The Dark Age Baseline — Village Communities and Basileis
c. 1,100 – 800 BCE
🌾
The persistent village world. The Dark Age is not chaos or cultural oblivion but a different social form: small, dispersed agricultural communities organised around local strongmen (basileis — a word used in Linear B for palace officials, now meaning local chieftains). The oikos (household) is the primary social unit. Aristotle will later argue that the oikos is the building block from which the village (kome) and then the polis are assembled. The pastoral and village world persists alongside and within the polis throughout the classical period; it does not disappear when the polis forms. Most Greeks are farmers throughout antiquity.
c. 1,100–800 BCE · Phoenician coast
Phoenician city-states — the nearest structural analogue
The Phoenician cities (Tyre, Sidon, Byblos) are the closest pre-existing analogues to what the Greek polis will become: independent cities with defined civic identity, patron deities, citizen populations, and inter-city competition. They are not poleis in the Greek sense — their political structures are monarchic, not participatory — but the Greek traders who encounter them at al-Mina and along the Levantine coast absorb the idea of the city-state as a self-sufficient, self-governing unit alongside the alphabet and the mythological repertoire. The Phoenician commercial city-state and the Greek political polis are responses to the same post-collapse environment but develop the idea in different directions.
1,100–800 BCE
c. 1,100–900 BCE · Greek world
Population decline and recovery — the burial archaeology evidence
Ian Morris’s analysis of burial archaeology (especially the Kerameikos cemetery at Athens) shows a sharp fall in the number of graves from c. 1,100 to c. 900 BCE, then a steady recovery. The number of graves is a rough proxy for population: the Dark Age collapse is real, demographically as well as institutionally. The recovery from c. 900 BCE accelerates sharply after c. 780 BCE into the eighth-century population boom that drives the twin responses of colonisation and political reorganisation. The polis is in part a solution to a population problem.
Morris, I., Burial and Ancient Society (Cambridge, 1987) — on the course reserve shelf
Morris, I., Burial and Ancient Society (Cambridge, 1987) — on the course reserve shelf
c. 1,100–800 BCE · Greek world
The basileus and the oikos — a world without the polis
The Homeric epics (composed during this period, though describing a remembered Bronze Age) present a social world organised around great households (oikoi) and their leaders (basileis). The competitive gift-exchange of the Homeric aristocracy, the feasting in the megaron, the absence of anything resembling a public assembly with genuine power — all are features of a pre-polis world. Aristotle cites the Cyclops episode of the Odyssey as an illustration of what life outside the polis looks like: each man rules his own household, there are no shared institutions, there is no justice in common. The Homeric world is not the polis world but it produces it.
The Eighth-Century Renaissance — Sanctuaries, Population, Colonisation
c. 800 – 725 BCE
c. 800–700 BCE · Near East
Renewed trade contacts — the network re-forms
The eighth century sees the revival of long-distance exchange between the Greek world and the Near East, centred on the Euboean trading posts of al-Mina and Pithekoussai (see the course trade and exchange discussions). This renewed commercial contact brings not only goods but models: the Phoenician alphabet, Near Eastern mythological motifs, and the structural idea of the mercantile city-state. The material and the cultural travel the same routes. The conditions for polis formation — surplus, exchange, inter-community competition — are being created by trade at the same time as population growth creates political pressure.
800–725 BCE
c. 776 BCE (traditional) · Olympia
The Olympic Games and the Panhellenic sanctuary — defining who is Greek
The Panhellenic sanctuaries (Olympia, Delphi, Isthmia, Nemea) develop in the eighth century as inter-polis spaces — neutral ground where communities in competition and sometimes in conflict can meet, trade, consult oracles, and compete athletically. Only Greeks may compete in the Games: the sanctuary defines the community before the polis legally defines it. The question of who counts as Greek is answered at Olympia (free, Greek-speaking males) before it is answered in any constitutional document. The Panhellenic sanctuary is the first institution that requires a working definition of Greek identity, and that definition is civic and ethnic simultaneously.
c. 775–700 BCE · Greek world
Colonisation as a symptom of polis formation
A colony (apoikia, literally “away-home”) requires: a founding city (metropolis), an oikist (founder) who carries the sacred fire and a portion of the civic cults, and a political constitution from the moment of settlement. Colonisation and polis formation are the same process: communities define themselves politically in order to reproduce themselves elsewhere. The earliest colonies (Pithekoussai c. 775 BCE, Cumae c. 740 BCE, Syracuse 734 BCE) are founded by communities that already understand themselves as poleis, and the act of founding a colony reinforces and clarifies the political identity of the founding city. The colonial movement is the polis replicating itself.
