Land ownership in Archaic and Classical Athens and Sparta

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2004, during a period when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although the quality of this article does not match that of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information for students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author’s best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that readers consult the web for additional information on any unfamiliar words or specialised vocabulary.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, as required for an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work into English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

Land ownership (Egktisis = Έγκτησις), descent and full political rights were the three elements that characterised the status of free citizens in the ancient Greek world (Milios 2000, 33). Furthermore, land ownership played an important role in the development of the social, political and military institutions of Greek city-states. The article below discusses the contribution of land ownership in the above domains by focusing on Athens and Sparta during the Archaic (c.700–490/80 BC) and Classical periods (c. 490/480–323 BC). The paper is divided into two sections that discuss the cases of each city-state, and a concluding section compares the social, political, and military aspects of the two city-states.

Land ownership in ancient Athens

During the 7th century BC, a restricted military aristocracy possessed most of Attica’s land and exclusive access to Athens’ higher offices. This same aristocracy comprised the army, formulated the laws, and dispensed justice in accordance with its own interests (Mossé 1983, 19).

The social hierarchy at the beginning of the Archaic period was characterised by three groups with varying degrees of access to the city-state's political and military institutions. These were the Nobles (Eupatrides = Ευπατρίδες), who were rich landlords; the ‘Craftsmen’ (Demiourgoi = Δημιουργοί), who were artisans, merchants, free workers, fishermen and other self-sustained professionals, who did not possess any land at all; and finally the farmers (Geomoroi = Γεωμόροι or Agroikoi = Αγροίκοι), who were peasants owning small or medium-sized plots of land (Mpirgalias 2000, 131). There were also two separate social groups, neither of which had access to the city-state’s institutions or was allowed to possess land. These were the slaves (Douloi = Δούλοι) and the foreign professionals (Metoikoi = Mέτοικοι) (Milios 2000, 34-6).

Prior to Solon’s government, there were two groups of indebted peasants (Geomoroi) who either lived on ‘mortgaged’ loans placed on their individual freedom (‘body-loans’), or rented someone else’s land in return for one-sixth of their agricultural production. The name of the latter group, the Ektemoroi (Εκτήμοροι), derived from this contribution rate, as the word Ekton means one-sixth (Mossé 1983, 21-22). In both cases, the farmers’ inability to repay the debts they owed led to the loss of their property and personal freedom, often resulting in slavery. In 594 BC, Solon passed a series of social reforms, which erased the debts of the poor peasants (Seisachtheia = Σεισάχθεια) and forbade ‘body-loaning’ by law. Despite these reforms, Solon did not proceed to the redistribution of Attica’s land, which had fallen into the hands of a few powerful landlords in previous years. Furthermore, social stratification continued to be based on land ownership, although the criterion for defining the four new social groups was not land ownership itself but the output of agricultural production. More specifically, the Pentakosiomedimnoi, Triakosiomedimnoi or Hippeis, Diakosiomedimnoi or Zeugitae, and the Thetes were classified according to their income measured in Medimnoi, which were the capacity units of that time (Mpirgalias 2000, 132-5). Social stratification was indirectly dependent on land ownership, as the rich landlords, who owned more land than the poor farmers, produced larger grain yields. After the Cleisthenic reforms in 508/7 BC, however, land ownership ceased to be the criterion for social and political stratification (Milios 2000, 62). The production of wealth through economic activities other than agriculture (e.g. shipping and trade) led to the emergence of social groups that could have been part of the wealthiest social strata, without necessarily owning any land.

In terms of access to Athens’ political institutions, prior to Solon’s reforms, the aristocrats were the only ones who could elect the members of Athens’ Nine Archons (Archon = Άρχων) and the members of the Areopagus (Areios Pagos = Άρειος Πάγος), which was the city’s supreme council. This privilege was maintained after Solon’s reforms, only this time the old aristocracy was divided into two new groups based on income: the Pentakosiomedimnoi and the Triakosiomedimnoi, or Hippeis (Ιππείς). The second group, whose name meant 'cavalry,' probably consisted of members of the old military aristocracy, which had survived since the beginning of the Archaic period. Furthermore, the two wealthiest social groups had access to the Council of the 500 (Boule = Βουλή). Through his reforms, Solon delivered a political blow to the old aristocracy, allowing rich landlords of non-noble descent to enter the ranks of the Pentakosiomedimnoi and the Triakosiomedimnoi. This way, they were granted access to the political offices once possessed solely by the aristocrats. During Solon’s era, the Zeugitae (Diakosiomedimnoi) and the Thetes, who did not own any land at all, gained access to the People’s Council (Ecclesia tou Demou = Εκκλησία του Δήμου) and to the city’s Supreme Court (Heliaia = Ηλιαία). In the past, such institutions would have only been accessible to those who owned land.

