Personally, I think that democracy expanded in Athens and not Sparta, because Athens had a different kind of government from the start and democracy worked for them.
Sparta was more military based and were always prepared to fight war. This is just the type of system they had. Oddly, their city-state vanished without trace after the Peloponnesian war. Doesn't that say something good about democracies? Athens had a better system.
Overall, both city-states saw their way fit and the other one was wrong. Why would you try your enemies kind of government instead of sticking with your own? This must be what the Spartans thought.
Sparta was cool. they killed people. Athens was a bunch of panzies. While they did kill people, they also were the first direct democracy. ^^ Not entirely helpful, but sadly true. In Sparta they had what we'd call a Constitutional Monarchy. This means that the King of Sparta would basically be a figure-head for the people to rally around; he didn't have any real power (except in wars I think). Athens however was the origins of Democracy. In Athens though they practised Direct Democracy, which is the citizens of Athens going and voting on particular issues themselves instead of having MPs, or Senators doing it for them. In most countries that have a Democracy, there is a Representative Democracy which involves voting a person to represent you in the government/parliament/senate. So... Sparta = Constitutional Monarchy Athens = Direct Democracy
Sparta was ruled by two hereditary kings from separate families. The kings' power was limited by a 28 member council of elders. Athens was a direct democracy meaning all of the Athenian citizens could vote on legislation.
Athens I think
Who is they. The citizens of Sparta lived in Sparta. The citizens of Athens lived in Athns. Each preferred their own city, which is why they were citizens of that city.
In academics, Athens was better. When it came to fighting, Sparta was better.
Sparta i think
Sparta had a limited democracy - they had to as the citizens would not fight if the citizens didn"t have a say on both war and the important issues of government. Athens developed from a limited democracy to a radical one as the citizens were sick of the rule and exploitation by the aristocratic oligarchs. After an initial limited democracy under Cleisthenes, and the return of the oligarchs during and after the Persian invasion, Ephialtes restored democracy, was murdered for it, and his deputy Pericles took over, developing it into a radical democracy where the citizens in fortnightly assembly made the decisions and the council implemented them.
athens did i think... YOU SHOULD BE LISTENING TO YOUR TEACHERS NOT GOING ON THE INTERNET AND CHEATING DUMMIES
yes
Strong , because Athens and Sparta would be to busy fighting with each other (common sense)
i don't really think that there were empires in north Greece
Athens' feelings towards Sparta could differ from person to person and most important from time period to time period. For example, the story of the Battle of Thermopylae was considered very heroic but sometimes Spartan culture was made fun of in plays but in the same play Spartans could be seen as admirable (Aristophanes' Lysistrata, for example).Also, of course, if Athens was at war with Sparta, they would have a much different opinion of them.But one thing that they were very known for was the fact that they were supposed to be very brief with their words with a dry wit, the etymology for the word "laconic" is a reference to Sparta.