ATHENS AND SPARTA:

The centre of Ancient Greek life was the Polis – the city
state. There were eventually about 1,000 Poleis inGreece.
These city-states varied considerably in size and
importance and would have a variety of traditions and customs. Even though they had social
differences they would have all shared a common Greek culture. The Greek Polis indicates
not merely the territory but the system of governance which prevailed in these states.
The nucleus of the polis was an urban centre, but there were variations in levels of
urbanization. The polis included the city and the neighbouring countryside and as a historical
phenomenon should not be confused with the later Italian city-states. Unlike the Italian
city-states which derived the bulk of their wealth from trade and commerce, the economic
basis of the polis was essentially agrarian. The distinctive feature of the polis as a political
unit was its relatively small size and the high level of participation by large sections of the
population in the political process. A distinctive characteristic of ancient Greece, was the
close link between citizenship rights and the military system. The Greek states did not
maintain standing armies of professional soldiers. To a large extent this was because they
lacked the resources for financing such an army. All free adult males were expected to
render military service. This in effect meant that the citizens were simultaneously soldiers.
The entire adult male population of the community constituted the army. The nucleus of the
Greek armies was the hoplite infantry.
Hoplites were soldiers who paid for their own military equipment. This kind of soldier became
common in most of the Greek states. However, they would often be at war with one another
for one reason or another. In the Classical Greek period, they were quite often at war
because of political differences.Athenian democracy refers to the system of
democraticgovernment used in Athens a city-state of Greece from c.5th century BCE to 4th
century BCE. Under this system, all male citizens had equal political rights, freedom of
speech, and the opportunity to participate directly in the political arena. In Athenian
democracy, not only did citizens participate in a direct democracy whereby they themselves
made the decisions by which they lived, but they also actively served in the institutions that
governed them, and so they directly controlled all parts of the political process. However, it
must be emphasised that – as with all Ancient Greek societies – foreigners, women, and
slaves still did not have rights and political representation beyond the male citizens of their
families.The Athenian Polis, as most Ancient Greek citystates, was originally ruled by
aristocrats, called archons who would rule from the Areopagus. In 683 B.C., it is stated by
Aristotle that ‘six junior archons were instituted for the recording of laws – this was to replace
the prior oral code of law’. From c.750 BCE to 600 BCE, the landed aristocracy consolidated
its hold over land which led to the impoverishment of small landholders. In their desperation
the small landholders put up a tough fight against the aristocracy. The constant upheavals
caused by this struggle reached a point of crisis c.600 BCE. Sections of the aristocracy
finally realized that unless some solution was found to this state of affairs their own
prosperity would be threatened. Consequently, they were forced to initiate reforms which
incorporated concessions to the peasants.We have a fairly detailed account of the reforms
undertaken at Athens; these give us some idea about the developments which took place
during the latter half of the Archaic Period (c.800 BCE – c.500 BCE).
The information on Athens is supplemented by references to other poleis which indicate that
similar processes were at work elsewhere too. In Athens after the abolition of monarchy in
c.752 BCE, the governmentwas placed under officials called archons, who were chosen
from among the aristocracy. Once they hadestablished their control over the Athenian state
the
aristocrats increased the burden on the small
landholders. In c.621 BCE, Draco established the first constitution of Athens – at the request
of the Atheniancitizens. He is perhaps the first democratic lawgiver in Ancient Greece – in
the sense that he tried to bringsome political protection to the ordinary citizens of
Athens. These codes of law were written on wooden tablets, axones, which are said to have
survived for over 200 years. The primary innovation these laws gave was an agreed upon
and visible code of law that all literate citizens could read. Before this, only the noble elite –
the archons – could interpret the law. By introducing a codified constitution Draco allowed for
legal debate in society. However, Draco’s laws were particularly harsh and inequitable.
Debtors of a poorer class could be enslaved if they failed to pay their debts, while if a person
owed money to someone of lower class there were less harsh penalties. The death penalty
was used for even minor offences for example, stealing a cabbage. These were particularly
harsh and unpopular and would later be replaced. The adjective draconian is now used to
describe anything that is particularly harsh.The aristocracy in Athens, occupied the most
fertile land and pushed the peasants to marginal areas.
