Sparta Vs. Athens: Governmental Organization

If you had the choice to live in Athens or Sparta, which one would you choose and why?

The government in Sparta followed a very different coarse than that of the Athenians. It was controlled by an oligarchy in which the power was held by a group of five men called ephors. Working below the ephors was the Council of Elders and an Assembly. Male citizens over age sixty could serve on the Council while anyone, male or female, over the age of twenty could be a member of the Assembly. Though the citizens had little say in the decisions made by the government, the system worked effectively. Over the years, the Spartan's brutal reputation in war grew so great that other nations and city-states were too frightened to attack Sparta even though the Spartan army was no larger then eight thousand men. The Spartan Constitution called for all men to begin their military education at the age of seven, where they were trained to be tough and self-sufficient. Every man in the army fought with a great deal of passion for his country. Life in Sparta may have been rough, but the rest of the Greeks envied the Spartans for their simplicity, straight forwardness, and fanatical dedication. The beliefs of Sparta were oriented around the state. The individual lived and died for the state. The combination of this philosophy, the education of Spartan males, and the discipline of their army gave the Spartans the stability needed to survive in Ancient Greece.

The Spartans were a military force to be rekon with, in part their entire lives were focused upon developing and training their people into excellent soldiers. In order to have a society that had such a presence, their way of life was drastically different from any other city- state of this time. Politically, there was no hierarchy within Sparta, all men were seen as legally equal. The government leaders were made up of two hereditary kings, who would often be prominent leaders within their military. There was a council that was referred as, the “Gerousia”. The council was only made up of men who had reached a certain age, around sixty years. This was to ensure that only men with experience and knowledge would be able to deliberate the important issues that were being discussed. These men also were retired from the Spartan military, thus having knowledge in military strategy. This group mainly reviews foreign and domestic issues, which ultimately is preparation for the council made up of Spartan citizens(73-74).

The Spartan and the Athenians’ beliefs in the role of the state deferred almost completely because of their polarious beliefs in government structure, military, and commerce.

n the beginning of this section, the Athenians are made to look better than the Spartans when they are ready and willing to fight the Persians again while the Spartans remained at home. The Athenians sent a messenger to the Spartans saying, “You agreed with us to oppose the invader in Boeotia, but you broke your word and allowed him to invade Attica…However, your immediate duty is to…put your army in the field,” and the Spartans reluctantly and after some time put their army in the field (556). Later, the Athenians military roles are highlighted when the Megarians were being pressed by the Persians and needed assistance, “nobody was willing to go except the Athenians” (562). When decided which troops would get to hold one of the wings, the

strategically important colony of Corinth. Fighting ensued, and the Athenians then took steps that explicitly violated the Thirty Years’ Treaty. Sparta and its allies accused Athens of aggression and threatened war.

The reason for this is that few people actually ruled Sparta, and their power or time in office was limited to avoid corruption. There were two kings to keep a check on one another, there were 28 members of the Gerousia – a council of elders that included the two kings, five ephors who held in their hands the highest of powers but only served for one year, and the apella which was made up of all other Spartan citizens or Homoioi.

Contrarily to Athens, Sparta’s political system was based on oligarchy, a society where old and wealthy people represented the whole population. They had political and judicial powers over the others, and could take any decisions they wanted. Sparta had also a part of monarchy because of the two kings that headed the polis. Secondly, both Athenian and Spartans’ governments had assemblies. In Athens, the government was divided in different structures.

Both the elected kings, as well as the Ephors, created a general assembly, whose purpose was to vote on and pass legislation and make civil decisions. Sparta’s system of government was very exclusive and open to members of only the highest social standing. Citizens were deprived from civil rights, warriors were wrongfully accused of erroneous crimes, which was known also as “tresantes” (the tremblings) “They had to shave half of their beard to show their status and accept to be beaten, until they prove themselves worthy in battle.” (Fanourgakis, Manolis 1.) Sparta’s laws, handcuffed their citizens to their political empowerment, you had no choices or social freedom.

Sparta and Athens are two very different city-states, with Sparta valuing pure military strength, on the other hand Athens boasted their intellectual and artistic skill. However, each of their skills was surprisingly based on the geography around the city-state. With Sparta being located in southern Peloponnese they were exceptionally isolated, comparative to the Athenian land which was located off the coast of the Aegean Sea. Since the Athenians had access to the sea they were able to trade with nearby city states and specialize in areas relating in aquatic studies. Such luxury of trade dismissed the idea of self-reliance in the Athenian land, instead they could grab all they needed from nearby cities. However, the Spartans were very secluded

During a long period, Sparta represented a great defense of Greece because it was known as the Dorian Greek military state. As it was underlined on military power, it always searched to have control over the kingdoms. The form of Spartans government was called oligarchy (ruled by few) but it had elements of monarchy, democracy and aristocracy as well. Notice the Spartans were not concentrated on education and neither in interact greatly with others in the world. However, “it was principally an agricultural land and because of its inland position, nevertheless, the most important imports were metals.” http://www.diffen.com/difference/Athens_vs_Sparta

Both Sparta and Athens prove to be unique societies in history because of their opposing values. While Sparta focused on a militaristic culture, in which the army continued to increase in strength and numbers, Athens, however, emphasized their cultural values in arts and literature. Military focus existed in Athens, but was not as focused on its power as Sparta was. Though the location of both ancient civilizations was relatively close in proximity, Sparta and Athens were anything but allies. The nations were peaceful for a short period of time, but as time went on, the struggle for power and expansion grew. Thus causing both civilizations to direct their attentions to eliminating any nearby threats to their expansion.

This paper will discuss both Spartan and Athenian government in contrast. It will discuss rules and regulations under which each society operated in detail.

Like 18th century Italy, classical Greece (5th and 4th century BC) was divided in rival city-states that were frequent at war with each other. To the modern people this situation might look both foolish and inefficient; yet, one has to understand the times. First of all, the European population is estimated to have been only 30 million people (Livi-Bacci, 2012)—and this means that vast tracts of wilderness separated the various cities. Then, geographical isolation was exacerbated by the infant state of transportation and communication technologies; for example, there were no state-maintained roads. One can get an idea how long and perilous trips were back then by reading the myth of Theseus; in his travel from Corinth to Athens—a distance of only fifty-miles—Theseus almost lost his life six times to bandits and beasts. This semi-hermitic state of existence allowed the city-states to experiment and develop their own political and social structures; by the fifth century BC, the Greek cities have tried every political arrangement imaginable, with two main systems competing for Greek-world dominion: democracy represented by Athens, and militocracy represented by Sparta.

Sparta and Athens were two of the most influential poleis during the archaic and classical periods in Ancient Greece—for the former’s birthing of the democratic system, and the latter’s military fervour—whose governmental systems were crafted around their pioneering attributes. Since each polis considered itself an individual and, to some degree, independent state, their arrangements concerning “public office” varied drastically. In terms of “institutions”, Sparta could be thought of as a totalitarian oligarchy: the absolute “rule of the few (Brand, 2010). Two kings—serving simultaneously—were elected from the two royal clans: the Agiads and the Eurypontids (Brand, 2010). Alongside them, and wielding the “true power” in the state’s affairs, were the elderly council Gerousia and the 3-5 magistrates collectively named Ephors (Brand, 2010). Ephors were elected by free male citizens of Sparta (i.e. the “popular assembly”) each year, as they were only allowed to serve one-year terms; only men above the age of 60 (the year at which men were eligible to retire from the army) could serve as Gerousia, and only 30 men served at a time—two of which were the kings (the only two men allowed to be