The Pros And Cons Of Athenian Democracy

The Athenians’ democracy didn’t give them strength, it actually hurt them. They were slowed down by the political dialogue and dissidence when compared to their neighbors who were more authoritarian. Their authoritarian neighbors were far more successful due to their willingness to follow a few or one leader. Democracy is a great form of government, but in the case of Athenians, it was actually problematic. Athens was a small but influential city state in what is now known as the nation of Greece. They were a great trade city due to their easy access to the Aegean Sea. They were also a prodigious intellectual center as they valued knowledge above all else. This pursuit of knowledge led to the creation of a democracy, a form

The Spartans were a stronger nation due to their warrior-like mind set. The Spartans were great warriors who were looked down upon by the Athenians for what they considered to be the Spartans’ savagery. The Spartans did benefit from capturing territory from other nations and they did own slaves, however, the Athenians also owned slaves even though they weren’t as aggressive as the Spartans were (HIST 101 Western I). The Spartans were focused on one craft: the art of war, while the Athenians were focused on many. Both have their advantages and draw backs, but in their pursuit of one goal the Spartans lived simply without craving riches. The poor and rich would eat together eating the same bread and the same meat creating a sense of community and common brotherhood. These practices were put into place by one of their reformer lawmakers, Lycurgus, who is credited with founding the warrior mentality of Sparta. Lycurgus didn’t enforce these laws by the means of a democracy nor a dictatorship, but by an oligarchy which consisted of the elders of society who together would make decisions that would affect the civilization. In this way, they would eliminate the useless political strife of a democracy while avoiding the traps of a monarchy