After Solon’s government, social unrest led to violent clashes. In 580 BC, the old social group of the ‘Craftsmen’ (Demiourgoi = Δημιουργοί) were allowed to elect two representatives in the council of the Nine Archons (governors). This reform was probably important at the time, as the Demiourgoi owned no land yet were offered representation in one of the city-state's highest political institutions. The political privileges of the Athenian landlords finally ceased in 561 BC, when Peisistratos established his tyranny (Mpirgalias 2000, 131-40). As explained earlier, with the reforms introduced by Cleisthenes after the end of the Peisistratid Tyranny, land ownership ceased to be a precondition for adult males to become citizens and enjoy full political rights. The only precondition for these was that citizens be registered in their local municipal catalogues (Milios 2000, 51). Furthermore, during the same period, citizenship and full political rights were granted to many foreigners and slaves, despite the fact that they did not possess any land (Mpirgalias 2000, 141).

The military obligations of the Athenians were always based on the city-state’s social stratification. During the earlier Archaic period, the Nobles, who possessed significant land and held full political rights, probably played the most important role in the cavalry and heavily armed infantry. Even after Solon’s reforms and the division of the Athenian society into four new income-based groups, military obligations were still defined by land ownership (Milios 2000, 71-2). The two wealthiest and most prominent social groups, the Pentakosiomedimnoi and the Hippeis, served in the cavalry because they could purchase and maintain horses at their own expense (Mpirgalias 2000, 131, 160-1). Of course, such cavalry probably did not function as a combat unit in the same sense as during the Classical period, but it likely served as mounted infantry with enhanced mobility. The third social group, the Zeugitae, served in the infantry as hoplites and were expected to buy and maintain their armour and weapons at their own expense. The Thetes, who were of low income, served as lightly armed infantry (psiloi = ψιλοί) (Mpirgalias 2000, 131). It must be noted that during the Archaic period, there were limited occasions when slaves (Douloi) were allowed to serve in the army, as, for example, at the battle of Marathon in 490 BC (Mpirgalias 2000, 160-1).

The Cleisthenic reforms of the late 6th century BC introduced social and political innovations that characterised the birth of Classical Athenian democracy. Cleisthenes disengaged citizenship and the possession of full political rights from land ownership; however, there were occasions when the connection was still obvious. For example, one of the strictest penalties for someone who disrespected the laws was total ignominy (olike atimia = ολική ατιμία), which included the deprivation of one’s political rights and the confiscation of all his land (Milios 2000, 66). Furthermore, during the Classical period (490/479 – 323 BC), land ownership was an important means of promoting one’s social status. The prestige of wealthy landlords, who were solely adult males, was confirmed and enhanced through their contributions to sponsorships (choregies = χορηγίες), which operated as a form of wealth redistribution. Such sponsorships derived from income from land ownership and agricultural activities and were associated with the two wealthiest social groups, the Pentakosiomedimnoi and the Triakosiomedimnoi (Milios 2000, 79).

The political power of the two wealthiest social groups was significantly restricted by a series of reforms introduced by Ephialtes in 457 BC. These new reforms transferred the powers held by the Council of the Elders to the People’s Assembly, the Supreme Court and the Council of the 500. A little later, Pericles passed a law allowing the Thetes to be elected as governors (Archons). Until that time, the Thetes were primarily shop owners and artisans, who possessed no land and could not access this specific office; however, their political rights needed to expand due to the important role they played as oarsmen in the Athenian navy (Mpirgalias 2000, 146-7). In reality, Pericles’ amendment was never accepted, and shortly after his death, the law fell into disuse (Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1998, 138). At the same time, democratic institutions went through a crisis. Despite the introduction of an ‘ecclesiastic salary’ (ecclesiasticos misthos = εκκλησιαστικός μισθός), which was paid to the citizens who participated in the People’s Assembly, the participation of the Athenians declined due to their disappointment towards the state after the catastrophic consequences of the Peloponnesian War (Mpirgalias 2000, 149).

