political similarities and differences between Sparta and Athens

political similarities and differences between Sparta and Athens

Athens ad Sparta were two popular ad powerful cities among the Greek nations. Most scholars would find it easier to note the similarities between the two factions of mighty people. In the period of classical ad archaic city states, each polis represented a small country. Many of the towns were comparable to small towns or villages that sometimes controlled extended territories. At the conflicting side of this idea, were equally two most significant, and perhaps eventually ad influential most dominant city-states in ancient Greece. Athens and Sparta, particularly, had various political similarities and differences. This paper discusses the political similarities and differences between Sparta and Athens, drawing from the democratic and dictatorship approaches of ruling witnessed in the two city states in ancient society.

To begin with, Athens’ political realm was the father of modern civilization due to its insistence on democracy. Unlike Sparta that had a dictatorship form of ruling, Athens had a democratic government. Sparta represented a society marred with war off fierce, consisting of unstoppable soldiers, and only warriors practised politics in the city. Women from Sparta developed a brand for becoming as intense as their male counterparts, relatively unlike their reclusive and segregated sisters in Greek Poleis (Cartledge 28). To that end, Sparta characterized an imperial city state that conquered most of their neighboring cities and towns and turned their people into a class of virtual slave they named helots. The serf class seen outstripped the people from Sparta on numerous occasions. To that end, the keeping of helots to remain under the command of the dictators coupled with suppression led to rebellion, making Sparta organize its society along military boundaries. The Spartan males had an obligation of serving his city through the military, and the only duty of their women was to ensure they give birth to soldiers.

Athens, on the other end of the spectrum, practised democracy based on the Cleisthenes that reorganized the society into Boule or legislative council that was responsible for pinpointing legislative agenda. Unlike Sparta where only soldiers participated in the city’s political affairs, Athens exercised political democracy where the population would choose their parliamentary representatives in given time cycles. As Economou, Nicholas, and Theodore reported, Athens chose five hundred councilors every year from the fifty tribes draw from every corner of Attica (253). Athenians constituted a popular assembly consisting of male citizens that approved or prohibited the laws of the Boule council. In the eve of 507 BCE, even such power was engineered by aristocrats to give room for the poor majority who could not face the wealthy few in elections have a representation in the council.

After the 507 BCE, the democratic principle where one individual represented one vote was ushered in Athens that means a significant majority made the final decision on every concern. Even then, charismatic leaders within the political realm, most of whom were aristocrats, could campaign and sway the public’s opinion. Nonetheless, the Cleisthenes had formulated the basis for a radical change in the political environment of Athens, and the historical accounts of the governmental systems differed from that of Sparta significantly. To that end, Athens political life focused on activities, such as voting, one man one vote principle, and legislative Assembly drawn from all the tribes (Engen 81). On the flip side, the Spartans had a dictatorship system of politics where only soldiers participated and ruled their people as slaves.

The fate of Spartans to live in the city rested upon the leadership of the state. People that could not prove their physical fitness were thrown into the ravine. However, the city ruler advocated for education for both men and women in society. While the females had the sole responsibility of bearing children, their male counterparts were trained to enter the military as early as age seven. The political system of Sparta represented an Oligarchy, a word that originated from the ancient Greek to mean few rulers. The state had five Ephors elected yearly, supported by kings who passed the kingship crowns to their selected sons. The government structure of Sparta had a senate denoted by gerousia while the Kings and Ephors would attend the general Assembly known as the apella, on a regular basis (Fleck, Robert & Andrew 26) The General Assembly had a duty to vote and pass legislation in an effort to make civil pronouncements. The voting process was the use of ‘no’ or ‘yes’ to pass legislation. On the flipside, Athens democratic political system focused on the theme of ruling by the people or the masses. The election of representatives from every region of the city through ‘lot’ voting differed from that of Sparta.

