EDUCATION IN SPARTA AND ATHENS COMPARED
Page 1 of 1 • Share
- Engr_JosephLv2: Member
- Gender : Male
State : None
My Club :
Posts : 73 Posts Liked : 38
BACKGROUND
It is perhaps instructive to discuss the background factors responsible for the educational system in each of the two states. We can recall that Sparta aimed at military superiority over its neighbours. The pertinent question we need to ask is ‘Why was there a need for such an ambition?’ We can further ask if after achieving this ambition, Sparta was much happier for it. This should be a good starting point for the present exercise.
We should also recall that the Athenian city-state was the first to steer away from an overemphasis on military superiority and military education. The instructive question here is ‘What motivated Athens to deviate from what had become the age-old philosophy of life?’
We should also further ask what the consequences of this type of new orientation were. Finally, we should like to ask why, in spite of its defeat and subjugation by Sparta, it is Athens as a state that survived while Sparta the conqueror was obliterated from the face of the earth.
Sparta chose the path of militarism as a way of life. Buy why? To start with, we should realise that it was not alone in doing this. Most other states did so because it was on that type of life that they could survive. The practice in those days was for each state to attack and conquer those they could. The conqueror could loot and plunder the conquered that were
consequently turned into slaves. Life at that time was akin to ‘survival of the fittest’.
Doomed were those states that did not develop their military forces, in time they would be attacked, conquered, and subjugated. To a great extent, the states that survived were those that conquered others and extended their boundaries to cover areas they had defeated, making the subjugated people part of their new states. So, Sparta was not doing anything much different from what was the norm in most states.
But then Athens chose the path of civility. Why? The fact is that Athens itself was not much different from others originally. Athens chose a new path only when it had sufficiently achieved military glory for along time and thus had built up a large number of noble men who had fed fat on the returns from looted areas. The arrivals on the scene of many nobles created a need for a peaceful epoch so as to enable them enjoy their wealth. You cannot enjoy your riches if there is an unending war. Realise too that nobles who have more slaves and attendants could have more time to think, to develop ideas. And one of the vestiges of this is thinking of governance. Thus, the seeds of democracy had been sown.
So, we had these two city states existing side by side, one believing so much in military exploits without thinking of morals, and the other believing in culture, morality, ideals, etc. Almost inevitably, there was a clash in which, after a lot of dingdong results, Athens was finally defeated. One would have thought that Sparta the victor would bestow a more
enduring legacy for mankind. No, it has been the other way round. Sparta itself was later defeated by some other forces, and indeed was utterly destroyed. There was not much to learn from it since there were no moral lessons worth bequeathing to mankind. Athens, on the other hand, survived the holocaust.
The first thing we can realise about the two is that hardly can we refer to any great scholar or philosopher from Sparta today. There are no great writings, no great plays, no great poems from Sparta. On the contrary, there are countless scholars from Athens some of whom we shall be learning about in the next units. Think of poets, and there are those like Homer and
Simonides; think of historians, and there are those like Thucydides and Melesias and when we think of mathematics, we reckon with people like Pythagoras and Euclid. Though some of these men may not have been Athenians as such, in most cases, they functioned as Athenians or were influenced by Athenian culture and life. Most of these men left writings or at least theories which are still cited today, almost three thousand years after they lived.
What do all these connote? It stands to reason from these that no civilization can thrive and survive for long on militarism alone. This is a sense in which we can assert that knowledge is superior to force, that the pen is mightier than the sword. Also, it shows that morality it is that can build up a nation, not lack of ideals. Robbers can thrive for a while, but their doom
is certain.
It is perhaps instructive to discuss the background factors responsible for the educational system in each of the two states. We can recall that Sparta aimed at military superiority over its neighbours. The pertinent question we need to ask is ‘Why was there a need for such an ambition?’ We can further ask if after achieving this ambition, Sparta was much happier for it. This should be a good starting point for the present exercise.
We should also recall that the Athenian city-state was the first to steer away from an overemphasis on military superiority and military education. The instructive question here is ‘What motivated Athens to deviate from what had become the age-old philosophy of life?’
We should also further ask what the consequences of this type of new orientation were. Finally, we should like to ask why, in spite of its defeat and subjugation by Sparta, it is Athens as a state that survived while Sparta the conqueror was obliterated from the face of the earth.
FUNDAMENTAL BASES FOR THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO CITY-STATES
Sparta chose the path of militarism as a way of life. Buy why? To start with, we should realise that it was not alone in doing this. Most other states did so because it was on that type of life that they could survive. The practice in those days was for each state to attack and conquer those they could. The conqueror could loot and plunder the conquered that were
consequently turned into slaves. Life at that time was akin to ‘survival of the fittest’.
Doomed were those states that did not develop their military forces, in time they would be attacked, conquered, and subjugated. To a great extent, the states that survived were those that conquered others and extended their boundaries to cover areas they had defeated, making the subjugated people part of their new states. So, Sparta was not doing anything much different from what was the norm in most states.
But then Athens chose the path of civility. Why? The fact is that Athens itself was not much different from others originally. Athens chose a new path only when it had sufficiently achieved military glory for along time and thus had built up a large number of noble men who had fed fat on the returns from looted areas. The arrivals on the scene of many nobles created a need for a peaceful epoch so as to enable them enjoy their wealth. You cannot enjoy your riches if there is an unending war. Realise too that nobles who have more slaves and attendants could have more time to think, to develop ideas. And one of the vestiges of this is thinking of governance. Thus, the seeds of democracy had been sown.
So, we had these two city states existing side by side, one believing so much in military exploits without thinking of morals, and the other believing in culture, morality, ideals, etc. Almost inevitably, there was a clash in which, after a lot of dingdong results, Athens was finally defeated. One would have thought that Sparta the victor would bestow a more
enduring legacy for mankind. No, it has been the other way round. Sparta itself was later defeated by some other forces, and indeed was utterly destroyed. There was not much to learn from it since there were no moral lessons worth bequeathing to mankind. Athens, on the other hand, survived the holocaust.
The first thing we can realise about the two is that hardly can we refer to any great scholar or philosopher from Sparta today. There are no great writings, no great plays, no great poems from Sparta. On the contrary, there are countless scholars from Athens some of whom we shall be learning about in the next units. Think of poets, and there are those like Homer and
Simonides; think of historians, and there are those like Thucydides and Melesias and when we think of mathematics, we reckon with people like Pythagoras and Euclid. Though some of these men may not have been Athenians as such, in most cases, they functioned as Athenians or were influenced by Athenian culture and life. Most of these men left writings or at least theories which are still cited today, almost three thousand years after they lived.
What do all these connote? It stands to reason from these that no civilization can thrive and survive for long on militarism alone. This is a sense in which we can assert that knowledge is superior to force, that the pen is mightier than the sword. Also, it shows that morality it is that can build up a nation, not lack of ideals. Robbers can thrive for a while, but their doom
is certain.
Similar topics
Create an account or log in to leave a reply
You need to be a member in order to leave a reply.
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum