Athens and Sparta are better in different aspects. For example, Sparta discouraged superfluous arts, but Athens appreciated them. This aspect is evident by the Athenian ruins, and that Sparta has no remnants of their history besides the tombs of their generals. This aspect concludes that Athens had more to lose during the Peloponnesian War. Athens had an empire, they stood up for values, they were the school of Greece, while Sparta were clinching onto their dear iron bars.
Sparta was about fitness, survival, and war while Athens was about public speaking, debate, and music. As you may see, Sparta and Athens may seem like two whole different worlds, and it’s clear that they deemed each value of theirs’ important, but which city-state would go to great length to preserve that value? Sparta was more committed to their cultural value than Athens. Spartans valued military power. For instance, “Their whole lives were about military training even after 30 the Spartan boys were required to serve the military until they were 60” (Document 2).
They supervised government workers and were in charge of things like navy ships and army horses. They dealt with ambassadors and representatives from other city-states. The Council’s men were not elected to their position but chosen by lot. This made it so not only the rich could be included in politics, but the poor as well. The last branch was the popular courts.
Their purpose was to terrorize the Helots into submission. How were the two city-states similar in their governmental structures? How did they differ? Similarities between Athen's and Sparta's Government structures: Both Athens and Sparta accepted free-man as their main participants in their government. Neither Athens or Sparta give women or slaves equal participation in their government and were not considered to be free.
He has chosen to title his essay “Losing the War.” This however is not originally the title. The longer title is as follows; “World War II had faded into movies, anecdotes, and archives that nobody cares about anymore. Are we losing the war?” Albeit subtle subtle, this is perhaps one of the most powerful choices Sandlin made in his argument.
While some, like Plato in his The Republic, thought it weak to give government into the hands of the common people, Pericles countered this argument with a compelling argument of greatness. By putting government into the hands of the people, the people are united and more devoted to their country. Democracy bonds the people together in a way that no other government can understand. Pericles confidently states, “Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbor, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their homes.”
when the Macedonian army defeated Thebes and Athens and took over. They wanted to take control, but they were defeated by the Macedonians and under their rule. Their government had still been functioning, but under Macedonian rule. The government should be restored because they were successful until the point of the war and even after being attacked by all the opposing city states. The effects were that all citizens had a say in government decisions for war and other choices they had to make.
How were the two city-states similar in their governmental structures? They are similar in the sense that only males were allowed to be a part of politics and that they both had a hierarchy in place that separated the political powers of each group. In both structures the wealthier aristocrats had the most influence in decision making. How did they differ?
More power was now placed into the hands of the commons through Pericles reforms, coupled with previous reforms by Cleisthenes where the council was greatly enlarged from 400 to 500 people to allow greater public or even the entire city’s involvement in political affairs. This idea of equality for all is certainly welcoming, but on hindsight, is it a good idea to give so much power to those who know nothing about governing a nation? Plato certainly disagrees. With his analogy of the ship, he suggests that the state required skilled leaders to navigate the nation.5 Governing a country was an art, a skill that had to be honed. The leaders needed to be well educated in matters of the law, military, economics, current affairs, so on and so forth.
(Lendering, "Peloponnesian War"). During this time Athens had control of the many islands in the Aegean Sea, this was done after the war with Persia, so that the Persians could not sail through the Sea to get to Greece again, and they called this the Delian League which consisted of Athens and other city-states. Essentially Athens now had an Empire, which the Spartans saw as a threat. The people of Greece felt that Athens had become so powerful and would try to control all Greek nations.
The prime minister is an Elected official, currently although this not part of the Canadian Constitution. In fact, the Governor General chooses the Prime Minister. Also, the Prime Minister is also the leader of the political party with the most seats in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister will stay in power until there is a change in the number of seats that are owned by the different political party. The President is Elected by the whole nation and will stay in power for 4 years and may only serve for 2 terms and that is all there is to it.
The Articles of Confederation did not adequately control and decrease the negative impacts of groups on the country, and in this manner another government was essential. The administration laid out in the Constitution was perfect since it was a republic, an agent government that would keep self-intrigued interests from holding an excessive amount of influence over the legislature. It was equally substantial, containing agents from each state and various vested parties, making it troublesome for one faction to overwhelm and stifle the others. Delegates would be chosen by a large group of individuals, assuring that just the most commendable would hold office. At last, laws were gone by the entire country, making it troublesome for issues in one state to invade and influence others.
The city-state wanted to better themselves, so they developed the code of behavior of non-retaliation. They provided three social groups the citizens or free adult males, non-citizens who were women or foreigners, and slaves. Sparta, on the other hand, carried military values they provided the military with whatever needs necessary. This city-state emphasized on expanding power and gaining control over other kingdoms. Sparta contained three social group as well, the citizens or landowners, the non-citizens, and the Helots who were forced to work for the citizens.
He argues that a large republic would be using the idea of majority rules, but the ideas of the minority would still be taken into consideration. This also means that no one group could take over the government. He also argues that if it was a small democracy it would be easy for the candidates to fool the voters. If it was a large republic then it would be harder to fool voters.
Preserving Liberty and Combating Tyranny “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment, without which it instantly expires,” once stated by James Madison in federalist paper 10. In this paper, Madison explains how factions are bad for a democracy because they take away the rights of minorities. However, expresses several solutions to form a “large republic.” Madison also writes Federalist paper 51 that explains the structure of separations of powers and checks and balances. He does this to prove that liberty is possible and that each branch should be able to rely on one another to execute the function of the government.