via AMAC
Contrary to conventional summaries, Greek city-states were neither purely democratic nor purely militaristic. They were, as we are, complex. Athens was a pseudo-democracy – but aggressive and expansionist, constantly waring with others for land.
Contrary to myth, Athens was not the “land of bread and honey,” especially for women, who had no rights, could not vote, and were effectively property of their husbands.
Novel in the way it pioneered self-rule, Athens was actually governed by a loosely defined upper class, with “lots” drawn – and favored retired military heroes as leaders.
By contrast, Sparta – which history despises more than Richard III, a likely victim of Tudor disinformation – was not a heathen, horrible, all-war-all-the-time sort of place.
An inland city-state with no real navy, it tended to be defensive, focused on domestic prosperity, non-expansionist, and notably gave women every right men had – no exceptions.
Sparta’s domestic life was hardly insufferable, and the most educated citizens were elected to bodies that served under a king. If the collective view disagreed with the king, he was overruled.
So, why did history trash Sparta and celebrate Athens? Why do historians see Sparta’s more gender-equitable, orderly lifestyle – not expansionist – as bad? Why is Athens the posterchild for “good” governance, Sparta all that is “bad?”
The reason is simple, but subtle. Athens tended toward democratic rule, higher education, encouraged philosophy, higher thinking, even poetry. Athens was a dualism, confident in intellectual and political innovation – but also aggressive.
The reverse image, Sparta was content with traditional norms, not big on innovation, hardly ready to abandon established social norms, individuality and freedom, including for women.
Sparta was also determined to be prepared for war, perhaps because of city-states like Athens, invariably at their gates. So – and here is the nub – Sparta took nothing for granted.
Sparta had mandatory military service, modest for the young and highly capable, no excuses, no lapses for men in their prime and older age. Notably, if the population had not wished this, they could have overruled the king – and they did not.
Here
History is in the West heavily biased toward the developments in the "west" at the expense of teaching what was going on in the rest of the world.
It ignores other civilizations unless they poised a threat to Rome or Athens (other Greek city states).
But even in that bias you have to have noticed that Sparta is singled out for the most disparaging views of all of them.
I've always wondered why.
By today's standards they were forward thinking. By the standards of the time they were no better or worse than the other states.
So why the hate?
It's martial traits.
The author struggles to link the martial traits of Sparta with our Roman sensibilities.
That's flawed thinking. You can have one but not both. Apparently we're choosing to follow the examples of the Romans.