Women in Classical Athens had no legal capacity and, for this reason, were not allowed to own land (Milios 200, 68-9). The Peloponnesian War undermined land ownership as Attica’s land was deserted or destroyed during the Lacedaemonian raids. At that time, land speculation emerged for the first time: people bought abandoned land cheaply, re-cultivated it, and then resold it at a high price. Gradually, most of the land ended up in the hands of the rich. After the Peloponnesian War, discontent prevailed against the wealthy landlords. Slanders (sykophantes = συκοφάντες) accused many of illegal land possession, who ended up in court (Mpirgalias 2000, 148-9).

After the restoration of democracy in 403 BC, the People’s Assembly considered for the first time a proposal by Phormisios, who suggested the restriction of political rights and voting capacity only to those who owned land (Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1998, 138). Although the proposal did not go through, several years later, in 322 BC, a decree appeared that limited full citizenship and political rights to those who earned over 20 capacity units (this time measured in Mnas) from land exploitation (Milios 2000, 63).

In terms of the military obligations of Athenian citizens, the Classical period brought major changes and a shift in the army's mentality. The relationship between land ownership and military duties can be understood through the Euphebic Oath. The young recruits swore upon “the homeland’s borders, the wheat grains, the barley grains, the vineyards, the olive trees and the fig trees” (Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1998, 136-7). It is interesting that the Euphebic Oath spoke of protecting any cultivated land within the city’s borders, and did not associate that land with specific landlords, but rather with specific agricultural products that guaranteed the community’s survival.

During the Classical period, there were strict views that foreign professionals (Metoikoi = Μέτοικοι) should not be allowed to possess land. Still, some foreigners could obtain full citizenship and political rights. Such views reflected the social ideas of the Archaic period and are clearly evident in Xenophon’s book Ways and Means (Poroi = Πόροι), which translates as ‘Revenues’. The Metoikoi of Athens served in the navy as oarsmen alongside other Athenian citizens and also served as members of the National Guard, which was assigned to the protection of the city’s walls, together with the units of the young Euphebes (Milios 2000, 75).

Since the time of Pericles, the Athenians put serious effort into increasing their naval power and consolidating their hegemony in the Aegean Sea. This would not have been possible without the warship contributions (trierarchies = τριηραρχίες) and the fees (eisphores = εισφορές) paid by the wealthiest Athenians, which were the product of land exploitation (Milios 2000, 79). On the other hand, such Athenian warships were manned by free citizens who did not always own land and were not subject to monetary military contributions. Furthermore, during the Classical period, small landlords, the Clerouchoi (Κληρούχοι), were given plots of redistributed land in conquered territories in exchange for their military services (Mpirgalias 2000, 147). Right after the Peloponnesian War, Athenian citizens withdrew from military campaigns and focused primarily on rebuilding their land and producing wealth. From that point onwards, warfare passed into the hands of highly experienced mercenaries (Milios 2000, 75).

Land ownership in ancient Sparta

The Spartan society of the 8th century BC was probably controlled by aristocrats, who resolved the shortage of cultivated land (stenochoria = στενοχώρια) by conquering the neighbouring Messenia. After the end of the First Messenian War (735-715 BC), the conquered land was divided into plots (kleros = κλήρος) and was distributed to the Spartans and the Perioikoi (περίοικοι), who occupied the Laconian periphery (Mpirgalias 2000, 173). Little is known about how the Messenian land was divided and distributed amongst the Lacedaemonians. The only surviving fragments of information from this period, drawn from Herodotus and Thucydides, suggest that before the introduction of the Lycurgian Constitution in the late 6th century BC, Sparta was in constant social unrest due to its poor laws (Baltruch 2003, 26). It is likely that social unrest stemmed from the unfair distribution of cultivated land and the social inequality between the aristocrats and the farmers, who were also Sparta’s first hoplites.

