Some general considerations:

    1. on 'failed states' and the establishment of the civil society:
      1. historically the situation in Greek at the end of the Bronze Age was not unique. Consider Germany and Japan at the end of WW2, or 'hotel Ruanda' or China at various phases of its history.
      2. Consider the situation in Haiti and the opinion piece I sent you. How is stability recovered? the charismatic leader? the role of revived trade? What does it mean to speak of a civil society? Why do we believe that creating a civil society in Afghanistan will promote prosperity for all?
    2. on population growth and its consequences. Of course exact demographic data are simply not available for this period, but that does not mean that we cannot identify certain trends in the archaeological and literary evidence. The transition from the 'dark' age to the 'archaic' period was marked by:
      1. archaeological evidence suggesting significant improvement in the material standard of life; more trade, larger stone buildings and many of a non martial character; the growth of urban and market centers.
      2. an oral tradition that traces descent back to this period; a valid historical record (e.g., the Olympic games begin reliably in 776 BC) and re-appearance of written documents, tho in a completely different script...significance.
      3. All this evidence suggests that life was more stable. But was the population growing? The critical evidence that it was, comes from the 'fact' of colonization. The Maltusian Model predicts famine at a particular point, and that societies seek some resolution of the dilemma. So, even if exploration was first driven by the need for metals, that exploration also revealed sites that were suitable for agriculture.

The Problem: Overpopulation and dearth are complementary. What factors are relevant to each? and how do societies cope? The search for Lebensraum. Under what conditions do populations decline demographically? Under what conditions can societies stabilize? In the last lecture we considered one option for coping with overpopulation and dearth, namely the conquest of agricultural land overseas. but there were other strategies and these are discussed in this lecture. Today we look a two solutions that involved constitutional and economic reform from the Greek perspective? Namely how did the Greek come to understand the formation of the polis?

Characteristic features of these constitutional solutions

The net result of effective constitutional change? Those societies that made the change also became more dynamic. Sparta was able to conquer Messenia and solve its problem by expansion; Athens focused its efforts on commercial exchange (exporting processed and manufactured goods for natural products and raw materials).

On the site of Sparta; the landscape. Sparta at the end of the Dark Ages(ca. 850).
  1. Terms -- Sparta, Laconia, Lacedaemonia
  2. Development at this period much like that of other Dorian poleis, namely open and unwalled villages, each under a 'king' [primitive monarchy], a warrior class / band ruling over a subjugated population of non-Dorians (Mycenaean survivals??). At about this time, four open villages (comprising the later Sparta) united and, what is fundamental, established a common state cult (cf. lecture on polis).
    1. The aristocracy [aka 'warriors'] of some of these conquered [Mycenaean survivals] villages was admitted to that of Sparta (i.e., given citizenship). Compromise and inclusion. aka: political reform. Sharing of common interests.
    2. The remaining free men remain attached to their own urban centers [quasi city-states] and became perioeci ('those who dwell around').
    3. The older bronze age "folk" probably remained in the same dependent status (helots) they had in the bronze age; in the historical period this was akin to serfdom. Recall the problem of rule.
  3. Conquest of Messenia. (ESHAG 58-9)This was the decisive event in Spartan history; completed by 700; perhaps stimulated by demographic pressure in Laconia. But the political reform and the conquest were probably closely connected.
    1. The course of the wars is unclear, but seems to have extended over about one hundred years. Sparta had the advantage in being unified (see below); many Messenian states aided Sparta in order to gain temporary advantage over their neighbors (caution: evidence slight for this point). Note that this is the first example of a general pattern in Greek history.
    2. Whatever the actual history, consequences are clear: Messenia was conquered and the Spartan constitutional reform confirmed, but to hold the land
      1. committed Sparta to an agricultural future with few outside interests. She has enough land; does not found colonies.
      2. To exploit the new landed wealth an inferior, non-Spartan labor force was organized analogous to the helot system employed in Laconia. Spartans, pre-occupied with internal revolt of helot and Messenians forced to follow a defensive foreign policy. Note that helot and Messenian are analogous but not identical.
      3. The klaros was designed, like the medieval fief, to support the full time training of a Spartan soldier and his family. Tho 'equality' of peers stressed in the sources, it was clear that some Spartans were 'more equal' than others.
  4. The Reforms of Lycurgus: traditionally dated to about 800, but more likely to the last phase of Messenia Wars. Related events.
    1. The Great Rhetra [last lecture], in the form of a Delphic oracle, provided religious sanction. Details ascribed to Lycurgus, but others may have contributed over many years. Considered by some scholars to be an ancient forgery; if so, it must be an early one.
      1. A model of the Spartan state.
      2. Social, political and military units defined and brought into harmony (through compromise) with one another. 'the nation in arms'

