Were Athens And Sparta Early Examples of Ideological Warfare?

[Outinleftfield]

Socrates' description of a just regime in Plato's Republic was a lot similar to Sparta than Athens. Then Sparta beat Athens in the Peloponesian War and put a dictator sympathetic to Sparta in charge. Accounts suggest Socrates looked more favorably on this regime and may have even been friends with some of the dictators. After democracy was restored Socrates was tried and executed.

Was Socrates an ancient equivalent of Julius Rosenberg? Were the real underlying reasons for his trial his sympathies towards the kind of government fought for by Sparta? "corrupting the youth" could possibly refer to teaching them ideas that include the justness of tyranny.

How much did ideas play in the Peloponesian War and surrounding political tensions? Were there deep seated loyalties not just to the cities but to democracy or tyranny(note tyranny back then meant autocracy regardless of how benevolent the rule was)?

Do these kind of things repeat themselves throughout history? Can we expect another Cold War soon?

Another interesting point Tocqueville predicted the Cold War long before Russia's Revolution. Do the ideologies of the strongest nations just naturally become polarized into ideological wars? If Russia remained under the control of the Czars would the 20th century been an ideological Cold War between Republics and Monarchies instead?

[FSL]

Socrates being tried for corrupting the youth and being a closet-oligarch was more of a pretext rather than the real reason. Many of his students/followers however like Plato or Alkiviades did have sympathies for the non-democratic regimes so that became a good foundation for the charges.


On the Sparta vs Athens thing, it wasn't just ideology setting the two states apart.
Sparta was built far from the sea and unlike other greek city-states didn't colonise other areas. Athens on the other hand was close to the sea, developed an important naval force and founded many colonies.

Sparta became depended for maintaining itself to enslaving neighbouring peoples, the ratio of slaves to free people was that high that developing military might was the only way to keep them in check. Often Sparta would refuse to participate with a significant force in fights far from the city, as they couldn't afford to be away that long. So Sparta was more of a feudalist society, trade was limited and "standard of living" low. With no trade there wasn't a rise of a new merchant "class" that would demand privileges so, in turn, there wasn't a change to a different political structure. The power remained mainly in the hands of the two royal families. (There were limited elements of participation for the free citizens there too)

Athens on the other hand developed trade with its colonies, had a shipping "industry", took profit from exploiting mines in the area. Traveling around played a part in rising the level of culture and craftsmen could sell their popular products anywhere in the mediterranean. Merchants and craftsmen (that were employing slaves) weren't of a royal ancestry but their taxes made Athens strong. As it was natural, they pushed the nobility aside and started participating in politics themselves, a democracy for the free citizens only.


During the Peloponesian war almost all cities that were near the sea and had developed trade sided with Athens, most of mainland Greece went with Sparta.

Sparta and Athens were enemies then for the same reasons Napoleon and France fought against almost all of Europe or the reasons that brought Cold War between US and USSR

[ReggaeCat]

Athens that time was what USA is now.Mother of Capitalism.The state where every Athenian Male never worked and always try to philosophy and to make art having the slaves doing the work,also the women.
In Sparta it was like a national socialism.No creativity.No Fun.Just train,Pride for your state,xenophobia(don't know what it's called in english) also slaves and some kind of people who were not spartans nor slaves just natives on that land around and worked for the spartans for money but were not slaves, and all that stuff.
Actually the peloponese war was about athens stealing money from their allies and the destruction of mylos.the some states went with athens some with sparta...form what i remeber that's how it began.Although despite athens having such a great naval power spartans had discipline.In the last battle the spartans actually won by destroying the Athenian ships.
Concluding,Athens and Sparta had no ideological warfare but power and money hunting also who would dominate the greek terriotory.After that ,Romans came and greece becomes a state in 1821.End of History lesson.xD

[rhys]

Athens that time was what USA is now.Mother of Capitalism.The state where every Athenian Male never worked and always try to philosophy and to make art having the slaves doing the work,also the women.

Plato's friends might not have worked, but a great many free Athenians were poor. Unable to pay for horses or expensive armour, they manned the ships, and the navy was the great defender of the democracy - so the earlier point about distance from the sea is relevant.


In Sparta it was like a national socialism.No creativity.No Fun.Just train,Pride for your state,xenophobia(don't know what it's called in english) also slaves and some kind of people who were not spartans nor slaves just natives on that land around and worked for the spartans for money but were not slaves, and all that stuff.

We have an English word 'xenophobia' for that! The Helots were slaves: the Spartans declared war on them once a year, so they could murder any uppity ones legally. And their assembly was a sort of democracy - loudest shout won!

Agree with you mostly though.

[FSL]

Were not both Athens and Sparta slave-owning societies? I'm a little confused by your use of the word "feudalist" here.
Its certainly curious as to how a political democracy existed in Athens in spite of the underlying economic system being slavery. I guess the same can be asked of the current bourgeois democracies as well.


I just mean that in Sparta land was still what mattered, cultivated by slaves.

In Athens mercants, craftsmen or even the state that owned mines in Lavrio or spent money in projects like Acropolis were in the center of the economy. Slaves were unlike those in Sparta in that they could "buy" their freedom from their masters.

Sparta's upper classes were decided by bloodline whereas Athens was showing signs of "social mobility". That was the reason the older ruling cast and the old state structure were done away with, power was shifted from those that inherited it to those that could afford it.