According to the textual sources, justice prevailed in Sparta after a fair redistribution of the Laconian land attributed to Lycurgus. More specifically, the land was divided equally among 30,000 Perioikoi, who received the less fertile plots located in the Spartan periphery, and among 9,000 Spartans, who were distributed equal plots along the fertile valley of the river Eurotas (Baltrush 2003, 35). Such equal plots of land associated with the equal political and social status for the Spartan citizens, the name of whom (Homoioi = Όμοιοι) meant “the same”.

In reality, social equality among Spartan citizens was mainly due to the transition of the Laconian society from an aristocratic model to a militarised model. This happened after the Second Messenian War (640-620 BC), when farmers were compelled to serve as hoplites in the phalanx, thereby increasing social equality. During this period, the society was divided into three social groups that remained the same for centuries: the Homoioi, the Perioikoi, and the Helots. The internal and external relationships among the three social groups were determined according to land ownership. The equality among the Homoioi was reflected in the equal shares of paternal land (kleros = κλήρος) that each one possessed. According to Polybius (Histories, Book 22, ‘Sparta and the League’), the land of the Homoioi was held in common by the state. This view contrasts with Classical writers, who suggest that the Homoioi were the sole owners of their plots, which they could transfer to others as they wished.

The cultivation and agricultural exploitation of these plots was under the Helots (Είλωτες). The Helots were state-owned slaves of non-Lacedaemonian origins, who were attached to the land of their master, but had no legal rights on this land. They would profit from the agricultural exploitation of the land, in return for a share of the profits to their Spartan landlord. By contrast, the Perioikoi were part of the Lacedaemonian people and shared the same national and cultural identity with the Homoioi; however, they were considered inferior to the latter. Although many of them were artisans, traders and stock breeders, they were also farmers who possessed their own land in the Spartan periphery. Such farmers would have normally worked on their own plots without the assistance of Helots (Mpirgalias 200, 174-188).

The only citizens who were allowed to participate in Sparta’s political affairs were the Homoioi, or, in other words, those who possessed a kleros, which was originally given to them or their predecessors by the state. In theory, they had equal rights to participate in the People’s Assembly (Apella = Απέλλα) and the Elders’ Council (Gerousia = Γερουσία). In practice, however, the election in the Elders’ Council was restricted to a group of former aristocrats who were affiliated with the courts of the two Spartan kings. The two kings were never elected; they inherited their thrones through royal descent, as they originated from two aristocratic families, the Agidae and the Euripontidae. Although equal, the political decisions made by the Homoioi, who were mostly landlords of non-aristocratic background, were limited due to a Retra (decree or legal amendment) introduced by King Theopombus sometime in the late 8th or early 7th century BC, which questioned the clarity of decisions made by the Apella. Furthermore, the political decisions of the Apella were, by definition, constrained by the military character of Spartan society. In other words, it would have been difficult for low-ranking soldiers to vote against the instructions of their superior officers, although Thucydides records one occasion on which this actually happened. It was only after the introduction of a new institution, the Five Ephors, that the Apella’s political powers became real (Mpirgalias 2000, 176). It is rather peculiar that although the Perioikoi were Lacedaemonians and possessed their own land, they had no political rights at all.

During the Archaic period, Sparta’s military consisted of hoplites, who were citizens with full political rights, obtained through the possession of a kleros; therefore,, hoplites were, by definition, landowners. As explained earlier, this model was established from the Second Messenian War onwards. A young male who descended from Spartan parents needed to successfully complete the Agoge (Αγωγή) to be introduced into the ranks of the Homoioi. The Agoge was a highly militarised education system monitored by the state, which guaranteed the production of new hoplites. To remain in the ranks of the Homoioi, the new soldier was expected to contribute his share of foodstuffs to the common meals (Syssiteia = Συσσίτεια) shared by the hoplites. Such contributions came from the exploitation of the soldier’s land, the kleros. The Perioikoi, who were also landlords, were not treated as equals (as Homoioi) and never contributed food supplies for the Syssiteia; still, they would attend the Agoge and serve in secondary units, which differed from the heavily armed infantry of the Homoioi. Land ownership in the Perioikian Territory, as the Spartan periphery was described, operated as a protective umbrella against Sparta’s Northern enemies, such as the Arcadians and the Argives. If there were an attack from the North, the Perioikoi would be the first to respond. Finally, there were occasions when the Helots served in the army as lightly armed skirmish troops (Psiloi = Ψιλoί). The leaders of Sparta’s army were its two kings, who remained the representatives of the former noble aristocratic groups. During military campaigns, they retained full control over the armed forces, at least until 507 BC. Towards the end of the 6th century BC, the power of the kings was restricted through the introduction of two Ephors, who monitored the army and the kings during military campaigns (Mpirgalias 2000, 181-200)

