A Comparison Of Solon Vs. Lycurgus Reforms

1258 Words3 Pages

The manner in which to agree or argue against the proposition statement involves a careful consideration of an interpreter’s definition and view of success. This paper will argue that Solon 's reforms were, in fact, more successful than Lycurgus’ reforms for Sparta, in terms of how Solon 's reforms were more impactful and practical in a developing world while Lycurgus discouraged change in the system. By examining how Lycurgus’ reforms limited growth and development of Sparta and it’s people and how Solon’s reforms paved the way of Athens’s stability and future success as a city-state, this paper will show that Solon’s reforms prove to be more successful than that of the Spartan lawmaker, Lycurgus. This point of argument is significant because …show more content…

The lack of education was intentional in Lycurgus’ reforms, so the people would not find fault in his legislations. In Anton Powell’s work titled: ‘Athens and Sparta’ the author mentions that were not educated enough to critique their government: “"The claim of King Arkhidamos, that Spartans were not so educated as to be able to criticise their own constitution, is evidence both of restriction in the use of books and a motive for that restriction. Reading might promote political disunity." (240). Said quote indicates how Spartan culture stunted an ability to develop as a nation and as …show more content…

Anton Powell reveals in his text: ‘Athens and Sparta’ that Lycurgus made men dine communally to keep an eye on them and keep them in check: “In his constitution of the Spartans, Xenophon writes that Lykourgos arranged for the Spartans to dine communally, where they could be observed easily, because he knew that when people are at home they behave in their most relaxed manner. Since the standards of public morality at Sparta were strenuous, we might anyway have expected to find an unusually large proportion of life being spent under public supervision.” (232) The quote reveals the fact that it was necessary for men to all dine together shows how government had no trust in their citizens to abide on their own

Open Document