Skip to main content
EnglandAncient HistorySyllabus dot point

How and why did Sparta defeat Athens in the Peloponnesian War, and what do Brasidas and Lysander reveal about Spartan strengths and weaknesses?

Sparta in the Peloponnesian War 431 to 404 BC: Spartan strategy and aims against Athens, the role of Brasidas in the Archidamian War, the decisive part of Lysander and the Persian alliance, and the final defeat of Athens in 404 BC.

An OCR A-Level Ancient History depth study guide to Sparta in the Peloponnesian War 431 to 404 BC. Covers Spartan strategy and aims, the role of Brasidas in the Archidamian War, the decisive contribution of Lysander and the Persian alliance, and the final defeat of Athens in 404 BC, with evaluation of Thucydides and Xenophon.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.816 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The answer
  3. Examples in context
  4. Try this

What this dot point is asking

The Sparta depth study ends with Sparta at war: the long struggle with Athens that ended in Spartan victory. This page covers Spartan strategy and aims in the Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BC), the role of Brasidas in the Archidamian War, the decisive part of Lysander and the Persian alliance, and the final defeat of Athens in 404 BC. The prescribed sources are Thucydides (for the first part of the war) and Xenophon (for the end), plus Plutarch's Life of Lysander, and the debate over why Sparta won is a central essay.

The answer

Spartan strategy and the Archidamian War

The lesson of the Archidamian War is that the conflict could only be decided at sea, which is why Persian money later became so important: Sparta's land supremacy was not enough against a naval empire.

Brasidas and the Peace of Nicias

Brasidas shows both a Spartan strength (individual brilliance and unusual diplomacy) and the limits of the Spartan system, which produced few such commanders. His career is also a key source-evaluation case because of Thucydides's personal involvement.

Lysander, Persia and the defeat of Athens

The war resumed after 415 BC, and was decided in the final phase by two things working together. First, Persian money: from 412 BC, treaties with Persia funded a Spartan fleet that could at last match Athens at sea. Second, Lysander, whose leadership and close diplomacy with the Persian prince Cyrus built that fleet and whose crushing victory at Aegospotami in 405 BC destroyed the Athenian navy. With its fleet gone and its food supply cut, Athens surrendered in 404 BC: the Long Walls were demolished and the Thirty Tyrants imposed.

The central essay debate is why Sparta won:

  • Persian gold was a necessary condition for the naval war.
  • Lysander's generalship and the victory at Aegospotami turned money into success.
  • Brasidas's earlier gains and, above all, Athenian errors (the catastrophic Sicilian Expedition of 415 to 413 BC) weakened Athens decisively.

Examples in context

A model answer weighs Persian money against Spartan leadership and Athenian error, rather than narrating the war year by year.

Try this

Q1. Assess the importance of Lysander to the Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian War. [20 marks, depth essay style]

  • What the marker wants. An argument from the sources that Lysander's leadership, his diplomacy with Persia, and his decisive victory at Aegospotami were crucial, weighed against Persian money, Brasidas's earlier gains and Athenian errors, with a judgement.

Q2. At which battle in 405 BC did Lysander destroy the Athenian fleet? [2 marks]

  • Cue. Aegospotami, the victory that destroyed Athenian naval power and led directly to the surrender of Athens in 404 BC.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

OCR H407/11 202020 marks'Sparta won the Peloponnesian War because of Persian help, not Spartan strength.' How far do the sources support this view? [shown at the 20-mark cap; the depth essay is worth 36 in the full paper]
Show worked answer →

A Section B depth-study essay (AO1, AO2 and AO3), shown at the 20-mark cap (worth 36 in the full paper).

For Persian help. Persian gold (the treaties from 412 BC) funded the Spartan fleet that beat Athens at sea, where the war was decided; without it Sparta could not have matched Athenian naval power.

For Spartan strength and Lysander. Lysander's leadership, diplomacy and the decisive victory at Aegospotami in 405 BC, plus Brasidas's earlier successes and Athenian errors (the Sicilian disaster), also explain the outcome.

Judgement. Argue from Thucydides and Xenophon that Persian money was a necessary condition for the naval victory, but that Lysander's generalship and Athenian mistakes turned it into success; the two combined. The top level argues from the sources and judges.

OCR H407/11 202212 marksHow useful is Thucydides for understanding the role of Brasidas in the Archidamian War? [shown at the 12-mark source-utility style]
Show worked answer →

A source-utility evaluation (AO3) on a prescribed source.

Value. Thucydides is contemporary and analytical, valuable for Brasidas's energetic northern campaign (the capture of Amphipolis in 424 BC) and for his unusual diplomacy and personal qualities, which Thucydides admires.

Limitations. Thucydides was the Athenian general who lost Amphipolis to Brasidas and was exiled for it, so his account may be coloured (whether by resentment or by compensating fairness); his admiration of Brasidas is notable and may itself shape the portrait.

Judgement. Highly useful and unusually full on Brasidas, but Thucydides's personal involvement must be borne in mind. Top answers judge usefulness for the enquiry.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this