⇄
Course theme: The sanctuary defines the community before the constitution does
The emergence of the Panhellenic sanctuaries in the eighth century precedes the written constitutions and law codes of the seventh and sixth centuries. Shared cult — shared worship of the same gods at the same places — is the earliest form of polis identity. Aristotle will later make this formal: the polis is defined partly by its shared religious institutions. The agora and the acropolis temple are not later additions to the polis; they are among its founding conditions.
The Hoplite Revolution — A New Way of Fighting
c. 725 – 650 BCE
c. 725–600 BCE · Assyrian empire
The Near Eastern professional army — a structural contrast
Assyrian armies of this period are state-supported, professionally trained, and use a combination of infantry, cavalry, and siege equipment. The soldier is paid by the palace. The Greek hoplite is not paid, trains himself, buys his own equipment, and fights for his own community. The structural difference is the source of the soldier’s political claim: the Assyrian professional soldier fights for whoever controls the palace; the Greek hoplite citizen fights for a community in which he is a stakeholder. The same body of men who decide in the assembly whether to go to war are the men who will fight the war. This identity of soldier and citizen is the root of the political transformation.
c. 700–600 BCE
The scholarly debate — revolution or evolution? contested
Victor Davis Hanson and Anthony Snodgrass argue for a sharp transformation c. 700 BCE, with the adoption of the new shield and phalanx formation driving rapid social change. Hans van Wees and Peter Krentz argue for a more gradual evolution in which both the equipment and the formation develop over a longer period, and the social transformation is correspondingly less sudden. The debate is real and ongoing. For this discussion the key point is directional rather than chronological: whatever the speed, a world in which middling farmers are the decisive military unit is a world in which middling farmers have a political claim. The debate about timing does not affect the argument about consequence.
725–650 BCE
c. 725–650 BCE · Greek world
The panoplia — what a hoplite wears and what it costs
The hoplite’s equipment (panoplia) consists of: a large round bronze shield (hoplon, c. 90 cm diameter, the heaviest single item), a bronze-tipped thrusting spear (dory, c. 2.5 m), a Corinthian-style helmet enclosing the face, bronze greaves (knemides), and a bronze breastplate (thorax) or later a linen corslet (linothorax). Estimated cost: the equivalent of roughly one year’s agricultural surplus for a middling farmer. The equipment is individually purchased, not state-supplied. Who can afford it? Not the landless poor, and not the very wealthy who fight as cavalry or avoid fighting altogether. The hoplite is the man with enough land to generate surplus — the middling farmer, the zeugitai in Solon’s later property classification. The equipment defines a social class before the constitution recognises it.
c. 650 BCE · Corinth (found near Formello, Italy)
The Chigi Vase — the phalanx in action
The Chigi Vase (Villa Giulia, Rome, c. 650 BCE) is the earliest unambiguous depiction of a hoplite phalanx. It shows two lines of hoplites advancing toward each other in tight formation, overlapping shields, spears levelled, with a piper keeping step. The formation is the argument made visible: the shield covers the left side of the bearer and the right side of the man to his left. Every man in the phalanx depends on the man beside him. There is no individual glory in phalanx fighting — only collective advance or collective collapse. The soldier who breaks ranks endangers not himself but his neighbours. The phalanx is a physical model of the polis: it only functions through mutual dependence and shared commitment.
Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Rome (holds the Chigi Vase)
museum homepage — search the collection; no direct link to the object
Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Rome (holds the Chigi Vase)
museum homepage — search the collection; no direct link to the object
c. 650 BCE · Sparta
Tyrtaeus — the ideology of the phalanx in verse
Tyrtaeus of Sparta (c. 650 BCE) is the earliest Greek poet to describe hoplite fighting from the inside. His elegies celebrate not the individual Homeric hero — the single combat, the personal glory, the aristeia — but the collective discipline of the line: standing your ground, covering your neighbour, not flinching. “Let him stand fast, with both feet planted firmly on the ground, biting his lip” (fr. 10 West). The shift from Homeric individual glory to hoplite collective virtue is simultaneously a military, social, and literary transformation. The poem is a training document as well as a work of art: it tells soldiers what is expected of them and why.