The aristocracy sought to exploit the labour of the peasants by exerting pressure on them to
work on their estates. Impoverished peasants often had to take loans from wealthy
landowners and when they failed to pay the amount back, they along with their families,
were forced into bondage. Not only were the peasants being deprived of their land but they
were being reduced to the status of slaves. Athens was almost in a permanent state of
unrest which the aristocracy was unable to suppress. Contemporaries referred to this
situation as stasis, or stalemate. The principal demands of the peasantry were redistribution
of land and abolition of debt bondage. When the discontent tended to go out of control a
section of the aristocracy proposed somereforms. According to ancient sources, in c.594
BCE the Athenians resorted to the device of appointing an arbitrator, named ‘Solon’, to carry
out these reforms.
With the agreement of both sides Solon was to have dictatorial powers for a specified
duration, the sweeping powers of the arbitrator gave him a free hand to deal with the crisis.
Some of Solon’s Reforms: -Solon’s most radical and important reform is perhaps the
‘abolition debt bondage’, this meant that henceforth any Athenian free persons could not be
enslaved if they failed to repay their loans. It gave political and legal protection to poor
peasants from being extorted by the big landowners or aristocrats. Solon established ‘nine
archons’ who were to be elected or appointed annually by the Areopagus (Old Athenian
Council). Solon established the ‘Ecclesia’ (the Athenian Assembly), all the citizens (i.e.,
those whose names were recorded in the registers of citizenship kept in the demes) had the
right to participate and vote in the assembly. Andrewes, notes that normally about 5000 to
6000 citizens actually attended the meetings of the ecclesia. The sessions of the ecclesia
were called by the boule, which also fixed the agenda for these meetings. The proceedings
of the ecclesia were conducted by the current presiding officer of the boule (the chairman of
the boule was chosen on a daily basis since the council was expected to meet every day).
For the sessions of the assembly, members of the Athenian ecclesia assembled at a place
called Pnyx or else at another location which was known as the 'theatre of Dionysus'.
Incidentally, these sessions were one-day affairs. Whenever the assembly was expected to
vote on something, it met in the agora (a large open space in the city centre which otherwise
served as a marketplace).In addition, Ancient sources credit Solon with the creation of the
New Council of 400 members (called Boule) without abolishing but limiting the functions of
Areopagus. The Boule would steer the proceedings of the Ecclesia. Solon also introduced
constitutional changes which gave all Athenian citizensthe right to participate in the political
process. However, Solon did not carry out re-distribution of land.Solon divided the Athenian
citizens (Ionians tribes) into fourclasses (Phylai): Right at the top were the
pentakosiomedimni (who possessed property which yielded at least 500 medimnoi - a unit
for measuring the quantity of grain) of wheat. Next were the citizens whose property yielded
at least 300 medimnoi. The third category was that of owners of property yielding at least
200 medimnoi called the zeugitai. The zeugitai were the small and middle peasants, who,
also constituted the main strength of the Athenian army.
Right at the bottom were the thetes who had property yielding less than 200 medimnoi. The
thetes were the poorest class among the citizens. This class included poor peasants,
artisans and the landless.Although, the impact of these reforms was short-lived. According to
Herodotus, within 4 years of Solon’s departure from Athens old rivalries returned and
persisted which created fresh upheavals in Athens. Yet, there is no doubt that some of the
institutions such as
the Council of 400 and the Ecclesia remained functioning to some degree. And most
significantly, Solon’s reforms were an inspiration for more democratic reform by Cleisthenes
a century later. Tyranny at Athens under – Peisistratus (c.561 BCE and c.527 BCE): -Taking
advantage of the disturbed conditions in Athens some political leaders staged a series of
coups and assumed dictatorial powersin their respective states. Peisistratus was the person
responsible for the coup at Athens. He first attempted to seize power in c.561 BCE, but was
unsuccessful, but he managed to succeed in c.545 BCE. Peisistratus installed himself as
supreme ruler of the city, ignoring the existing constitutional arrangements and defying the
oligarchical institutions. This was a new form of government for which the Greeks used the
term 'tyranny'. An interesting aspect of Greek tyranny was that its social base was the
impoverished peasantry.
Peisistratus had the support of the Athenian smalllandholders and poverty-stricken citizens.
