Notes on Spartan Institutions and Xenophon’s Constitution

Introduction and framework

• Xenophon’s The Constitution of the Spartans (early 4th century BCE) presents Sparta as the most powerful and celebrated Greek city-state despite being thinly populated.
• Xenophon, an Athenian by birth who lived with the Spartans for years, provides the best surviving account of their institutions and daily life.
• Core question: how did Spartan institutions maximize military proficiency and keep the city strong for centuries?

Spartan political structure at a glance

• Sparta was a diarchy: two kings reigned simultaneously from two royal dynasties (Agiad and Eurypontid).
• Founding myth: Heracles arrives, conquers the land of Sparta, enslaves locals, and gifts the land to Eurysthenes and Procles, who founding the two dynasties.
• The kings were religious figures and military leaders; they claimed divine and sacred authority but could be checked by other institutions.
• The two kings operated in parallel: one could lead on campaign while the other managed domestic affairs; the king on campaign held near-absolute power in war but still remained within a broader system of checks.
• The state also rested on a powerful class of non-Spartans: the Helots, descendants of the enslaved population who outnumbered the Spartans by a large margin.

The Helots, wealth, and the Spartan economy

• Helots outnumbered Spartans by a large margin; ratios cited range from roughly 3:1 to 7:1 (exact numbers unknown).
• The Helot system created enormous wealth for the Spartans, enabling almost every citizen to be a landowner without working for a living.
• Public farmland allotments: each male citizen, upon reaching adulthood, received a share of public land and a contingent of Helot laborers to work it.
• This arrangement effectively turned Spartans into landed aristocrats, subsidizing a lifestyle with little need to labor.
• Inheritance and property:
  • When a Spartan man died, his public allotment returned to the state.
  • His private property went to his wife, not his son.
  • Wealth accumulated by the wife could be used to increase wealth, and upon her death, it would pass to her children (male and female).
  • This created a “snowball effect” where rich widows could rapidly consolidate wealth and pass it to future generations, often concentrating power in a relatively small cohort of heiresses.
• Spartan heiresses: extremely wealthy women who controlled vast estates; Aristotle notes that roughly 40 ext{ extstatpercent} of Spartan territory was owned and administered by a small group of very wealthy women.
• Political influence of heiresses: sometimes the most powerful men (including kings) depended on loans from these heiresses; their money could block land reform by bribing or buying off politicians.
• Ethos and perception: Spartans viewed themselves as foreign occupiers; wealth concentration among heiresses intensified concerns about loyalty, civility, and social order.
• Ethical and practical implication: wealth concentrated in a small, politically potent group of women could distort policy and threaten proportional representation or reform.

Religion, prophecy, and military orientation

• Prophecy and omens: Spartans attached extreme importance to prophecies and auspices. They believed missteps could threaten the city’s survival.
• Kings as religious officials: each king had two attendants to manage or consult oracles (e.g., Delphi) and ensure proper divine sanction for decisions.
• King’s religious obligations and military function:
  • Kings served as religious authorities and military leaders.
  • In war, the king’s word was effectively law; a king on campaign could be an absolute monarch.
  • Kings were required to donate to host temples and to make offerings after sacrifices; failing to honor temples could insult the gods.
  • On campaign, kings sacrificed animals before important decisions; if omens remained bad, sacrifices continued until improved.
  • The practice of frequent animal sacrifices was costly; a law mandated that one piglet from every litter be added to the king’s personal livestock to prevent exhausting royal resources.

