Essay On Athens Vs Sparta

Introduction:

Athens and Sparta were ancient Greece’s two largest, most powerful and influential poleis, or city states (Brand: 1). This paper will compare the governmental structures of the two city states and provide an overview of how one became a citizen, became eligible for public office and rules governing the selection of office bearers. The paper will argue that although there were superficial similarities in the two poleis, their structures and governing political philosophies were very different.

How did people in Athens and Sparta obtain the right to participate in public life and make decisions affecting the community?

In both Athens and Sparta, the right to participate in public life and make decisions was conferred by birth and status. In Athens, citizenship was limited to free adult males who were born to Athenian parents (Brand: 28-29). In Sparta, the right to participate in public life and make decisions was restricted to adult male homoioi (“similars”), who had been admitted to and were in good standing with a syssitia (mess hall) where Spartans took their meals (Brand: 11). Spartan citizens had the right to participate and make decisions in the Assembly (Brand: 10). However, the power of the Assembly was severely restricted and in no

way comparable to the powers of the Athenian assembly (Brand: 10).

Holders of Public Office and Rules for the Selection of Office Bearers

Following the reforms of Cleisthenes in 507 BCE, the principle of “one man, one vote” was adopted (Brand: 19), and this granted all classes in the citizen body considerable power. However, the holding of public office was more complicated. The highest political offices (such as the ten annually elected strategoi, or generals) were restricted to the highest income earners – the “500 bushel men” (Brand: 29). Political offices were restricted to different classes based on wealth. These included, in addition to the “500 bushel men”, the “300 bushel men”, the “200 bushel men” (who collectively were known as thetes, or knights) and the poorest class. In order for a citizen to serve as a public office-bearer therefore, he had to be at least 30 years old and hold the required amount of wealth (Brand: 31). In addition, “minor officials and jurors were chosen randomly by lottery” (Brand: 31).

In Sparta there existed, in addition to the dual kingship and the Assembly, the Gerousia and Ephorate (Brand: 9). The Gerousia was a council of aristocratic Spartan citizens over the age of 60, and was where true political power resided (Brand: 9). There were 30 members at any one time (the two kings were automatically admitted as part of the 30) and members were elected by the Assembly for life (Brand: 10). The Gerousia approved matters for the consideration of the Assembly and the Ephors usually deferred to the guidance of the Gerousia (Brand: 10).

The Ephorate was the only route to political power for non-aristocratic Spartan citizens and consisted of five ephors who were elected annually by the Assembly (Brand: 10). Ephors could serve a single, one year term in office and, together with the kings, were the executive branch of the Spartan state (Brand: 10). The duties of the ephors included judicial affairs, military organisation and foreign relations (Brand: 10). The ephors also “convened meetings of the Gerousia and Assembly and set the legislative agenda” (Brand: 10).

How were Athens and Sparta different in their governmental structures and how did they differ?

The Athenian and Spartan governmental structures had some similarities, but in reality were very different. With respect to similarities, both had Assemblies of adult male citizens and both should be considered oligarchies in the modern sense of the term. This is because both restricted citizen rights to a small percentage of the inhabitants of the polis. However, within the citizen body, Athens was a participatory democracy whereas Sparta can perhaps best be described as an ‘oligarchy within an oligarchy’.

Aside from the macro-level differences described above, the governmental structures of Athens and Sparta were fundamentally different.

To begin with, Sparta had two kings (Brand: 9) while Athens had no royal house. Whereas Sparta’s Assembly had limited powers due to the formal and informal powers of the Gerousia and Ephors (Brand: 10), the Athenian Assembly was the defining feature of a demokratia, or “rule of the people” (Brand: 19). Another key difference between Athens and Sparta was the respective roles of the Athenian Boule, or Council, and the Spartan Gerousia. While selection to the Gerousia was limited to aristocratic Spartans, selection to the Boule was by lot and open to the citizen body (Brand:

19).

Conclusion

The Athenian and Spartan political systems, despite some superficial similarities, were quite distinct in structure and organisation. Although both ensured voting rights in an Assembly of adult male citizens, the powers of the respective Assemblies were very different. In addition, Athenian citizens had a far greater range of political offices open to them –and with this came greater power (e.g. as jurors). This was true in particular for the poorer classes, although some higher political offices in Athens were reserved for the wealthier classes.

The key difference in my view however, and this found expression in the respective governmental structures, were the political philosophies underpinning the two structures. While in Athens there was a far greater willingness to imbue the common citizens with real political power – and to bear the consequences thereof – the Spartan structure appears to have been one of rather complex and elaborate (for the ancient world) systems of checks and balances. This is evident in the dual kingship, the maintenance of an aristocratic element in the Gerousia, the popular power of the Assembly, and the executive and informal power of the ephors. It is interesting in this regard that modern democracies maintain elements of both underlying philosophies – democratic power with institutional mechanisms designed to limit the power of any one group or individual.