After the end of the Persian Wars in 480/479 BC, Sparta was engaged in a competition with Athens for power and control over the Greek world. This led to a series of armed conflicts that escalated during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC). As with Athens, Sparta felt the devastating effects of the war, and its society went through a period of economic, social and political crisis. During this period, new reforms to land ownership changed the city-state’s social character.

Aristotle (Politics, ‘On the Lacedaemonian Constitution’) notes that after the Peloponnesian War, 2/5 of Sparta’s cultivated land had passed into the hands of women. Unlike in Athens, this suggests that Spartan women had legal capacity and could own land (Milios 2000, 69). Furthermore, the decree (Rhetra) of Epitadeus, dated to the early 4th century BC, allowed the Homoioi to transfer ownership of their paternal land at their own will to any recipient. Prior to this decree, land was only transferred by hereditary descent. This specific decree appeared at a time when traditional moral constraints had declined among the Spartans; there was a tendency towards the accumulation of wealth that did not exist in the past, and soon Spartan land was concentrated in the hands of a few rich landlords (Mpirgalias 2000, 178). The new regime of land ownership in the 4th century BC recognised new groups in Sparta’s social hierarchy, allowing them to own land. These were the Ypomeiones (Yπομείωνες), the Tresantes (Tρέσαντες), the Mothakes (Mόθακες) and the Trophimoi (Tρόφιμοι). Furthermore, the group of the Neodamodeis (Νεοδαμώδεις) appeared, who were Helots offered land (kleros) and full political rights in exchange for their military services (Mpirgalias 2000, 192-6).

Sparta’s political institutions were in decline right after the end of the Peloponnesian War due to severe casualties that reduced the number of the Homoioi. Political rights were further lost due to poverty. Several Homoioi were not allowed to vote as they could not contribute to the common meals (Syssitia) of their military units, or because they sold their paternal land, which was a requirement to be a member of the People’s Assembly (Apella) (Mosse & Schnapp–Gourbeillon 2002, 326). These former Homoioi abandoned their homeland and joined mercenary armies abroad (Fraceliere 2003, 326). At the same time, the Perioikoi strengthened their economic and social position through their involvement in prosperous enterprises that did not necessarily require land ownership. Together with the Neodamodeis, they were offered a kleros and full access to the city-state’s political institutions (Mosse & Schnapp–Gourbeillon 2002, 326).

The necessity of introducing an admiral’s rank in Sparta’s armed forces generated further problems. This was a new reality that no longer aligned with Sparta’s military organisation as it was known during the Archaic period. The holder of this office was likely not to descend from a former aristocratic family of Spartan landlords, as for example did Lysander; yet, the admiral held the same powers as the two Spartan kings (Mpirgalias 2000, 191).

During the early 4th century BC, Sparta witnessed the first armed rebellion (Stasis) in its long history. Although the reasons for this stasis are unclear, it is likely to have been associated with struggles for access to political power, which most likely began after the Conspiracy of Cinadon in 397 BC. The revolt was suppressed in a disorganised and spasmodic manner, which did not characterise the spirit of Spartan military efficiency of previous centuries (Mosse & Schnapp–Gourbeillon 2002, 326). The conscription of the Perioikoi and the Helots in the Spartan infantry, which followed after their recognition as Homoioi, did not improve Sparta’s military power. As a result, it is recorded that during the Theban invasion of the Peloponnese, right after the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, the Homoioi who formed the Spartan army numbered fewer than 700 (Fracelière 2003, 326). The final defeat of the Spartans by the Thebans led to further loss of fertile Messenian lands. As a result, the crisis in land ownership deepened, leading to devastating social, political, and economic consequences (Mpirgalias 2000, 195).