[Comrade Gwydion]

On the Sparta vs Athens thing, it wasn't just ideology setting the two states apart.
Sparta was built far from the sea and unlike other greek city-states didn't colonise other areas. Athens on the other hand was close to the sea, developed an important naval force and founded many colonies.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Both Sparta and Athens were unique in greek society in the fact that they both didn't found colonies. Sparta conquered neighbouring Greek Territories while Athens simply had enough land and didn't need more.
However, Athens did have a great naval force and founded an alliance between naval-states. As time progressed, these so-called 'allies' fell more and more under Athens sway and effectively became puppet-states, so that may be the colonies you refer to.
All other greek states founded colonies, but unlike 17th/18th/19th century colonies, these all were immedieatly granted independence with just better trade-rights for the mother-city.



Sparta became depended for maintaining itself to enslaving neighbouring peoples, the ratio of slaves to free people was that high that developing military might was the only way to keep them in check. Often Sparta would refuse to participate with a significant force in fights far from the city, as they couldn't afford to be away that long.

True. A major problem, as many of the 'true' spartans got degraded to second-class citizens because they couldn't pay for the obligated 'common meals' between the spartans.




So Sparta was more of a feudalist society, trade was limited and "standard of living" low. With no trade there wasn't a rise of a new merchant "class" that would demand privileges so, in turn, there wasn't a change to a different political structure. The power remained mainly in the hands of the two royal families. (There were limited elements of participation for the free citizens there too)
Actually, Sparta had a quite diverse system. There were two kings, who were elected every x-period of time. They mostly held power during crises. There was indeed a public council for the free citizens, but it held almost no power. The real power was in the hands of the Council of Elders, most of whom had been a king at one point of their life.





Athens on the other hand developed trade with its colonies, had a shipping "industry", took profit from exploiting mines in the area. Traveling around played a part in rising the level of culture and craftsmen could sell their popular products anywhere in the mediterranean. Merchants and craftsmen (that were employing slaves) weren't of a royal ancestry but their taxes made Athens strong. As it was natural, they pushed the nobility aside and started participating in politics themselves, a democracy for the free citizens only.


During the Peloponesian war almost all cities that were near the sea and had developed trade sided with Athens, most of mainland Greece went with Sparta.

Sparta and Athens were enemies then for the same reasons Napoleon and France fought against almost all of Europe or the reasons that brought Cold War between US and USSR

I fail to grasp that last sentence.


Athens that time was what USA is now.Mother of Capitalism.The state where every Athenian Male never worked and always try to philosophy and to make art having the slaves doing the work,also the women.
In Sparta it was like a national socialism.No creativity.No Fun.Just train,Pride for your state,xenophobia(don't know what it's called in english) also slaves and some kind of people who were not spartans nor slaves just natives on that land around and worked for the spartans for money but were not slaves, and all that stuff.
Actually the peloponese war was about athens stealing money from their allies and the destruction of mylos.the some states went with athens some with sparta...form what i remeber that's how it began.Although despite athens having such a great naval power spartans had discipline.In the last battle the spartans actually won by destroying the Athenian ships.
Concluding,Athens and Sparta had no ideological warfare but power and money hunting also who would dominate the greek terriotory.After that ,Romans came and greece becomes a state in 1821.End of History lesson.xD

History lesson continues: Actually, Romans were many years later then the Peloponesian wars. Alexander ended them by conquering greece, egypt and the middle east ;)
There were multiple wars, and the Persians were often involved. The Conflict was like this:
Sparta fought Athens, and was supported by Persia. It got the upper hand, so it decided to 'liberate' the greek city's under persian rule. Persia switched sides.
Athens fought Sparta, and was supported by Persia. It got the upper hand, so it decided to 'liberate' the greek city's under persian rule. Persia switched sides
Sparta fought Athens, and was supported by Persia. It got the upper hand, so it decided to 'liberate' the greek city's under persian rule. Persia switched sides.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.

[FSL]

Phocaea, Ephesus in Asia minor and Thurii in south Italy are some of Athens' colonies.

Also, I've never heard of Spartan kings being "elected" to serve. You must be talking about the ephors, a body founded by Lykourgus that went on to take most of the power after Sparta passed its "prime".

"Sparta and Athens were enemies then for the same reasons Napoleon and France fought against almost all of Europe or the reasons that brought Cold War between US and USSR"

What I mean is that the two sides represent the interests of different classes, different ways of organizing and governing the state and that that is the main cause of the adversity. A spartan hegemony would put more limits to what an Athenian merhant could own, an athenian hegemony would give helotes the prospect of freedom. It wasn't just the "lust for power" that had them fighting.

[narcomprom]

if we are to believe the book "origins of war: violence in prehistory" even the primitive ur-communist australian aborigenes would posit complex justifications when claiming the next watering spot.

[Coinneach]

To try and refer to the Peloponnesian War as being similar to a Cold War is something which is inspired commonly by a belief that Sparta was some kind of Nazi state. Sure, Sparta had slaves. A lot of slaves. But she was only different to the Athenian polis in that she enslaved an entire city-state rather than just having an enslaved underclass, and Athenian society could be just as brutal as Spartan.

The true causes of the war were in effect similar to most wars - they were for domination of the region. Sparta did have a different method of governance, and a more agrarian society, but this was not due to ideology but due to necessity. Athens on the other hand had been expanding throughout the Aegean ever since the Persians had given up on doing anything more than an occasional exacting of tribute from mainland Anatolian states. The lack of Persia as being a major threat which united all Greeks meant that the city-states became more hostile to each other, eventually being divided into two armed camps - A Spartan camp, which was by and large more of a Spartan-led alliance in contrast to the Athenian-dominated alliance of Athens + client states. Athens became more and more autocratic to other city-states, and this bred resentment. In fact if I remember Thucydides correctly, it was just such a policy which caused the spark which began the war. The two sides in the war were both very diverse, with autocracies participating and being tolerated on both sides.