Introduction
Athens and Sparta were the two most powerful city-states in the ancient Greek that developed during the Classical Age. Despite being in the same territory, they had very different modes of governance and social lives. They had different forms of governments, but both governments were elected by the people they ruled (Aristotle and Lord 7). Their geographical locations were also different. Sparta was naturally protected by mountains that surrounded it while Athens was built on a hill just below Acropolis (Aristotle and Lord 16). It was difficult to invade Athens because it was almost exposed, hence, making it vulnerable to attacks compared to Sparta that was naturally protected. These characteristics alone are just enough to draw a boundary between the two cities. The paper shall analyze and critique the two forms of governance that existed in Athens and Sparta hence making them some of the most unique city states in Greece that have been used to draw lessons throughout history, including the greatest war between them in history.
Comparison between Democracy and Oligarchy in Ancient Greece
Athens and Sparta had different forms of governments. Athens embraced democracy while Sparta embraced oligarchy. These forms of governments had different ways or running their states economically, politically and socially. According to Aristotle and Lord, the Athenian government adopted direct democracy, for instance, everyone attended the assembly not just the politicians, and it is claimed to be the birthplace of democracy in the ancient world, although some could say that democracy was neither intelligent nor fair in the running of the state (130). On the other hand, the Spartan government was an oligarchy; for instance, it was ruled by a par1t of the elite in the society (Lang et al. 127). Sparta borrowed its form of government from Crete, unlike Athens were the rich were not given power in democracy, the rich were seen as the best wardens of the city’s money, the best councilors were the bright and the best panel of judges would be heard by many (Plato and Grube 120). In addition, a characteristic of the Spartan government was that it adopted aristocracy, for instance, people of the upper class and the owning class ruled it.
The two city-states shared an element of democracy in elections of its officials. It is also surprising that in June 411 BC, oligarchy almost gained momentum in Athens, and a government known as the “Four Hundred” was established promising to extend the power of the wilder group known as “Five thousand.” A reform occurred and that saw the elimination of all the forms of state pay for the public service (Lang et al. 128). That oligarchy rule intimidated the Athenians with little resistance and Thucydides succeeded in their conquest. It was not successful though because the oligarchs did not get along with each other. It is imperative to note that, though the element of democracy was embraced more in Athens, Spartans participated democratically by choosing their officials through shouting of names whenever there was a meeting (Lang et al. 130). Though the element of democracy was not enjoyed much than it was in Athens, at least people had their opinions heard, and leaders of their choosing were ace [ted into the ruling government.
In Athens, to be part of the government, one had to be at least above the age of 30 years. That was an utter sign of responsibility that awaited the individual in the government. Up to five hundred men could be chosen by people to join the government (Aristotle and Lord 44). Sparta on the other hand only elected elders over the age of sixty years to serve in the government and serve as advisors of the states because of the great leadership experience or rather for they served long in the Spartan military. The council consisted of twenty-six elders and two kings.
In both city-states, citizens were men who were over eighteen years and they had the jurisdiction to participate in the government activities, such as elections, joining the military and undertaking any duty that was assigned to them as individuals. Men in both states had to be strong and with good morals and judgment. They had to be there during electing of leaders that would lead them (Rise of City-States par 3)Women in both states were not considered citizens and therefore could not participate in elections other than assuming their roles as caregivers and homemakers.
In Athens, the laws of the land were not just approved by a small number of individuals in the government. Rather, a much larger group approved them. For instance, the assembly had to gather at least six thousand citizens for the law to be passed .It is apparent that the Athenians had to call for a meeting after they realized that oligarchy was almost taking over the government. The meeting took place in the Pnyx and they deposed the Four Hundred and voted in favor of the Five Thousand, entrusting them the affairs of the state (Lang et al. 131). The meetings were held regularly at the hill every ten days. The people elected lawmakers and voted other measures of the constitution (Lang et al. 131). The participation of the citizens was so serious that if enough men did not show up, slaves would be ordered to tie them with ropes covered with red paint. That was considered very embarrassing for a man during that period. On the contrary according Aristotle and Lord, the Spartan laws, were made by the elders who had much power in the Spartan assembly (80). They made laws that were best suited for the people and the government, and the assembly of the elected individuals voted for the proposed laws. The elders also had the power to stop any laws that they did not approve. The assemblies of both states were made of male citizens, and they met outdoors, the Spartan citizens met in the outdoor arena while the Athenians met at the hill (Aristotle and Lord 77). They had to be huge in numbers, and they participated in the passing of the laws of both states. However, in Athens, the citizens had the rights to debate on issues that they did not like the laws that had been made. The citizens of Athens had the power to influence the decisions made by the council that made the laws. However, in Sparta, the citizens could only vote in the proposed laws and were not allowed to make any contribution concerning them. They had very little power to influence decision making in laws making. Assembly members could only vote either a yes or no on laws discussed by the council of elders (Aristotle 44). It was common to see men gather in Sparta to debate on laws, but they could not do it during gatherings with the government, unlike Athens where issues were discussed openly in the presence of a governing body.