Conclusions

A comparison of the two systems of land ownership in Athens and Sparta during the Archaic and Classical periods reveals distinct approaches, yet with a shared element. In Athens, changes in land ownership reshaped social dynamics among different groups. Such changes facilitated a shift from an aristocratic social hierarchy prior to Solon’s reforms to a plutocratic one immediately afterwards. Furthermore, at the end of the Archaic period and immediately after Cleisthenes' reforms, social status was independent of land ownership. In the Classical period, the democratisation of Athenian society offered greater social opportunities to those without land, while land ownership remained a significant indicator of higher social status. By contrast, the transition from an aristocratic society to a society of equals (Homoioi) in Sparta was achieved through the equalisation of land ownership under state intervention and the levelling of social status through militarisation. Even until the end of the Classical period, the possession of a kleros was the only indicator of one’s social and political position within the society. An important innovation in Spartan law was the right of women to own land, a right denied to women in Athens and other city-states.

As early as the Archaic period, the political institutions of Athens underwent a series of changes that led to the birth of democracy during the Classical period. This gradual transition was achieved by disconnecting political rights from land ownership. During the 5th century BC, full citizenship and full political rights were not restricted to landlords only. By contrast, land ownership continued to define the political rights of the Spartans from the earlier Archaic period, when the Lycurgian Constitution was first introduced, until the final decline of Sparta in the 4th century BC. Of course, it must be pointed out that both city-states introduced non-citizens and non-landlords into the city-state’s political body whenever difficult conditions dictated so. In Sparta, the introduction of new citizens into the political body was achieved through the offer of a new kleros, while in Athens, this was done by subscription in the municipal catalogues.

Both city-states retained the same principle that a citizen must also be a soldier at all times. In fact, in the ancient Greek world, the properties of being a citizen and a soldier were always the same. In Archaic Athens, the tactical combat forces consisted of the three land-owning income groups as these were defined by Solon’s reforms. These groups gave place to a uniform army of citizen-hoplites during the Classical period, which also included non-landlords, particularly after the Cleisthenic reforms. By contrast, there was not a single Spartan soldier who did not possess his own land (kleros), and this was the case throughout Sparta's history.

The results of the different models of social, political, and military organisation are evident in the economic dynamics of the two city-states just before their fall to the Macedonians. During that time, Athens survived as an autonomous and flourishing economy, which also sustained a flourishing intellectual life. The presence of a market that offered alternative means of subsistence not tied to land ownership attracted foreign populations, who were integrated into Athenian society and contributed to the city-state’s development. By contrast, Sparta struggled to revive after the Peloponnesian War due to military casualties, which also reduced the number of politically active citizens. Furthermore, Spartan got disoriented under the pressure of new political and economic realities. It did not adapt to the new circumstances, and by retaining a system of socio-political organisation traditionally tied to land ownership and exploitation, it failed to introduce innovations that would guarantee its survival.

Final remarks

During the translation of this article into English, the author felt the need to reassess his work 15 years later, make some changes, and add personal critique to the points presented above. These are derived from a later maturity of thought and accumulation of knowledge.

First of all, the term “social classes” in relation to the social stratifications of ancient Athens and Sparta was purposely avoided. This was replaced by the term “social groups”, which now seems more appropriate. Greek Academia prefers the term “social classes” when discussing the Solonian and Lycurgian reforms of the Archaic period, as this is how they are first mentioned in ancient texts. However, the modern reader needs to bear in mind that the translation of the Greek word Taxeis (τάξεις) does not only always relate to social classes, but to any form of social stratification that requires distinction among social groups. Unfortunately, in Western scholarship, the word Taxeis has come to be equated with social classes in the Marxist sense. The author believes that the Marxist interpretation of Archaic Greek social stratification is invalid; therefore, he purposely avoids using the term “social classes”.