When he became tyrant, he took over public wastelands which had been occupied by the
oligarchs and distributed these among the small or dispossessed peasants. He also
confiscated the property of some of the oligarchs who had gone into exile due to the
establishment of tyranny, and handed these to needy farmers. The policies pursued by
Peisistratus had a twofold outcome.
First, the position of the peasantry was stabilized.
Second, the monopoly of the landed aristocracy over the political structure was destroyed.
Peisistratus died in c.527 BCE. He was succeeded by his son Hippias. This was clearly a
move to transform tyranny into a hereditary monarchy. Naturally This generated much
resentment among the Athenian people. In c.510 BCE, Hippias was overthrown. This date
marks the beginning of classical democracy at Athens. In the Classical Period the Greeks
generally recalled the age of tyranny with aversion. Yet we must remember that tyranny
speeded up the transition from oligarchy to democracy. The tyrants helped to dismantle the
institutions through which the oligarchy had exercised its power. This phenomenon was not
confined to Athens alone. We hear of other tyrants such as the tyrants of Samos, Naxos,
Corinth etc. around the same time. The people withdrew their support to the tyrants after a
short while. G. Glotz (in - The Greek City and Its Institutions) observes that 'The people
regarded tyranny only as an expedient.
They used it as a battering-ram [a heavy wooden beam used for breaking down walls or
gates] with which to demolish the citadel of the oligarchs, and when their end had been
achieved, they hastily abandoned the weapon'. Cleisthenes:At Athens, after Hippias has
been ousted in c.510 BCE, major constitutional changes were introduced. These changes
provided the framework for a qualitatively new political structure. The foundations of this
framework were laid by Solon and Peisistratus.
The person who built the edifice of Athenian democracy was Cleisthenes whose reforms
from c.507 BCE onwardshad far-reaching implications.

Democratic reforms of Cleisthenes at Athens: -He divided the Athenian citizens into ten
classes (unlike Solon under whom divided into four). Cleisthenes also increased the number
of members in the Boule to 500 (earlier 400 under Solon) which had 50 members from each
of the 10 tribes. The Boule would then oversee the work of certain
magistrates and propose laws to the assembly (the Ecclesia). Membership of the boule was
thrown open to all citizens, including thetes. Any citizen over the age of thirty could be a
member of the boule. Members served for one year and could be selected for a second term
only after a gap. The boule had enormous executive, judicial and administrative
responsibilities. It had to meet every day for transacting business. The collection of taxes
was supervised by the boule. It looked after foreign relations, maintained ships and ports,
and regulated trade. The meetings of the assembly (the Ecclesia), were guided by the boule.
Membership of the boule was a full-time job and it has been correctly observed that only the
wealthier citizens would have the time and leisure to serve on the council. Over a period of
time the Athenian boule came to be dominated by the more affluent sections of the citizens.
He also divided the landscape of Athens into three zones: the Urban, the Coastal and the
Inland. The primary unit of the democratic structure established by Cleisthenes was the
'deme'. Every citizen was first and foremost a member of a particular deme. The deme was
the smallest geographical unit into which the polis of Athens was divided for political
purposes. There were nearly two hundred demes (demoi) in all. The demes were
responsible for maintaining registers of citizens.
They had their own elected governments, including an assembly, and officials. The local
governments were headed by the demarchos or chief of the deme. By c.450 BCE, when
Pericles, became the dominant figure in Athenian politics (Pericles was the leading politician
of Athens from c.450 BCE till his death in c.429 BCE), therewas definitely an attempt to
restrict the access of the lower classes to political power. These reforms by Cleisthenes,
would form the basis of the Athenian political system for the next 200 years or so until the
Athens was conquered by Philip-II of Macedon in c.338 BCE.
POLITICAL SYSTEM OF “SPARTA”:
Sparta had a somewhat unusual government which combined elements of monarchy,
oligarchy and democracy. The overall character of Spartan government was oligarchical.
The Spartan citizens were a very small group among the inhabitants of the polis. Unlike
Athens, Sparta never accommodated new groups within its political structure.