From a constitutional point of view, the constitution of Sparta represented an infrequent amalgam of diarchy, democracy, monarchy, and aristocracy all at the same time. The Spartans had two concurrent kings. The Spartans focused on having two kings in a bid to establish a compromise between the houses of opponents. Similarly, the administration of Sparta put enough emphasis on avoiding the dangers of absolutism (Fleck, Robert & Andrew 119). However, the Kings had limited power and functioned as army commanders during war, conducting the sacrifices, and heading the judiciary based on religious calls. Even though the leaders positioned themselves as Kings, both were answerable or inferior to the Senate in all matters. As time moved, the Kings lost their power and influence in the Spartan society.

The Senate stood as the most influential part of the government that included elderly aristocrats under 60 years old. The Spartans put true power the hands of the members of the elderly aristocrats and mature council members called Geriousia. The responsibility of the Senate in the Spartan constitution was to draft legislation, public policy and worked as the king of Supreme Court for disobediences and capital offenses. The Spartan Assembly or paella was similar to the Athenians because its practices involved democratic ideas. The members had monthly meetings, and they were responsible for approving all laws in the Spartan society. Nonetheless, they did not have a responsibility of discussing the laws or modify. The requirement made to them was either to reject or accept them, but not discuss. In actual sense, a few of the rules passed by the Assembly were functional in the society. The power of the Assembly was limited compared to that of Senate because the latter had the powers to overturn the decision by the former (Kaiser 59). The Ephors and magistrates represented another wing of constitutional leaders that enjoyed significant power. They were elected by the Assembly and had power equivalent to that of the Kings. After the Persian war, the state of Sparta awarded the Ephors embassies, dominated and directed military missions, ad settled legal disagreements.

The Athenian society, on the other end, started as a kingdom like Spartan. Nonetheless, its society depicted a greater form of the organization along the kinship procession. The state had four tribes, and each had important input in claiming the epic predecessor. In addition to this, every tribe were ruled by their own treasurer, governor, and held individual religious ceremonies. Meanwhile, every tribe in Athens had unique obligations related to communal aid, defense, and legacy. As similar to the Spartan state, Athenians the power of monarchy faded away with time. The heads of the royal families in the city state possessed true power, just like the aristocrats in Sparta (Kaiser 58). The significance of kings in Athens, as well as Sparta, only became apparent in times of terrorizations and complaints. On the flip side, the families avowed their feudal influence over the management in times of permanence and strength.

The Athenian constitution during the 4th and 5th centuries BC was a pure and intense form of democracy. At the onset, Athens did not rule based on a constitution in white and black. The state had its origin in the class conflict. Similar to Sparta, the political rights of people in Athens depended on their economic affluence. The dominant political ranks in Athens included the Thetes, Hippes, and Zeugitia that were applied in the determination of the political status of the people. Hippes predominantly represented knights who possessed horses and were members of the top spectrum of the society. In most occasions, this section included priests and judges. On the other hand, the Zeugitia owned a yoke of oxen and had the adequate financial muscle to categorize themselves as the affluent members of the society. The Thetes, however, served the city as low members and had no political power. To that end, Athenians segregated their members of the society just in a similar fashion to Sparta. Even though Athens did use military dictatorship to rule, the democratic form of government in Athens divided members of the society into different lines depending on their status or class.

The similarities in the structure of the government in both Athens and Sparta holds that both states ensured that every individual operated within the law. None of the states applied the fundamental concept autocracy that was the basis of the ruling. The democratic political system of Athens used the mass of people, including nobbles, generals, and aristocrats as people in the government (Fleck, Robert & Hanssen 120). In the same token, Sparta focused on the idea of autocracy by ensuring two kings were in place as well as a watchdog body of five Ephors. Thus, both states enabled an individual to attain political power.

In conclusion, the political systems of Sparta and Athens had numerous differences due to the varying belief of their leaders. Sparta practised political rigidity based on military dictatorship, while Athens believed in a constitutional democracy. As discussed, the significant differences between the political systems of Athens were a representation of the people and participation in political agendas. However, the two states had notable differences and similarities in government structure and constitutionalism.