Secondly, the author felt that his original essay had been presented in a way that unnecessarily fragmented various domains of ancient Greek life, a fragmentation that could have been avoided during its translation into English. More specifically, in its original form, this paper dealt separately with the social, political and military aspects of land ownership in ancient Athens and Sparta. Given the nature of Archaic and Classical Greek city-states, where the politically active population consisted solely of adult male citizen-soldiers, the separation of social, political, and military activities can be confusing. Unlike modern societies, and Western democracies in particular, where these aspects of everyday reality can be separate from each other, in the ancient Greek cosmos, there was no differentiation of social, political and military functions, at least in relation to adult males.

Thirdly, it must be borne in mind that the original undergraduate assignment handed to the class back in 2004 required the use of a specific bibliography, primarily based on the works of Milios (2000) and Mpirgalias (2000). Although the author of this paper respects the aforementioned scholars, he feels their work is based on historical approaches that cover only part of the topic. Milios (2000) focuses primarily on the key aspect of the ancient economy, and his approach is heavily dependent on Aristotle. Mpirgalias (2000) offers a useful critique of ancient textual sources and follows the theoretical framework of the ‘deconstruction school’, though he rarely employs archaeological evidence that might suggest otherwise.

Finally, the author wishes to comment on the last section of his own paper, which was once influenced by his social and political beliefs and by the broader ideas circulating in academia during the early 2000s. It is definitely true that in the minds of modern scholars, ancient Athens has been viewed as the forerunner of modern Western capitalist societies. This belief was also strengthened by the approaches of Western philosophers and economists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which will be discussed in forthcoming articles. In reality, the true nature of Classical Athenian society bore little resemblance to modern Western societies, although some basic ideas can be traced back then. For example, there was a controlled form of democracy; there was a relatively open market-based economy; there was a positive approach to foreign labour; there was intention to cultural innovation; there was clear understanding of the relationship between warfare, control of resources and economic prosperity; and, there was use of complex socio-political institutions that required the participation of a large body of citizens, who were also paid for their services. Of course, one must not forget that similar models of social organisation were followed by many other Greek city-states during the 5th and 4th centuries BC. By contrast, Western scholarship has viewed Sparta as a backward, agricultural, totalitarian and extremely militarised society, always threatened by any form of social, political, economic or military innovation. If one were to summarise the popular beliefs about Athens and Sparta, particularly as they were understood during the Cold War, Athens would have been described as an adaptive, innovative, extroverted and profit-driven society, while Sparta would have been described as a monolithic, conservative, introverted and extremely militarised society. In reality, these distinctions are not always true. Ancient authors portray 4th-century Sparta as a corrupt, profit-driven society, while the militarised character of Athens is evident in the structure of the First Delian League. Although Athens might have been more prosperous and perhaps stronger than Sparta during the late 4th century BC, the reality remains that both (and many other allied city-states) had been socially, politically and economically drained after a century of continuous competition and conflict. Whatever the condition of these city-states, at the very end of the 4th century BC, they were all conquered by the armies of Philip II of Macedon, which raises an interesting question: Why? Was there something that Athens and Sparta were doing wrong, or was there something that Philip was doing right?

Bibliography

Austin, M.M. and Vidal-Naquet, P., 1998, Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, translated by T. Koukoulios, Athens: Daedalos – Zacharopoulos.
Baltrush E., 2003, Sparta: History, Society and Civilisation of the Ancient Laconia City, translated by P. Blanoglou, Athens: Papadimas.
Fracelière R., 2003, Public and Private Life of the Ancient Greeks, translated by G. Vandoros, Athens: Papadimas.
Milios, A., 2000, ‘The concept of a free civilian’, in Vasilou-Papageorgiou, V. (ed.) Public and Private Life in Greece, Part 1, From Antiquity until the Post-Byzantine Period, Volume 1, Public and Private Life in Ancient Greece, Patra: Greek Open University, 23-114.
Mossé, C., 1983, Athens: The History of Democracy, translated by D. Agelidou, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Mossé, C. and Schnapp – Gourbeillon, A., 2002, A Brief History of Ancient Greece, translated by L. Stephanou, Athens: Dapadimas.
Mpirgalias, N., 2000, ‘Ancient public life, political life and classes: judicial, military and religious life’, in Vasilou-Papageorgiou, V. (ed.) Public and Private Life in Greece, Part 1, From Antiquity until the Post-Byzantine Period, Volume 1, Public and Private Life in Ancient Greece, Patra: Greek Open University, 115-238.