpower the heavily undermanned Spartan contingent. Once they break, the remaining Spartan allies flee out of a fear of something they have never seen or even heard of before, a true Spartan defeat.

Sargon of Akkad

I think we should give credit where it is due. Epaminondas was a great general, he clearly understood how phalanx warfare was conducted and he knew his enemy. Sparta was an old dog that had learned no new tricks, and Epaminondas knew how to break them.

Freeing the helots was probably not out of some great humanitarian effort, but from political expediency. And he was really the thing holding Thebes together.

We have to remember that Philip II of Macedon was raised in Epaminondas' house, and probably learned most of his knowledge of warfare from him. Thus, he entirely did pave the way for the Macedonian conquest of Greece.

That he would destroy Thebes implies that he must have disliked his time there, IMO.

okamido

I am not sure that "great" should actually be applied. I stand by my assessment that he was in command at the right time to earn him a place in history. Sparta was on its last legs militarily as it could no longer field enough Spartiates to make a difference in the battle. The Peloponnesian War, Agesilaus's Persian Campaigns, the Corinthian War, plus all of the intermittent conflicts thereabouts, just took too much out of them.

I don't want it to really seem like I am denegratinng Epaminondas, but I truly believe any competant commander, leading the forces he had, could have achieved the same results. It should also be noted, that after two invasions of the Peloponnese, the Thebans achieved very little outside of severing the Messenians from the Spartans, and actually high-tailed it out of there when word came that the Syracusans set sail to reinforce Sparta.

Alcibiades

The fact that he lived at the right time doesn't mean that he wasn't a great general.

True.

I will have to respectfully disagree.Up until Leuctra,Spartans showed no signs of fatal flaws and fatigue(despite fielding too little Spariates).After all,he was the first in more than 500 years to defeat Spartans with a smaller army.

I will also have to wholeheartedly disagree that anyone could have won that battle.No.I daresay that,if Spartans had faced any other Greek army AND any other commander of that time,they would have either won or it would have been a draw.His battlefield tactics were a work of a genius.Don't forget the role the cavalry played in that victory.

This is where you are most wrong.Severing Messenians(and forming their state),as well as forming Arcadian League(all Epaminondas's work)was THE fatal blow that insured that Spartans would forever remain 2nd rate power AT BEST.He did more to destroy Spartan power than all the wars in the last 30 years(from Peloponnesian War onward)combined.I mean,he got them so weakened that ATHENIANS managed to make a better showing at the Battle of Mantinea(362 BC).Of three principal contestants,Spartans were the worst.
Alcibiades

Alcibiades

Don't be a new Xenophon,and demonise and denigrate every Spartan enemy just because you admire them,Okamido.
Alcibiades

Mandate of Heaven

I thought it was Alexander that destroyed Thebes.

okamido

Any competant commander, especially Pelopidas by himself, would have been able to defeat Cleombrotus I. He was anything but a skilled commander. In fact, Sparta never really fielded a truly efficient commander after Lysander. Even one of my favorites, Agesilaos, was not up to the par of the past.

Onto the second part of that sentence. Again, out of 11,000 men fielded by the Spartan side, there was possibly as few as 700 Spartiates. When faced with the larger force of Sacred Band, they just didn't have a chance. The true battle was between the Spartiates and a larger force of determined Sacred Band. This was the only decisive aspect of this battle, everything else was ancillary. Saying that, the cavalry on the Boeotian side was extremely effective and sliced off Cleombrotus's only chance to take the initiative.


You like to tell people they are wrong quite a bit, don't you? However, nothing I said was wrong, you simply didn't understand me. I wasn't speaking about the hamstringing of the Spartan economy, I was talking about the obvious apprehension in attempting to take Sparta proper. After so much put into attempting to persuade Lysander to destroy Athens and enslave its citizenry, it is odd that no movement was made od Sparta itself.

okamido

If you reread my second post, I think I stated that I wasn't denegrating him? In past threads, many moons ago, I have spoken up for Epaminondas, and I really like Pelopidas as I stated in the post preceding this one. Also, you will take note of my utter disdain of Cleombrotus I and acknowledgement of Agesilaos abilities, cunning..yes, great...no.

I just don't understand why everybody is a "genius" and everyone is "great". Epaminodas was a competant General moving against lesser men with a weaker force. It is also irrelevant if Cleombrotus fielded a couple of thousand men more than Epaminodas. I am sure Miltiades, Leonidas, and Alexander would laugh at being outnumbered by a paltry 2000-4000 men.


Anyway, your Topic Heading asks for an "Opinion on Epaminodas", this I have given. If however it deviates from a "rah-rah" position that is had on this General, you shouldn't ask for an honest opinion, but perhaps alter future titles to: "(insert historical figure here) is Totally Freaking Awesome!!!"

Alcibiades

It is true that Pelopidas would have probably won,and that Cleombrotus was far from a good general.Howerer,that doesn't mean that just about any army would have won that day.

That is certainly open to discussion.Many consider him one of the best Spartan commanders of all time(alongside Lysander and Brasidas).

True,there were probably only 700 Spartiates.Howerer,I don't see how Sacred Band outnumbered them,seeing that they famously had "only" 300 members.

Indeed.Role of the cavalry in that battle was one of the most decisive factors that day(even if it is often neglected)


Take it easy,Okamido.I didn't meant it as an insult.I was trying to be as polite as possible.After all,if telling someone they are wrong constitutes an insult,well...you get the picture.
Alcibiades