The Athenian Solution: Tyranny to Democracy.
Athens originated in Mycenaean culture and was one of a few cities to escape the destruction of the period between 1200 and 800 B.C.E.  It was also one of the largest city-states in its region, Attica, all of which were initially ruled by aristocratic clans who participated in the ruling council.  It had sufficient resources to escape the population pressure causing social conflicts elsewhere until 7th c. B.C.E.; at which point there were several decades of strife among all city-states in Attica including Athens.

By 632 B.C.E. Athenian hoplites successfully challenged the Eupatrids, the local Athenian aristocrats or basileis, but the attempted tyranny caused a lot of bloodshed.  A judge named Draco [DRAY-coh] drafted and helped enforce a system of laws in 621 B.C.E. to limit vengeance and prevent bloodshed.  He did so by imposing harsh penalties (usually death) for even minor offenses, hence our term draconian.  Even this change was not enough, though, because the rising hoplites wanted more influence over government and many ordinary Athenians who had been independent also wanted change as many were either share-croppers (hektemoroi) or actually in debt-bondage, both groups that remained very dependent on the nobles and other wealthy men.

Real reform would have to await the time when Solon [SOH-lon] (630 B.C.E.-560 B.C.E.)served Athens as chief archon [ARE-kon] or magistrate, in 594 B.C.E.  Solon was an ristocrat (i.e. Eupatrid) and merchant.  Solon eliminated debt bondage, after which no enslavement for debts was permitted in Athens.  Solon further divided society into 4 classes based on wealth, not birth, and let archons be elected from the top 2 classes, but allowed all including those from the lowest group, the thetes, to participate in the Athenian Assembly and in the law courts, including the high court which was the Assembly.  Solon also replaced voting with voices with the counting of hands and added a council composed of 400 men from all classes, to which citizens could appeal the magistrates' decisions and which set the Assembly's agenda.  This council served as a foil to the Areopagus, a council open only to the elite.  For all this progress, as a result of Solon's reforms we get institutionalized chattel slavery in Athens to replace the hektemoroi and debt-slaves.  It was also unfortunate, from Solon's standpoint at least, that a descendant in 546 and then his son in 528 became tyrants for awhile, placing Athens was under strongman rule for a time.  Finally, these men were expelled by a coalition led by the eupatrid Pisistratus and his sons until they were expelled in 510 with the help of Spartan military force.

Cleisthenes [CLEYES-thuh-nees] in ca. 508 B.C.E., added final reform to Solon's constitution.  He reorganized the political units that elected council members so that they were no longer based on kin-linked tribes, but on territorial units and grouped into 10 artificial tribes, each including territory in the urban, inland, & coastal regions; these regions, based on local government, were called demes.  This reform integrated people of different social, economic, and regional backgrounds and also promoted a sense of Athenian polis identity.  Only one council, the Areopagus, remained closed to non-Aristocrats under Cleithenes and a Council of 500 replaced the Council of 400, Assemblymen could alter agenda.  Finally, Ostracism: exiling the most unpopular people in Athens for 10 years (so-called for the shards of pottery on which their names were written) was introduced.  This was basically a way to get rid of unpopular and therefore dangerous members of the elite.

Under Pericles (495-429 B.C.E., Archon from 443-429 B.C.E.)Athenian democracy reached its height.  He was popular with commoners who were officeholders and sponsored many building programs (using money from a military organization known as the Delian League).  It is important to note that the main element in Athenian democracy was direct participation.  The entire citizenry voted on all measures in the Assembly (citizens came of age at 20).  The Assembly gathered a minimum of 40 times per year.  This also means that Athens had a weak executive and its courts were open to all citizens as well with large juries of several hundred as a rule.  Most officials in Council of 500 and other public offices were chosen by lottery.

Athenian social order consisted of five groups: the aristocrats, the citizens, women, metics, and slaves.  Aristocrats owned much of the land, used hired labor to cultivate it and therfore had much leisure time themselves.  For those aristocrats living in Athens the center of social life was the symposion (pl. symposia), or drinking party.  The purpose was not to get drunk (the wine always mixed with water), but to participate in a variety of different events including games like dice, competitions in poetry, or philosophical disputes.  There was also entertainment from dancing girls.
The aristocracy also produced informal power brokers known as demagogues who viewed their roles keeping a check on leaders (eg. archons) who might be accruing too much power.  The aristocrats even if one includes their families, numbered only several hundred families and so were a very small percentage of the total population.

Athenian male citizens, the next rung on the ladder of the social order, numbered ~40,000 or 10-15% of population.  The majority were farmers who raised barley, some wheat, grapes for wine, olives for oil; vegetables, and fruit as well as herding sheep and goats for milk and cheese.  Those citizens who were city dwellers worked in government and other honorable tasks, but it is important to remember that Athens was quite rural with over half of the population of the Athenian city-state pop. of 300,000 living in the countryside.  