Tyrtaeus, elegies — Perseus Digital Library (Greek with translation)
Tyrtaeus, elegies — Perseus Digital Library (Greek with translation)
Synoikismos — The Physical and Political Making of the Polis
c. 750 – 550 BCE
c. 750–550 BCE · comparative
What the polis is not — palace city, village, tribe, empire
Setting the polis in contrast clarifies what it is. The Bronze Age palace city (Mycenae, Knossos) is a redistributive economic centre administered by palace bureaucrats for a palace king: the palace controls production, storage, and allocation. The village community (kome) is a kinship group sharing agricultural land without formal civic institutions. The tribal confederation (the early Greek ethnos, such as the Arcadians or the Thessalians) is a people defined by ancestry and territory without a single urban centre. The Near Eastern empire administers subject peoples through appointed governors. The polis is none of these: it is a self-governing community of citizens sharing a defined territory, a city, civic institutions, and civic religion — and making its own laws. The definition is Aristotle’s, refined from the reality.
750–550 BCE
c. 750–700 BCE · Attica
Synoikismos — the coming together of villages thucydides ii.15
Synoikismos (literally “settling together”) is the process by which previously separate village communities merge into a single political unit sharing one city (astu), one agora, one civic institutions, and one set of civic cults. Thucydides (II.15) attributes Athens’ synoikismos to Theseus — describing how he abolished the separate councils and magistracies of the Attic villages and centralised them at Athens while allowing the rural population to remain on their land. The attribution is legendary; the process is historical and gradual. The key feature: synoikismos is not necessarily a physical relocation but a political decision that dispersed villages now share citizenship. You remain in your village but your civic identity is now Athenian.
Thucydides II.15 — Perseus (Theseus and the synoikismos of Attica)
Thucydides II.15 — Perseus (Theseus and the synoikismos of Attica)
c. 700–500 BCE · Greek world
The physical fabric of the polis — acropolis, agora, temple, walls
The physical polis has a characteristic form: a high city (acropolis) that is simultaneously sacred and defensive, crowned by the temple of the polis’s patron deity; an open civic space (agora) below for assembly, law courts, and social life; stoas (colonnaded halls) for shade and commerce; a gymnasium for athletic training; and eventually a theatre. City walls (teichos) define the territory and mark the boundary between citizen space and the outside world. The agora is not primarily a market — it is a political space into which a market function grows. The urban fabric of the polis is a physical expression of its political life: every major institution has a building, and every building is a claim about what the community values.
▸ Map 1 of 2
The polis world — major poleis across the Aegean and Western Mediterranean, c. 600 BCE
Loading map…
By c. 600 BCE the Greek world comprises somewhere between 700 and 1,000 separate poleis. The map marks the most historically significant. Note the range: from Massalia (Marseille) in the west to Miletus on the Ionian coast in the east. Each polis is self-governing, issues its own coinage (from c. 600 BCE), and manages its own foreign policy — while sharing Panhellenic institutions (the Games, Delphi) with the others.
Major poleis
Sparta
Olympia (Panhellenic sanctuary)
Politeia — Citizenship, Law, and Two Models of the Polis
c. 650 – 500 BCE
c. 650–300 BCE
Who is excluded — the structural limits of polis citizenship
Citizenship (politeia) is always relational: who belongs is defined by who does not. Excluded from full citizenship in virtually every polis: women (denied political participation, property rights, and independent legal standing); slaves (property, not persons, in law); resident foreigners (metoikoi — metics — who pay taxes and may serve in the military but cannot own land or attend the assembly); and in many poleis the property-less poor, who are formally citizens but practically marginal. The polis is simultaneously the most participatory political form in the ancient world and one of the most structurally exclusive. These exclusions are not accidents: they are constitutive of what Greek citizenship means. Aristotle will theorise this: the citizen is defined by the capacity for rational political participation; those deemed incapable of this are excluded. The theory rationalises a practice that long precedes it.
c. 500–300 BCE · Athens
Metics (metoikoi) — presence, importance, and marginalisation status
A metoikos is a foreign-born person who settles in Athens beyond a statutory period of roughly one month. To remain legally is to register a citizen patron (prostates) and begin paying the metoikion — an annual tax of twelve drachmas for men, six for women. The metic does not thereby become a citizen: they cannot own land (unless granted the special right of enktesis), sit in the assembly, hold magistracies, serve as jurors, or hold priesthoods. Their cases are heard not by the eponymous archon but by the polemarch. A metic who fails to maintain a prostates or pay the tax faces a graphe aprostasiou — a public charge whose penalty on conviction is sale into slavery.
