Friday Reflection: Greek Rivalry
Adrian Goldsworthy on the Competition That Shaped Greece
Why This Conversation Matters
The story of classical Greece is often reduced to fragments: Spartan warriors, Athenian democracy, Socrates asking questions, Thermopylae, the Parthenon. Adrian Goldsworthy argues that these fragments only make sense when placed back into the wider rivalry between Athens and Sparta—a rivalry that shaped not just warfare and diplomacy, but the entire Greek understanding of politics, citizenship, and excellence.
One of the most striking themes of the conversation is that neither Athens nor Sparta was inevitable. Both were products of highly specific historical developments, myths, fears, institutions, and pressures. And both cities defined themselves partly by comparison with the other.
As you reflect on the conversation, consider:
Why did the Greeks remain fiercely attached to their individual cities rather than creating a larger political unity?
Did rivalry strengthen Greek civilization—or ultimately destroy it?
And what does Athens suggest about the relationship between military service and democratic participation?
Throughlines
The conversation begins with Goldsworthy explaining why he he thought a new overview of classical Greece was necessary. The problem, he argues, is not lack of interest—though people are more interested in Rome—but fragmentation. Readers can find books on Spartan society, Athenian democracy, philosophy, drama, or art, but often lose sight of the broader historical world that produced these things. Greeks are too often imagined as detached intellectuals rather than farmers, soldiers, traders, and political actors living amid continual conflict.
From there, the discussion turns to origins. Spartan identity, Goldsworthy explains, rests on conquest: the Spartans present themselves as Dorian invaders who subdued the existing population and therefore deserved mastery over the helots. This creates a society intensely focused on cohesion and military solidarity, because the Spartans are always conscious that they are a ruling minority surrounded by people who hate them. Tyrtaeus’s poetry captures this mentality perfectly—not glamorous heroism, but the grim necessity of fighting well because defeat means enslavement and ruin.
Athens presents almost the opposite picture. Athenians claim to have sprung from the soil of Attica itself, cultivating an image of rootedness and antiquity. Yet Goldsworthy notes that Athens also suffered from a kind of insecurity: unlike Sparta or Corinth, it lacked a prominent place in Homeric legend. The Athenians therefore became deeply invested in constructing and elaborating multiple origin stories around figures like Theseus and Solon.
The conversation then shifts into the emergence of Athenian democracy. Solon attempts to reduce aristocratic conflict through reforms tied to property and political participation, but instability continues until the tyranny of Pisistratus and the later reforms of Cleisthenes. What emerges is a remarkably direct political system: every male citizen can vote in the assembly, speak publicly, serve on juries, or potentially hold office. Goldsworthy emphasizes how improvisational and immediate this democracy could be. Decisions become law instantly; assemblies can reverse themselves from one day to the next; enormous juries judge cases collectively rather than through professional judges.
One of the most revealing parts of the discussion concerns ostracism. Rather than treating it merely as irrational ingratitude, Goldsworthy presents it as a safety valve designed to prevent aristocratic rivalries from turning violent. Even figures like Aristides or Themistocles could be exiled temporarily if the political temperature became too dangerous.
The Persian Wars occupy the center of the conversation. Goldsworthy stresses that Persia was not uniquely obsessed with Greece; it was simply an expanding empire dealing with troublesome frontier communities. Marathon therefore appears not as a civilizational showdown foreordained by history, but as a punitive expedition that unexpectedly ran into determined resistance. The Athenians, aided only by tiny Plataea, manage to defeat the Persians through experience, discipline, and tactical flexibility rather than because hoplite warfare automatically guaranteed victory.
At Salamis, Athens becomes something new: a naval democracy. Themistocles persuades the Athenians that their “wooden walls” are their ships, and the entire citizen body becomes implicated in naval warfare. Goldsworthy repeatedly returns to the extraordinary coordination required by trireme warfare and how deeply democratic participation became tied to the fleet.
The conversation culminates with the Battle of Plataea, where the Greeks finally defeat the Persian invasion decisively. Yet even here, Goldsworthy emphasizes confusion, disagreement, and improvisation rather than perfect unity. The Greeks argue constantly; movements become disordered; battles emerge partially by accident. Nevertheless, enough cohesion exists to defeat the Persians.
The final section turns toward the deeper problem of Greek civilization itself: competition. The Greeks excelled at creating fiercely loyal city-states, but they never developed the Roman ability to absorb rivals into a larger political order. Athens and Sparta needed one another as rivals even while fearing one another’s power. And because Greek identity remained tied so intensely to the polis, rivalry remained endemic.
Questions for Reflection and Discussion
Why does Goldsworthy think classical Greece is often misunderstood or fragmented in popular history?
How did Spartan conquest and dependence on helot labor shape Spartan society and values?
What anxieties or ambitions are reflected in Athenian origin stories?
Why did Athens develop such an unusually direct form of democracy?
How did ostracism function as a political “safety valve” within Athenian society?
Why does Goldsworthy resist portraying Marathon as an inevitable triumph of “Western civilization”?
How did naval warfare transform Athens politically and socially?
What does the Battle of Plataea reveal about both the strengths and weaknesses of Greek coalition warfare?
Why were the Greeks unable—or unwilling—to create a unified political order comparable to Rome?
After hearing this conversation, do you think rivalry ultimately strengthened Greek civilization or fatally weakened it?
For Further Investigation
Adrian Goldsworthy, Athens and Sparta: The Rivalry That Shaped Ancient Greece (Basic Books, 2026)
Barry Strauss, The Battle of Salamis: The Naval Encounter that Saved Greece— and Western Civilization (Simon and Schuster, 2005)
Jennifer T. Roberts, The Plague of War: Athens, Sparta, and the Struggle for Ancient Greece (Oxford University Press, 2017)
—, Out of One, Many: Ancient Greek Ways of Thought and Culture (Princeton University Press, 2024)
Paul Cartledge, The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Greece (Abrams, 2003)
Brook Manville, The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens (Princeton, 2014)
Victor Davis Hanson, The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (University of California Press, 2009)
Primary Sources
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Free Press, 1998)
Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, translated by Robin Waterfield (Basic Books, 2025)
The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories (Anchor Books, 2009)
Herodotus, The Histories, translated by Tom Holland (Penguin, 2015)
Plutarch, Greek Lives, translated by Robin Waterfield (Oxford World’s Classics, 2009)
Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution
Related Episodes
The Forever War—Jennifer Roberts on the Peloponnesian War
This is Sparta—Andrew Bayliss on whether Sparta was what we think it was
The Forgotten City—Paul Cartledge on Thebes
Out of One, Many—Jennifer Roberts on what made the Greeks…Greek
Athens—Bruce Clark on the long history of the city of Athens