The Ephors: local governance and checks on power

• The Ephors: five annually elected officials, each at least 45 years old, serving a 1-year term and re-election for future terms was not allowed.
• Selection process: while popularly elected candidates were chosen, five were randomly selected from the pool to actually serve; exact numbers of candidates are unclear.
• Primary roles:
  • Oversee the kings; they could initiate charges against a king and, if charged, form a trial with the Gerousia as jurors.
  • Manage foreign policy by controlling entry to and exit from Spartan territory (merchants, diplomats, Xenophon’s presence were subject to Ephor approval).
  • In peacetime, draft and implement policy; they debated taxes, spending, morality, and daily life rules.
  • In wartime, two Ephors accompanied the king on campaign; they could observe and report findings but could not charge the king in wartime. Later, they could assess whether the king overstepped after hostilities ended.
• The oath ritual: at the start of each month, kings and Ephors would exchange oaths—kings would vow to rule by established laws; Ephors would vow to keep the kingship unshaken, granting them significant leverage to restrain kings.
• Legislation process: Ephors draft proposals; majority vote (3–2) among the five could approve; however, passage did not automatically become law without further steps.
• Education and social control: Ephors controlled child education; after graduation, they selected three exemplary youths who would pick 100 peers each to serve as officers; these youths formed the royal guard for a king.
• Accountability: at the end of their term, Ephors were reviewed by their successors; egregious abuse could be punished; the review served as a deterrent against radical or abusive governance.
• Limitation and stability concerns: the combination of random selection and one-year terms could have induced instability, but the annual review mitigated abuse.
• Limitation in historical record: there are no clear surviving tales of specific legislative achievements by the Ephors, which might reflect either fear of the review process or lost records.

The Gerousia: the Council of Elders and the conservative brake on reform

• The Gerousia consisted of 28 elders, plus the two kings as honorary members, for a total of 30 participants.
• Eligibility: members were men over the age of 60 and expected to be of merit and achievement; in practice, the circle tended to come from a narrow, wealthy, well-connected elite.
• Selection and tenure: elected for life, with intense competition for seats after a member’s death; scholars think political factions formed around the royal houses.
• Powers and functions:
  • Veto power: they could set aside any decision approved by the Assembly, effectively vetoing legislation.
  • Agenda setting: they could control what would appear on the Assembly’s schedule, curbing Ephor-driven reform if they disagreed.
  • Jury formation: in trials of kings or serious citizens (e.g., murder), the Gerousia joined the Ephors to form a 35-person jury (28 Gerousia + 5 Ephors + 2 kings).
• In the voting process for assembly matters, Gerousia members remained in a separate building; they could hear the verbal vote and then announce which side was louder, preserving a veneer of impartiality while retaining influence.
• Economic and political conservatism: Cicero later praised the Gerousia and the overall Spartan system for balance, stability, and cautious governance; Xenophon echoed this view, crediting stability as the source of Spartan strength.

The Assembly and legislative process

• The Assembly consisted of all adult male Spartans who could vote on proposals.
• Process:
  • Ephors drafted legislation and presented it to the Assembly.
  • The Assembly voted verbally, with just a yea or nay; no amendments or extensive discussion allowed.
  • The Gerousia or other upper bodies could veto or block proposals before they reached or after a vote.
• The Gerousia’s role in timing and order created a powerful gatekeeping function, ensuring that reforms required broad consensus across multiple institutions.

Trials, law, and the balance of power

• Serious crimes (e.g., murder) could trigger a trial involving the Ephors, Gerousia, and, in effect, the kings as honorary members of the Gerousia.
• Jury composition for such trials: 35 jurors total (28 Gerousia + 5 Ephors + 2 kings).
• Decision rule: simple majority; the balance of power typically rested with the Gerousia due to their numerical advantage on the jury.
• The kings’ ongoing relationship with the Gerousia and Ephors helped maintain legitimacy and prevent unilateral action by the monarchs.

Xenophon, Aristotle, Cicero, and the historical narrative

• Xenophon’s account is our primary throughline for understanding Spartan institutions; he became a close observer and ally to a Spartan king.
• Aristotle comments on wealth, gender roles, and social structure, noting the disproportionate influence of wealthy Spartan women and the effects on policy and social dynamics.
• Aristotle’s observation: in his time, nearly 40\% of Spartan territory was owned by a small group of very wealthy women (heiresses).
• Cicero, writing centuries later, praised the stability produced by Spartan institutions: the constant potential for king removal, the end-of-term reviews for Ephors, and the Gerousia’s veto power.
• Xenophon also highlights the tension between stability and rigidity, suggesting that the very stability that made Sparta powerful could eventually contribute to stagnation or decline.