Metics are nevertheless indispensable to the Athenian economy and cultural life. Xenophon (Poroi 2.1) describes them as “self-supporting” and a principal source of city revenue. They dominate trade, banking, skilled craft, and much of the intellectual life of the city: the orator Lysias is a metic; Aristotle himself resided in Athens as a metic for two separate periods. They serve in the army in segregated units — as hoplites if wealthy enough to equip themselves, as rowers in the fleet alongside the poorest citizens. They perform their own “liturgy” in the Panathenaic procession, carrying ritual vessels (the men) and water-jars (the women), visibly distinguished from citizen participants by red chitons.
The metic population of fifth-century Athens has been estimated at between 25,000 and 40,000 free adults — roughly one third of the free adult population. The Parthenon, funded by tribute from imperial allies and built partly by metic craftsmen, is simultaneously a monument to Athenian citizen pride and a product of metic labour. The democratic city could not function without the people it systematically excluded from its democracy.
Kamen, D. “Metics (metoikoi).” In Status in Classical Athens. Princeton UP, 2013 — Towson eBook (ProQuest)
Metics are nevertheless indispensable to the Athenian economy and cultural life. Xenophon (Poroi 2.1) describes them as “self-supporting” and a principal source of city revenue. They dominate trade, banking, skilled craft, and much of the intellectual life of the city: the orator Lysias is a metic; Aristotle himself resided in Athens as a metic for two separate periods. They serve in the army in segregated units — as hoplites if wealthy enough to equip themselves, as rowers in the fleet alongside the poorest citizens. They perform their own “liturgy” in the Panathenaic procession, carrying ritual vessels (the men) and water-jars (the women), visibly distinguished from citizen participants by red chitons.
The metic population of fifth-century Athens has been estimated at between 25,000 and 40,000 free adults — roughly one third of the free adult population. The Parthenon, funded by tribute from imperial allies and built partly by metic craftsmen, is simultaneously a monument to Athenian citizen pride and a product of metic labour. The democratic city could not function without the people it systematically excluded from its democracy.
Kamen, D. “Metics (metoikoi).” In Status in Classical Athens. Princeton UP, 2013 — Towson eBook (ProQuest)
c. 500–300 BCE · Athens
Free and freed metics — one legal category, two social worlds
Athenian metics fall into two groups by origin: freeborn immigrants, and freed slaves (apeleutheroi) who have been manumitted by their masters. Scholars have sometimes treated these as distinct legal subcategories with different rights and obligations. Recent scholarship questions this division at the level of law. Joshua Sosin (2016) argues that in Athenian legal practice “a metic was a metic”: the triggering mechanism (residence beyond the statutory limit, or in the case of freedmen, manumission itself), the registration requirement, the metoikion liability, the prostates obligation, and the penalty for non-compliance were identical for both groups. The differences scholars identify — the freedman’s estate passing to the former master if he died childless; the possible additional triobol fee; the requirement that freedmen name their manumittor as prostates — derive, Sosin argues, from inheritance law and manumission law respectively, not from any legislation about metics as such. Athenian law knew one type of metic: the one who had a prostates and paid the tax.
The social reality was nevertheless different. Freed slaves carried the stigma of their former condition regardless of their legal standing. Attic oratory uses “servile invective” against freedmen — repeatedly calling them slaves in open court regardless of their current status — because juries responded to it. The gap between a freedman metic’s legal status and the way Athenian society treated him was a social fact even if it was not a legal one.
Looking forward: the boundary between the metic (free, paying the tax) and the slave (property, paying nothing, belonging to someone) is maintained by the same administrative machinery that defines metic status. The two questions are inseparable: to understand what a metic is requires understanding what a slave is. That question will be the focus of Week 12 (Silver and Slaves).
