Spartan society was highly militaristic and divided into three main classes: the Spartiates, or full citizens, who were professional soldiers and owned land worked by the oppressed helots, state-owned serfs who provided agricultural labor, and the perioikoi, free non-citizens who engaged in trade and craftsmanship. In contrast, Athenian society was more diverse and politically oriented, with citizens forming the core of political and military life, though participation was restricted to males. Below them were metics, free non-citizen residents who contributed through trade and skilled labor but had no political rights, and slaves, who performed various forms of labor without autonomy. While Sparta emphasized rigid hierarchy and military dominance, Athens fostered a more economically and politically diverse structure.

How does Sparta develop differently from Athens? How did their differences affect the Greek community?

Sparta and Athens developed along starkly different paths, shaping their identities and influencing the broader Greek community. Sparta’s militaristic and oligarchic society prioritized discipline and communalism, driven by the need to control its subjugated helot population through a rigid social structure and the agoge military training system. In contrast, Athens embraced democracy, trade, and cultural innovation, becoming a hub for philosophy, art, and naval power. These differences led to competing visions of leadership in Greece, with Athens inspiring other city-states through its democratic ideals while fostering resentment through its imperialism, and Sparta serving as a conservative counterbalance that valued autonomy and military strength. Their rivalry, most notably seen in the Peloponnesian War, weakened the Greek polis system, paving the way for external powers like Macedon to rise. As seen in Plutarch’s Life of Lycurgus and Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War, Sparta’s austerity and Athens’ ambition created tensions that fractured the unity of the Greek world while leaving lasting cultural and political legacies.

By definition, a city-state is merely a society of people whose identity consists of a shared territory, which is bound by law. Although a Greek polis also shares these characteristics, a polis is unique in that the focus is not only on bare necessity or order through force, but provision of things that heighten the spirit and therefore cohesion of the society. For instance, average citizens are encouraged to witness practices considered sacred or for the upper class in city-states, such as public debates, ritual sacrifices, and processes of the government. In a Greek polis, every citizen is expected to take part in these activities because it is seen as enriching for the society as a whole, not a detriment. As a result, citizens of a polis versus a city-state are hold a more complex and nuanced cultural identity.

The Roman Republic was characterized by a system of accountability, the separation of powers between different elected officials such as consuls, senators, and tribunes, the sovereignty of the people, which derived power from citizens, and an intense emphasis on civic obligation and service, all aimed at preventing any single individual or class from gaining too much power within the government. Each branch of government had the authority to limit the power of the others, guaranteeing that no single government could rule. Additionally, various officials had unique roles and responsibilities, with consuls heading the military, the Senate advising on policy, and tribunes representing the common people.

What exactly was democracy as developed in Athens? How was it brought about? How does it function

Democracy in Athens was a system of government in which citizens directly participated in decision-making, making it one of the earliest and most influential forms of democracy in history. However, Athenian democracy was quite different from modern representative democracies, and its development and function are key to understanding its significance.

1. What was Athenian Democracy?

Athenian democracy, also known as direct democracy, was a political system in which free male citizens of Athens had the right to participate directly in legislative and judicial decisions, rather than electing representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Key features included:

• Assembly (Ekklesia): The central body of Athenian democracy, where all citizens could participate. The Assembly met around 40 times a year, and citizens voted on laws, military strategies, and key public policies.

• Council of 500 (Boule): A body of 500 citizens, chosen by lottery, which prepared matters for discussion in the Assembly. The Council oversaw daily governance, administrative decisions, and foreign diplomacy.

• Courts (Dikasteria): Athenian citizens also served as jurors in the courts, where they decided legal cases. This system of large juries was a hallmark of Athenian democracy and allowed citizens to have a direct role in legal matters.

2. How Was Athenian Democracy Brought About?

Athenian democracy was not a sudden event, but a gradual evolution of the political system, starting around the 6th century BCE. Several key stages and reforms contributed to its development:

• Solon’s Reforms (594 BCE): Solon, a statesman and lawgiver, introduced a series of reforms to address economic inequality and political instability in Athens. He abolished debt slavery, reformed the legal system, and introduced a more inclusive political structure, although power was still primarily in the hands of the aristocracy.

• Peisistratus and His Sons (546-510 BCE): Peisistratus, an Athenian tyrant, consolidated power, but his rule also helped develop the political infrastructure for democracy. His sons, though more autocratic, maintained many of the economic and social reforms that eventually set the stage for democracy.

• Cleisthenes’ Reforms (508 BCE): Often considered the “father of Athenian democracy,” Cleisthenes introduced a new political system that broke the power of traditional aristocratic families. He reorganized the population into ten tribes based on geography, rather than family ties, which made the political system more inclusive. He also expanded the role of the Assembly and created the Council of 500.

• Pericles (461–429 BCE): Under Pericles, democracy flourished. He introduced pay for public office holders and jurors, allowing even poor citizens to participate in governance. This made political involvement accessible to a broader segment of the population, further solidifying democracy.

3. How Did Athenian Democracy Function?

Athenian democracy functioned through direct citizen involvement, and its operation was complex and highly participatory. Key components included:

• The Assembly (Ekklesia): All male citizens (about 30,000 eligible individuals, though only around 6,000 typically attended) could participate in the Assembly. They met on the Pnyx Hill in Athens to debate and vote on major issues such as laws, war, and foreign policy. Voting was done by a show of hands or by casting pebbles in urns, and decisions required a majority.