Thesis Statement on Problem between Them in Greek Societies and the Solutions
The Athenians and the Spartans became allies during and fought the Greco-Persian Wars together between the year 499 and 449 B.C. after the Persians had retreated the Athenians became a powerful city-state than Sparta and tensions between them rose(Aristotle and Lord 88). The Spartans became weary of the Athenians rise to power, while Sparta remained isolated, a less adventurous, and a less imaginative rival. However, both cities were powerful, and they could ignore the old golden rules of warfare. Athens was a great imperial city and the mistakes they made including compromised taking care of the commonwealth to please the people, and this led to voyage against Sicily due to poor decisions made by the senders (Lang et al. 102). On the other hand, the Spartans were living very free lives and ignored all rules including those that governed agriculture.
The democratic Athens was not comfortable with collisions created artificially by oligarchic armored farmers (Aristotle 144). The Athens's fleet increased in the wake of Persian surrender, nurtured on the accolade of the vassal states in Aegean; they could not afford to mothball its triremes. Instead, they turned into inactive forces for the allies of Greece overseas (Lang et al. 92). They increasingly saw the infantrymen as an enemy because majorities of the Athenian citizens were not infantrymen. Hence, they became more radical with its democratic rule. Evidently, land issues and crop production separated made the two cities enemies. The Athenians prevented the Peloponnesian infiltrations but at the same time ensured, they settled land deals at all cost (Lang et al. 103). The old strategy Sparta adopted in ravaging cropland became ineffective, and the hoplites could not draw the Athenians out of Attica nor reduce the city economically making the Athenians thrive economically and politically.
The Athenians abandoned their countryside for the Spartan invaders and refused to set up a battle against the hoplites (Aristotle 266). When Spartans thought they had given up, allies came to their aid, inform of plague and killed the Athenian citizens including its leaders after during the wars Athens utilized the hoplites in their maritime operations and the Peloponnesian wars continued between Sparta and its allies and Athens's hoplites (Aristotle and Lord 233). The mercenaries came over engineering the void between the two cities causing destruction on both sides, and it appeared both cities could not engage following the humiliation and destruction of the enemy's force in the field.
Athens developed a war strategy, and they succeeded in invasions for instance in Aegean. Sparta garrisoned Attica and established a permanent fort at Decelea. The Athenians could not defeat the Spartans and its allies because the plague had faced off most of its men (Lang et al. 103). The Spartans and its allies invaded the city and broke the Athens's financial reserves making it bankrupt, exhausted, and demoralized. All it had built over the years was gone with the war. The solutions for both sides could not be developed due to the different ideologies they had about education, economy, and warfare.
The Better Government
The democratic form of government is better for governance because the people feel that they are part of the government as well. They are given the power to contribute to the development of laws, electing leaders and in some crucial decision-making processes such as the passing of the constitution. The constitution of Athens gave its citizens the power to elect leaders, pass the law, and select lawmakers (Aristotle and Lord 204). Although democracies are ideally meant to develop the country and its citizens, it is very complex to implement. It requires resources, and it is difficult to accord to the opinions of all people at the same time. Oligarchy, on the other hand, gives the minority citizens power to make decisions of the state with little or no contribution of the citizens. Just like in Sparta, only the people were given a chance to choose their leaders but could not participate in passing laws. The council of elders had so much power that they could overturn the decisions of the people, (Lang et al. 128). All the laws that are passed by the leaders must be implemented, and all the citizens should subscribe to them. It is more of dictatorial ways of governance, and it works for many governments, unfortunately (Aristotle 255). This type of governance is known to cause civil uproars and even wars to some extent because the person in power can manipulate a few individuals to subscribe to his decisions leaving a majority of the citizens unattended. It is also known to be a hotbed of corrupt dealings because those in power make decisions as they please, make laws that favor them and choose leaders and wealth possessions as they please. Even though democracy is a good form of governance, leaders have to be strong to ensure that right decisions are made for the good of the people even if it does not please everyone and it led to their downfall (Aristotle 47).
In conclusion, Sparta was unique for its construction and social system. This was because it focused on military training. In essence, the Spartan women enjoyed more equality to men than anywhere else did, in the classical world. Sparta had its system of government, which was diverse from the other states. This was because two kings and an assembly shared rule. It is pertinent to note that unlike Sparta, Athens was not a city of war; it was valued in arts equality and philosophy. The Athenian system was aimed at producing thinkers. Sparta was oligarchic and led the Peloponnesian League. While Sparta had an advantage with land power, Athens had navy and money.
Works Cited
Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution. Lanham: Start Publishing LLC, 2013. Internet resource.
Aristoteles, and Carnes Lord. Aristotle's Politics. Chicago [u.a.: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2013. Print.
Lang M, Rusten, J. and Hamilton, R., Thucydidean narrative and discourse. Ann Arbor: Michigan Classical Press.2014.Print
Plato, , G M. A. Grube, and C D. C. Reeve. Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1992. Print.