Sosin, J.D. “A Metic was a Metic.” Historia 65.1 (2016), pp. 2–13 — search this title in JSTOR
The social reality was nevertheless different. Freed slaves carried the stigma of their former condition regardless of their legal standing. Attic oratory uses “servile invective” against freedmen — repeatedly calling them slaves in open court regardless of their current status — because juries responded to it. The gap between a freedman metic’s legal status and the way Athenian society treated him was a social fact even if it was not a legal one.
Looking forward: the boundary between the metic (free, paying the tax) and the slave (property, paying nothing, belonging to someone) is maintained by the same administrative machinery that defines metic status. The two questions are inseparable: to understand what a metic is requires understanding what a slave is. That question will be the focus of Week 12 (Silver and Slaves).
Sosin, J.D. “A Metic was a Metic.” Historia 65.1 (2016), pp. 2–13 — search this title in JSTOR
650–500 BCE
500–300 BCE
c. 621–508 BCE · Athens
The Athenian trajectory — Draco, Solon, Cleisthenes
Athens’ constitutional development moves through three decisive moments. Draco (621 BCE): the first written Athenian legal code, famously severe; codification of existing custom, not reform (see the course writing discussion for the dike→nomos transition). Solon (594 BCE): cancellation of debt-bondage (seisachtheia), property-class system replacing birth-status for political eligibility, opening the assembly to all free male citizens; inscribed laws displayed publicly in the Agora. Cleisthenes (508/507 BCE): the decisive reorganisation. 139 demes (local districts) grouped into ten artificial phylai (tribes), each tribe drawing members from the three geographical zones of Attica. The deme becomes the basic unit of citizenship: you are an Athenian citizen because you are registered in a deme. Cleisthenes makes citizenship territorial rather than genealogical.
Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians 20–22 — Perseus (Cleisthenes’ reforms)
Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians 20–22 — Perseus (Cleisthenes’ reforms)
c. 650–400 BCE · Sparta counter-model
The Lycurgan constitution — the citizen as property of the city
The Spartan constitution (attributed to the semi-legendary lawgiver Lycurgus, probably a 7th-century development) is the most radical realisation of the idea that the citizen belongs to the polis, not to himself. Male citizens are removed from their families at 7 for collective training (agoge), live in common messes (syssitia) until 30, and retain mess obligations for life. The constitution balances two kings, a 28-member council of elders (gerousia), five annually elected overseers (ephors), and a citizen assembly (apella) that votes by acclamation. Citizenship requires surviving the agoge and contributing to the mess. Those who fail are hypomeiones — “inferiors” — degraded from citizen status. The Helot problem: the entire Spartan citizen body depends on a subjected agricultural population (helots) for all productive labour. Spartan civic equality among citizens rests on radical unfreedom for the majority of the population of Laconia. The krypteia (in which young Spartans are required to kill helots) makes the relationship explicit. Note: the evidence for Sparta’s internal institutions comes almost entirely from later and non-Spartan sources, especially Plutarch; treat the details with some caution.
Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus — Perseus (chief source; written c. 100 CE)
Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus — Perseus (chief source; written c. 100 CE)
▸ Map 2 of 2
Attica and the deme system — Cleisthenes’ civic geography, 508/507 BCE
Loading map…
Attica’s territory is divided into three zones (city, coast, inland), each subdivided into ten sections (trittyes), one section per tribe from each zone. Each tribe therefore contains citizens from across the territory, preventing regional blocs. The deme is the unit of registration: Athenian citizenship is recorded at the local level (deme rolls) and exercised at the city level (assembly, courts, magistracies). Laurion’s silver mines fund the fleet; Marathon is the famous battle site; Eleusis hosts the Eleusinian Mysteries (the most important civic religious festival after the Panathenaia).
Athens (astu)
Key Attic sites
Laurion (silver mines)
⇄
Course theme: Every polis defines itself partly by what it excludes
Athens and Sparta represent opposite poles of an answer to the same question: what is the relationship between the citizen and the city? Athens (by the late fifth century) extends citizenship broadly and limits the city’s claim on the citizen’s private life. Sparta extends civic equality maximally among a small group and makes the city’s claim on the citizen total. Both exclude the majority of their populations from citizenship entirely. The metic — indispensable to the economy, excluded from political life — is the figure who makes the gap between these two facts most visible. The polis is always simultaneously a community of belonging and a structure of exclusion, and the slave is the ultimate term that makes both possible.