• The Council of 500 (Boule): The Council was made up of 500 citizens selected by lot, with 50 members from each of Athens’ ten tribes. The Council’s role was to prepare the agenda for the Assembly, oversee the implementation of laws, and manage the city’s day-to-day affairs. The lottery system was intended to prevent corruption and ensure broad citizen involvement, rather than allowing the elite to dominate decision-making.

• The Courts (Dikasteria): Athenian citizens participated directly in the judicial system. Large juries (often consisting of hundreds of citizens) were drawn by lot and were responsible for making decisions in legal cases. The courts played a crucial role in holding public officials accountable.

• Public Officials: Many public officials were chosen by lottery, with the notable exception of generals and some higher-ranking officers. This was done to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of a few elites. Those selected could serve for a limited term, usually one year, and could be held accountable by the Assembly.

Punic Wars were a series of three conflicts between Rome and Carthage over control of trade, territory, and influence, that finished with Rome’s ultimate victory.

The First Punic War began in 264 BCE over control of the island of Sicily, a rich agricultural place. Carthage was a powerful navy power, while Romans didn’t have good relationships either with the sea-based battles or with the sea god Neptune. They developed a tactic - to bring the earth to the sea and introduced the “Corvus”, turning naval battles into face-to-face combat. Rome won the series of navy battles, and in 241 BCE Carthage surrendered.

The Second Punic War was sparked by Hannibal’s expansion into Spain in 218 BCE. He met Romans among the people, who were conquered (Spain, Gaul). He crossed the Alps with war elephants, achieving stunning victories. However, he didn’t march to Rome, afraid to attack. During this time Romans recovered and sent the new army under the rule of Fabius to keep Hannibal busy. Rome defeated Carthage at the Battle of Zama (202 BCE) and Carthage lost its territories in Spain.

The Third Punic War started in 149 was not a battle similar to the previous ones. Carthage wasn’t a military threat anymore. In Rome, in the Senate, one of the members, Cato the Elder, advocated for Carthage’s destruction, saying “Carthago delenda est” (Carthage must be destroyed). In 146 BCE Rome destroyed the city and enslaved its population.

Rome struggled to adjust politically and militarily to its empire due to the rapid and unplanned expansion of its territories, which created governance challenges, resource strains, and power imbalances. Politically, the Republic’s structure, designed for a small city-state, was ill-suited for managing vast provinces. The Senate, controlled by elites, often prioritized personal gain over administrative efficiency, leading to corruption and unrest in the provinces. Militarily, Rome’s reliance on citizen-soldiers became unsustainable as campaigns grew longer and further from home. This contributed to the rise of professional armies loyal to their generals rather than the state, ultimately destabilizing the Republic. For example, in class discussions, we noted how generals like Julius Caesar and Pompey leveraged their military power to challenge traditional authority, culminating in civil wars. Readings on the Gracchi brothers highlighted how economic inequalities—exacerbated by Rome’s conquests—fueled political unrest, while videos on Augustus’ reforms emphasized how transitioning to empire required rethinking governance and military structure entirely. These examples illustrate how Rome’s inability to adapt to the demands of an empire fractured its political unity and weakened its military stability.

Alexander's legacy changed the face of the ancient world through cultural diffusion, political innovation, and military brilliance. His campaigns spread Greek culture throughout his large empire, blending with the people to form the Hellenistic age. He founded cities such as Alexandria that became centers for learning and trade. Military strategy became another of his contributions that lasted for generations. Alexander's empire facilitated the exchange of ideas, further advancing philosophy, science, and religious syncretism, while the divisions after his death gave way to very influential Hellenistic kingdoms. Admired for his life, a symbol of ambition and leadership because of his works, it inspired other famous figures like Julius Caesar and helped to form both Eastern and Western civilizations. Yet, even though the wars he fought destroyed so much his life and his legends engraved their mark into history.

The social order of Macedon was different from that of the Greek city-states by Macedon rule in a hereditary monarchy, but Greek city-states were governed by various forms of democracy, leading to a decentralized power structure among the citizens, instead of a single ruler at the top. The Macedonians see themselves in relation to the Greeks by identifying with the Greek god participating in Greek athletic games like the Olympics and tracing their lineage to Greek mythology. The role this played in Macedon’s eastern conquests is the Macedonian phalanx is a crucial role in Macedon’s eastern conquests, particularly under Alexander the Great.

Roman citizenship was significant in unifying the diverse Empire and maintaining control over its fast territories. It provided significant benefits such as protection under Roman law against invaders, making citizenship a desirable quality. Augustus utilised this by strategically extended citizenship to provinces that were loyal to Rome, rewarding this service in the form of military or local government which resulted in strengthened ties between Rome and the new areas of the empire, facilitating romanisation. Consequently, this encouraged allegiance and enamoured citizenship as a powerful instrument for government and cultural assimilation across the empire.

What were the causes of the Peloponnesian War?

The cause of the Peloponnesian War was the tension between the Athens and Spartans due to Athens creating a decree that stopped Megarnian from trading in ports associated with the Athen Empire which later led to Sparta relatiating by stating that if they didn't abolish the degree they would destroy the Athen statues.