Aratos of Sikyon

[aelf]

Question for philhellenes. What do you think of Aratos of Sikyon? Did he betray his country (EDIT: only used for effect to refer to the Akhaian League, to which he had loyalty) in order to resist Sparte and Kleomenes III? Was there any particular reason why he'd give in to the Makedones, the former bitter enemies of the Akhaians, than have Sparte and Kleomenes become leader of the Akhaian League? Was it for mainly selfish reasons or what?

 

[spryllino]

That wasn't my impression at all. Politics at the time was quite changeable, and there's no real reason why he shouldn't have allied with Macedonia against Sparta any more than with Sparta against Macedonia. They were both threats to the Achaean League, even if Macedonia had seemed the greater threat in previous years.

I never thought that Cleomenes ever tried to join or lead the Achaean League, and so, unless I'm mistaken, there was no real prospect of Cleomenes leading the Achaean League, but rather a prospect of some Achaean cities being annexed by Sparta.

 

[Dachs]

Kleomenes wanted to become something like hegemon of the koinon, as peace terms, and rewrite the constitution to make the office hereditary. At least, according to Polybios.

I honestly can't particularly condemn Aratos for his decision to turn to the Maks. In the event, it turned out to be a fairly good thing for the Achaians; Antigonos Doson wiped out the Kleomenean threat, then promptly died, and Mak influence in the Peloponnesos nearly disappeared. Losing Akrokorinthos was bad, but hardly crippling.

Where I think he was a bit of a failure was in terms of military leadership. Honestly, the Achaians shouldn't have been forced into the expedient of turning to the Maks in the first place. Sparta was practically dead in the 240s and 230s. Now, Aratos may also have been a bit precipitate in bringing Megalopolis into the koinon (thereby diluting Achaian military and political power and centralization), but it's pretty hard to tell - the sources for that are even crummier than they are for the Kleomenean War.

 

[aelf]

I never thought that Cleomenes ever tried to join or lead the Achaean League, and so, unless I'm mistaken, there was no real prospect of Cleomenes leading the Achaean League, but rather a prospect of some Achaean cities being annexed by Sparta.

Well, among other things he demanded the leadership of the league be surrendered to him during the peace talks after the Spartan victory at Dyme.

Where I think he was a bit of a failure was in terms of military leadership. Honestly, the Achaians shouldn't have been forced into the expedient of turning to the Maks in the first place. Sparta was practically dead in the 240s and 230s.

Could you be a little bit more specific with the failure of his military leadership? Are you talking in general or about a particular battle?

 

[Dachs]

Could you be a little bit more specific with the failure of his military leadership? Are you talking in general or about a particular battle?

In general, mostly. If one wanted to identify a particular failure of generalship, the Battle of Dyme is the most obvious candidate.

 

[aelf]

So he was general failure? He did seem to have success against the Makedones, though. If Sparte in such a terrible state, why lose to them? Unless Kleomenes was a genius or something.

 

[Dachs]

I don't think he was a general failure or anything, but the Achaian defense system basically collapsed in 228-6 in the face of a state that had been practically moribund five years before. There's only so much that luck and "opposing leader is a genius" can account for. I think - though admittedly this is speculation - that Aratos was perhaps too opportunistic or too willing to attack in general (like with his famous repeated descents on Mak Peireaius), and he may have fought battles before he should have or in situations in which he had reconnoitered insufficiently. Perhaps that's the cause of the pretty bad defeat the Achaian army suffered at Dyme.

 

[aelf]

I don't think he was a general failure or anything

Ah, no, you misunderstand. General failure and major success, one going to be forced to retire and the other on the way up - it's the military after all.

Anyway, good info, even if it's only speculation. I don't expect anyone else here to know more about this subject