Aristotle’s Account — The Polis as Natural Fact
c. 335 – 322 BCE
c. 335–322 BCE
What Aristotle is not doing — the Politics as a teaching text
The Politics is not a finished, polished treatise. It is a set of lecture notes — probably compiled and edited by students — with inconsistencies, repeated arguments, and passages that appear to be outlines rather than finished prose. Books III and IV, for example, seem to begin the argument about constitutions over again from a different direction. Students should know this when they read it: apparent contradictions in the text are often the result of its compositional history rather than Aristotle changing his mind. The Politics also draws on a comparative study of 158 Greek constitutions, of which only the Constitution of the Athenians (rediscovered on papyrus in 1879) survives. The empirical basis of the theory is much larger than what we can now see.
335–322 BCE
c. 335–322 BCE · Athens, the Lyceum
Man as a political animal — zoon politikon ★ Aristotle
Aristotle opens his account of the polis in Politics I.2 with one of the most consequential sentences in political thought: the human being is by nature a creature of the polis (zoon politikon). To live outside a polis you must be either a beast or a god — either below the level of human sociality or above it. The solitary human being is not merely inconvenient; they are, in Aristotle’s framework, a natural failure. The polis is the context within which human virtue (aret\u0113) and human flourishing (eudaimonia) become possible. Without citizenship — without participation in the shared life of a political community — the human being cannot realise its natural potential. This is not a contract theory (we agree to form a polis for mutual benefit) but a teleological one: the polis is what humans are for.
Aristotle, Politics I.2 (1253a) — Perseus (the zoon politikon passage)
Aristotle, Politics I.2 (1253a) — Perseus (the zoon politikon passage)
c. 335–322 BCE
The oikos → kome → polis — the genetic and teleological account
Aristotle’s account of how the polis comes into being (Politics I.1–2) is both genetic (how it historically developed) and teleological (what it is for). The oikos (household) is the primary unit, formed for daily needs. Several households form a kome (village), formed for more than daily needs. Several villages form a polis, which is the first community capable of self-sufficiency (autarkeia) for the good life, not merely for survival. Each stage is a complete community, but only the polis is complete enough for human flourishing. The polis is therefore prior to the individual in the order of nature: just as the hand separated from the body is no longer really a hand (it cannot perform the function that makes it a hand), the individual separated from the polis is not fully human. The community is not a means to individual ends; individuals are, in a sense, means to the community’s end.
c. 335–322 BCE
The six-constitution taxonomy — a framework, not yet a verdict ★ bridge
In Politics III–IV, Aristotle classifies constitutions on two axes: how many rule (one, few, many) and whether they rule for the common good or for private benefit. This gives six types: monarchy and tyranny (rule of one); aristocracy and oligarchy (rule of few); politeia/republic and democracy (rule of many). This taxonomy is introduced here as a framework — the tool Aristotle built for analysing real poleis — but its application belongs to the next discussion. How Aristotle judges Athens, Sparta, Syracuse, and Corinth against it; which constitutions he thinks are best and why; and what his analysis reveals about the limits as well as the achievements of the classical polis: that examination is the opening of the discussion on Athens and Sparta in the Classical Age.
Aristotle, Politics III.7 (1279a) — Perseus (the six-constitution taxonomy)
Aristotle, Politics III.7 (1279a) — Perseus (the six-constitution taxonomy)
→
Where this discussion ends — and where the next one begins. The arc of this discussion runs from the Dark Age baseline to Aristotle’s theoretical account of why the polis exists. The rise of the polis — the emergence of the city-state as a form of human community — is now complete. Aristotle stands at the moment when the polis can be described, theorised, and classified because it has fully matured. His Politics is both the culmination of this discussion and the starting point of the next. The full articulation of what the polis is — how Athens and Sparta develop their incompatible answers to its central questions, how those answers collide in war, and how Aristotle’s comparative study of real constitutions (Athens, Sparta, Syracuse, Corinth, and others) generates political philosophy’s most durable taxonomy — is the subject of the following discussion: Athens and Sparta — Alliance, Empire, and the Peloponnesian War.