Are you disagreeing or expanding on what I posted? :) That's what I said pretty much... the Syracuse stuff was the foolish error Athens did in the Peloponnesian war. Sparta won the war decisively due to it and did not lose the war at sea while winning the war in the land. It won both pretty much. Shadow's initial post on this was a popular view, which is based on the strategic focuses of the two city states, but ends up being in error if generalized as he did.
Then in the end, by which I understand a commentary on historical legacy, the other stuff I mentioned happened. For example despite its hegemony, Sparta was very lenient towards Athens - this was also despite Sparta's allies wanting to punish Athens much more severely, which would have been perfectly normal back then.* And further on Sparta's imperialism was very soft and checked by Thebes mainly, at Leuctra I think. Despite being militaristic they were quite non interventionist so to speak - counter intuitively for what the modern perceptions are.
Which I guess is the only point we maybe disagree on. Because your final sentence is a slight misrepresentation. Sparta was no more single minded for war as any other Greek city state. They just went about it differently than most. Still, you kind of make my point that normal perception of Sparta is one thing (war! war! war! Thermopylae!), whereas the underlying reality is somewhat subtler than the greek origin mythos will lead one to believe.
So by the time of Philip, Athens was the main imperialistic rival to Macedon's expansion, which is not to say it had managed to reverse its position vis a vis Sparta. But certainly Athens's colonies were some of the main victims of early Macedonian expansion in the North, and then Athens was the engine trying to counter Philip's progression south. Sparta pretty much sat all of this out - being in the boondocks of it all so to speak. I don't think anyone will argue this is evidence that Sparta didn't count - they chose not to count - which they did often because that's what they believed in - I referred to their ethics earlier.
They were never as imperialist as Athens, and our perceptions of Athens as democratic, therefore the "good guys" whereas Sparta as militaristic therefore "the bad guys" are pretty much ahistorical, and almost reversed IMO. Sure Athens was democratic and Sparta militaristic. But in the context of the era Sparta can be argued to have been the force keeping the expansionist imperialist Athens in check, and therefore the good guys helping the underdogs so to speak.
Until Philip came along and became top dog of it all. As mentioned I don't think they even fought (seriously at least) at all. Certainly by the time Macedonians would get to Sparta they would have had to already control Thebes, Athens and Corinth... the writing was in the wall by then. And by the way, if anyone is into innovative RTS games. The Hegemony series is very nice. I'm playing the first one, set precisely in this era, and having a blast.
* I remember being quite surprised reading Thucydides at the cruelty that was normal towards what we would call prisoners of war, as well civilian populations. The fact we owe the Greeks the word barbaric and they applied it only to foreigners is fortunate for them. In reality they were quite barbaric themselves - per the modern sense.