Military capacity, stability, and the arc of Spartan power

• At Sparta’s height, the citizen-male population could mobilize into a large army, possibly at least 20{,}000 soldiers.
• By Alexander the Great’s era (roughly 150 years later), the Spartan army had dwindled to about 1{,}000 men, catalyzing a shift in regional power dynamics.
• The decline was not attributed to a single uprising or external rebellion; rather, it appeared to be the cumulative result of slow reforms, demographic changes, and perhaps the rigidity of Spartan institutions.
• The text suggests several hypothetical reforms that might have altered Sparta’s trajectory: increasing immigration, granting citizenship to some Helots, relaxing marriage laws, or other policy adjustments—emphasizing that governance is about balancing stability with adaptability.

Helots, fear, and social control as drivers of policy

• The Helot population’s potential for revolt was a constant undercurrent shaping Spartan policy and military expenditure.
• The political system justified harsh measures toward Helots as part of a continuing state of warfare with the Helots, legitimizing various abuses in the name of national security.
• Xenophon frames Spartan anxiety about Helot rebellion as central to understanding Spartan governance and social control.

Education, social discipline, and foreign exposure

• The Ephors controlled access to Spartan territory, including the admission of foreigners and travelers (e.g., Xenophon).
• Spartans abroad were prone to excesses (drinking, gambling, sexual license, fighting), and the Ephors restricted imprudent behavior.
• This dual approach—rigid domestic discipline paired with caution in foreign engagement—helped maintain a cohesive identity while limiting outward risk.

Cultural, ethical, and practical implications

• Spartan institutions were praised for stability and balance by later authors (Cicero) and by Xenophon, who saw the system as the source of strength.
• Critics (Aristotle) pointed to the excesses of wealth, particularly among heiresses, and the potential moral and political corruption that could arise from luxury and power concentration.
• The institutions’ emphasis on prophecy, ritual, and the sacred dimension of kingship reinforced a moral framework that justified authority and constrained political experimentation.

Possible reforms and counterfactuals

• The transcript discusses speculative reforms that might have saved or transformed Sparta:
  • Increasing immigration to bolster citizen numbers and reduce Helot control.
  • Extending citizenship or political rights to Helot populations to integrate them more fully.
  • Relaxing strict marriage and inheritance rules to redistribute wealth and promote broader civic participation.
• These suggestions illustrate a broader principle: institutional design affects resilience, adaptability, and long-term survivability of a state.

Conclusion: what this tells us about Spartan strength and decline

• The Spartans’ unmatched military discipline and the ability to mobilize the entire male population made them a dominant land power for centuries.
• A complex system of checks and balances—two kings, five Ephors, a 28-member Gerousia, and a citizen Assembly—created a stable but conservative political culture.
• The combination of strict social control, wealth consolidation among heiresses, reliance on the Helots for labor, and religious-military orientation produced remarkable efficiency—yet also significant rigidity.
• Over time, this rigidity likely contributed to decline, as demographic shifts and external pressures outpaced the capacity for reform.
• The Spartans were never overthrown by a Helot uprising or a coalition of Greek powers; they withered and were eventually conquered by later invaders, a fate attributed in part to their extreme conservatism and failure to adapt.

Key numerical references to review quickly

• Dynastic structure: two kings; dynasties: Agiad and Eurypontid.
• Helot dominance: ratios cited around 3:1 to 7:1.
• Land and wealth: heirs and heiresses; heiresses owned about 40\% of Spartan territory (per Aristotle).
• Military capacity: Sparta could mobilize ≥ 20{,}000 infantry; later, around 1{,}000 under later periods.
• Governance: five Ephors, each at least 45 years old, with a 1-year term; five Ephors plus 28 Gerousia plus 2 kings formed a 35-person jury.
• Gerousia: 28 members + 2 kings (honorary) = 30, with veto power and agenda-setting influence.
• Legislative process: Assembly votes with no amendments; proposals originate with Ephors but require Gerousia and Assembly processes to become law.
• Public policy and education: 3 graduates selected from the graduating class; each selects 100 peers for subordinates; royal guard structure.
• Cultural/ethical observations: heiresses’ economic influence; prohibition and regulation of foreign travel; ritual sacrifices and temple donations.
• Chronology reference points: Spartan height during classical period; decline within 3 centuries before Roman era; Xenophon’s contemporary account vs. Aristotle’s and Cicero’s later reflections.