The Cleomenean War, in the Federalist’s account, turns the Achaeans’ effort to preserve their league into a choice between submission to Cleomenes of Sparta and dependence on Macedon. They chose Macedonian intervention; Cleomenes was defeated, but the victory left the Achaeans subject to the influence of the power they had once resisted. The episode illustrates the essay’s central warning about confederacies: internal division and inadequate collective strength can make foreign aid a path from danger to subordination.

Causes and Background

The war arose amid a precarious effort to rebuild Greek unity. After the Amphictyonic confederacy fell to Macedon, the Achaean league—formerly a lesser association—was initially spared. Later Macedonian rulers pursued division: Achaean cities were drawn into separate interests, the union dissolved, and some communities came under Macedonian garrisons while others fell under domestic usurpers. Resentment and oppression revived the desire for liberty. A handful of cities reunited, and others followed as opportunities arose to overthrow their tyrants. The league expanded across almost the whole Peloponnese, while Macedon, checked by internal dissensions, could not halt its progress.

That revival nearly broadened into a general Greek confederacy. Sparta and Athens, jealous of the Achaeans’ growing prominence, dampened the prospect of union. Fearing Macedon, the league sought alliances with the kings of Egypt and Syria, rivals of the Macedonian king and successors of Alexander. Cleomenes, king of Sparta, attacked the Achaeans without provocation. His ambition and influence with the Egyptian and Syrian rulers helped bring about their breach of commitments to the league, leaving the Achaeans exposed to the consequences of the conflict.

Macedonian Intervention

The Achaeans faced a stark alternative: submit to Cleomenes or ask for help from Macedon, their former oppressor. They chose the latter. Greek rivalries gave Macedon an opportunity to intervene in its neighbors’ affairs, and a Macedonian army soon arrived. Cleomenes was defeated, but the military result did not restore Achaean independence. The Achaeans learned that a victorious, powerful ally could become another name for a master: even their most abject compliance secured only permission to continue exercising their own laws.

The account makes the reversal central to the episode. The alliance answered an immediate military threat, yet it placed the Achaeans under the leverage of the power whose intervention had secured their victory. The limited concession to retain their laws marked the gap between nominally continuing self-government and possessing the strength to protect it independently.

Aftermath and Wider Consequences

Macedonian intervention did not end the cycle of Greek conflict. Philip, now ruling Macedon, soon provoked fresh combinations against his tyranny. The Achaeans, weakened by internal dissension and by the revolt of Messene, joined the Aetolians and Athenians in opposition. Though supported by these allies, they judged themselves unequal to the undertaking and again resorted to foreign arms, this time appealing to Rome. Rome eagerly accepted the invitation, defeated Philip, and subdued Macedon; a new crisis followed for the league, as internal dissensions emerged and the Romans fostered them.

In the essay’s larger argument, the war is part of a cautionary sequence, not an isolated contest. The Achaean experience shows how faction within a league, external rivals, and recourse to stronger powers can interact: the danger of defeat encourages intervention, intervention gives the ally leverage, and that dependence leaves the confederacy vulnerable to renewed interference. The episode thus supports the Federalist’s broader case that a union needs effective means to protect its members and preserve their common security without making them helpless before outsiders.