        Social=demos

        Military=stratos

        Phratry=330

        Andreion=240

        Oba=1000

        Oba=720

        Demos=9000

        Stratos=6500

      3. Kings and Gerousia = Council of elders. (2 + 28) Memberships systematized (this must have been a problem); elected from demos/stratos for life
      4. More important was the fact that regular meetings of the assembly guaranteed. a place for the 'middle'
      5. Method of legislation defined: gerousia meets, defines issue, submits it to assembly for discussion; reconsiders and submits proposal to vote.
    2. Social Reforms: stories told (whip; sports; fox, but mostly 'late'; Athenaeus: "The Spartan custom of stripping their young women before strangers is highly praised") designed to ensure (at least superficial) equality among the Spartans and to provide them with the means to devote their time and effort to the state and its needs. The primary service demanded of the polis was, of course, service as a soldier. [see PHAG for the details] The social reforms were designed to create an environment capable of producing the best and the toughest soldiers. Warrior; the cloak, the quick and the dead. Validation.
      1. Formal 'equality' among the Spartiates (called homoioi). Each had his own state-given klaros (estate) with attached serfs (helots), but also owned private land around Sparta itself. Even the ancients were unsure how this was done in fact but in theory all Spartan citizens had at least an 'equal' share.
      2. The agoge or military training.
      3. Austerity enforced by state to engender toughness; no travel, no money (theoretically). No arts or crafts (PHAG has the details).
      4. Sexual practices unusual even for Greeks. Basic assumption, children belong to the state; theoretically there could be no adultery
  5. The Ephorate and the restrictions on the demos.
    1. Formally an annually elected board of five it gradually assumed many of the powers of the kings as the executive (certainly more responsive to demands of assembly/army). Kings become only the hereditary war leaders. Two ephors accompany the king on any campaign. Clearly a triumph of the 'warrior band' [demos] over an older aristocracy.
    2. Powers:
      1. supervision of education and morality
      2. preside at meetings of gerousia
      3. two accompany king on all official enterprises and have veto power
      4. supervision of krypteia, the state secret police.
    3. the kings and gerousia given the power to 'set aside' crooked decisions of the assembly; that this was ever done is not clear.
  6. General Consequences
    1. secured a stable constitution (500 years; see below), a major achievement
    2. produced a highly effective military machine to meet the internal dangers of the helot resentment and, by extension, could be used effectively in foreign affairs within limited geographical area. (Plut. Lyc. 67). That is inclusion (symbolized by two kings, amalgamation of villages, formal equality) strengthened the Sparta state in competition against other states that were not so inclusive.
    3. Spartans made good subjects (notes the story of Demaratus and "law" in ACG Doc 55), but bad governors; could never rule Greece, indeed their reputation for corruption was legendary.
  7. Tyranny and Sparta. Tyranny (aka 'dictatorship') is an illegal monarchy; i.e., it refers to the ability of a ruler to suspend (overtly or covertly) the constitutional 'checks & balances' and to control the state. Typically, the constitution is not formally suspended, but its effectiveness is undermined in a number of ways.
    1. Preliminary observations:
      1. Plato: This and no other is the root from which the tyrant springs, when he first appears he is a protector [of the demos]. And indeed there is some overlap between charismatic leadership and tyranny and the sense of protection
      2. tyranny to the Greeks of the classical period assumes that there was a polis and the some constitutional order had been established.
      3. Spartan citizens, like other states in history, feared the establishment of tyranny in its own state, and actively worked to foster among her neighbors constitutions similar to her own
      4. Factors: tyrannies emerged in cities in which the de iure political power was not distributed in accordance with the de facto political realities. map of tyrannies
    2. Regarding wealth and power. Increase in wealth resulting from revival of trade and the introduction of money created a class of men whose holdings were in 'moveable' wealth as distinct from landed. They had the leisure time to participate in military training, etc., to serve the state [this is the group Aristotle refers to in discussing the hoplite reform].
      1. In the early archaic period, Athens, the state, was in the hands of the Eupatridae (the 'well born' a pun), who were reluctant to share their traditional power and prerogatives with the newly wealthy. How did elite control the state? The power of the aristocracy was rooted
        1. in loyalty to the clan / clientele / protection and
        2. its control of land.
      2. It is a typical aristocratic bias against wealth made in trade; moveable wealth less committed to survival of state. (ESHAG Nos 3-6, esp 4a and 5b)
    3. The hoplite reform and the new tactics: these men, the newly rich or even moderately 'middle', could afford to buy the hoplite armor and to take the time to train in ranks (ACG Sect. 22). Militarily, the hoplites made the old Eupatrid cavalry redundant. Conclusion: the new wealth provided the instrument (the army) to gain political equality for greater number of people.
    4. Whether it came to an open conflict or to tyranny depended in part on the response of aristocracy, but also on a number of other factors, numbers of new hoplites, divisions among old, etc.
    5. Summary Observations:
      1. Tyrannies developed only in those cities on the major trade routes across the Isthmus. Critically: tyranny developed in those states in which there was a relatively sudden change in the 'middle'. Commercial prosperity gave more peeople the resources to participate in fighting and voting, and thereby to demand greater rights; that is, tyrany emerged in those states in which formal political power (institutional control) of the old landowning aristocracy no longer corresponded to the realities of power as measured by the increase wealth and in the number of hoplites, and to rephrase VII.A.4 above
      2. The tyrant was generally an aristocrat whose faction was in duress. Implications?? The presence and growing number of individuals with moveable wealth yet no political privileges created the stress / fissures around which the tyrant might build his support
      3. There is no indication of class hatred.
      4. Tyranny was an important step toward democracy in that tyrants.
        1. fostered economic growth, helping precisely those who would demand more freedom,
        2. allowed institutions of constitutional government to be practiced; that was significant after their expulsion.
        3. encouraged the growth of loyalty to state, while taking every opportunity to break down the pyramidal loyalties of clan system. The latter was the source of strength to aristocrats.
      5. Sparta as a "constitutional state" ("Some people maintain that the best politeia must be a mixture of all constitutions, and therefore praise that of the Spartans. This is because...it avoids tyranny by employing a combination of aristocracy, monarchy and democracy", ACG Doc48) with a constitution generally opposed tyrants during the "archaic age" and aided states making the transition to democracy: "...the Spartans expelled the tyrants both from Athens... and from the rest of Greece..." (ACG, Doc 60).