At the same time, it is significant that from a very early date the entire body of citizens had a
role to play in the government. Theoretically, they were all equal. The Spartan assembly
(Apella), was an active organ of the state even at the beginning of the Archaic Period. The
council in Sparta was a powerful oligarchical body called the Gerousia. The Gerousia had
thirty members. Two of the members of the Gerousia were the Spartan kings.
Sparta had a peculiar monarchical system. Two kings, belonging to two different clans (the
Agiads and the Euryponrids), ruled simultaneously. This in itself is an indication of the limited
authority of the kings. The kings were ex-officio members of the council. In the council they
had no special privileges. The remaining twenty-eight members were drawn from aristocratic
families. These twenty-eight members were called gerontes (geron, old man) and were
required to be above sixty years of age. Membership of the Gerousia was for life, although at
a later date it was made annual.
The main officers of the state (corresponding to the archons of Athens) were called ephors.
There were five ephors. The Spartan ephors were magistrates with wide ranging executive,
judicial and police powers. They were elected for a period of one year from among all the
citizens. We can assume that the aristocracy would have had a better chance of becoming
ephors. It is likely thatthe ephors also had the right to attend sessions of the Gerousia.
Sparta was a highly militaristic society: Elitist, highly conservative, religious and traditionalist,
and highly anti-democratic and anti-tyrant. They would most often favour oligarchic systems
in other Greek Poleis, as these could be more easily controlled and influenced. Furthermore,
oligarchic government most reflected their own political structure which favoured political
power in the hands of a few rather than the many but had many checks on the power of their
kings. This militaristic system was built to keep the lower classes oppressed and prevent
rebellion. Therefore, Sparta was often very conservative in foreign policy since their army
could not be far from Sparta itself without risking rebellion from the lower classes – the
Helots.
Political Institutions in Ancient Sparta: -Apella:This was the general assembly of all Spartan
citizens, made up of the 3 phylae and 5 villages of the Spartan society. They would elect the
5 Ephors each year and any new members for the Gerousia, and they would vote yes or no
on all laws or actions proposed by the Gerousia. They were not permitted to discuss any of
the issues put forward to them, or to control any of the proceedings of the assembly, or to be
addressed by any foreign dignitaries.
Gerousia:This was a council of elders elected for life from Apella and would often be
relations of the two royal families in Sparta. They were a council of 28 members over the age
of 60 plus, the two Spartan kings making 30 in all. They would propose all high-state policies
and laws to be voted upon by the Apella.
They acted as a council for the actions of the Kings. Ephors:There were 5 elected
representatives – one from each village – from the Apella for each year and could not be
re-elected again. They were the closest to a democratic element in the Spartan system and
would oversee the proceedings and actions of the Kings in politics and the military. They
were perhaps the most powerful element in the Spartan system aside from the Kings. They
also controlled the Krypteia, a sort of policeaspect of the Spartan system made up of the
Spartan youths who were responsible for terrorising the Helots – keeping them under the
authority of the state. Two Kings:The Spartans had two Kings: the ‘Agiad’ and ‘Euryponrids’
families, both claiming ancestry from Heracles. Their role in the government was mainly
religious, judicial, militaristic, and ceremonial. They were members of the Gerousia. They
performed many religious functions in Spartan society which was significant as the Spartans
were highly religious. They would also lead the army into battle. However, from thetime of
Cleomenes-I and Demaratus, it was decided that only one of the Kings would lead the army
at one time (Demaratus had changed his mind at the last moment and decided not to join his
forces with Cleomenes-I in the interference of Athenian politics – later being exiled for this
action).Later most of the power of the Kings would be redistributed among the Ephors and
Gerousia. For example, by the time of the Persian wars, the Kings lost the ability to declare
war and would be
accompanied into battle by an Ephor who would oversee all decisions taken by the king.
Decline of Spartan System: -Once Thebes broke Spartan control ofMessenia in c.371 B.C.,
Sparta could no longer support their militaristic system without their serf or slave Population,
the Helots. It is also important to note that because so few persons rose to the status of
citizens to begin with, and because they were so selective and insular in their political and
military system, their population of citizens declined. The loss of a few hundred citizens
could cripple Spartan power. This is why it was so important for Spartans to win every battle
and for Spartiates’ not to be taken prisoner. Otherwise, they would be greatly reduced in
military and political strength.