Women in Athens were excluded from most of public life.  They could not vote, take part in public assemblies, take public office, and were allowed only passive participation in law courts as witnesses.  They could participate in economic life, esp. in farming & artisan families, but that was about all the regular access to public life they were allowed.  One reason for this was that they were always legally under control of male guardian (ather, husband or other male relative) a kyrios.  Elite women in particular married young, usually between 12 and 18, whereas their husbands were usually. over 30.   Marriages were arranged by the male guardian or kyrios.  The main function of Athenian women  citizens (astai), thus the elite among Athenian women, was to produce male heirs for their husband's oikos (household); to ensure that heirs were legitimate.  Such women were segregated in the oikos and laws were even passed to regulate admission to a family and thus citizenship.  From c. 5th c. B.C.E., for example, all legitimate offspring had to be introduced into the clan or phratry by their father as legitimate and there were many lawsuits contesting legitimacy; The reason: as the Athenian population grew Athenians came to believe there were just too many people trying to become citizens according.
    
There was one class of women who had more freedoms: Prostitutes.  Prostitution was common in Athens and one particular class of highly educated hetairai [heh-TAYR-eye] had the privilege of being present at aristocratic symposia, whereas no astai were allowed this right.  Concubinage was also important.  In fact in the earlier history of Athens, citizens could be born of a relationship between a citizen and a pallake (plural: pallakai).

Among the most dynamic elements in Athens were its foreigners or metics.  They had a major role in trade, participating in the trade in Greek pottery, wine, and olive oil to the Greek colonies, which brought grain, metals, fish, timber and slaves to Athens.  The metics also traded to Phoenicia, Egypt, and Persia.  And yet although metics equal before law with citizens for the most part and could participate in economic life and have relationships with citizens (though later starting in the 4th century this was not allowed) and could also participate in the economy, they could not buy land (which meant prestige and security), and had no political power.  Indeed, the metics had the same status as freedmen (former slaves).

The last group to mention would be the slaves.  Most became slaves because they were prisoners of war, foreigners who failed to pay taxes, or were the victims of pirate raids.  They numbered ~100,000 or so.  

Thus, a democracy Athens may have been, but it was hardly a democracy for all!

Sparta's Solution to the Crisis of Legitimacy in the Archaic Period: Oligarchic Martial rule, 725-400 B.C.E.    
Sparta replaced an important Mycenaean kingdom called Lacedaemon, which was also the proper name for Sparta (which was actually the capital city) during the period of in-migration referred to above in the Dark Ages. In the early 8th century B.C.E. Sparta/Lacedaemon conquered the people of neighboring Messenia, turning them into serfs (called helots) who, as we will see, were controlled through terror. With this new workforce the Spartans found they had a need to reorganize their military and their society given the potential for economic wealth and disparities that would create.  Also the number of hoplites must have increased giving them more political power.  Essentially, the state owned much of the land (though there were also private estates and this did create wealth disparities), but all state land was privately managed with half the produce going to a Spartan citizen.  The helots too were state-owned.  Beyond the helots were the perioikoi or neighbors who served as craftsmen and traders as well as soldiers and lived in communities within Sparta's sphere of influence.  They were not citizens with full, but nor were they unfree like the helots.

Sparta had two kings, each from a rival house; initially they ruled alone, and then jointly with the ephors or magistrates c. 7th c. B.C.E., which was the period of the Spartan reform.
The kings' main function eventually became to lead the Spartan armed forces on the field of battle.  On the battlefield Spartan kings could conduct war, negotiate with enemies and  allies, etc., but they could be tried if their actions were not approved of later.  The Spartan kings only married into major Spartan families, not into one another's families and not into those of another polis.

There were five magistrates or ephors elected annually by all the Spartiates/Similars.  Initially they served as the citizens' watchdog over the kings, but by 5th century B.C.E. the ephors had taken over much of the power of the two Spartan kings.  They accepted a monthly oath from kings to uphold laws, could arrest the kings, subject them to trial, and even punish them.  Once the office of ephor had reached this degree of power, the main function of the ephors was to run Sparta on a day-to-day basis.  By 5th century the ephors also presided over the Assembly of Spartiates, called the apella.  Each ephor had responsibility for judging a particular class of legal cases.  They also received foreign envoys and decided whether their requests would go to the council of the assembly, raised the military levy, and had considerable police powers over the helots.  The ephors were generally from fairly humble/ordinary backgrounds in Spartan terms.

The Gerousia: Council of 28 Elders sat with the kings, and in the classical era, perhaps below the ephors.  They prepared business for the apella to consider, meaning they had all initiative in proposing laws.  They also acted as high court of justice in cases where penalty was death, loss of civic privileges, or exile.  Elders had to be at least 60 to join and election was by the apella and for life.

The apella or assembly of all male citizens who fulfilled the property requirements and who were not perioikoi or helots was an assembly of all homoioi or similars or equals.  It elected all officials, decided on peace or war, and approved or disapproved all legislation proposed.  Spartan citizens were called homoioi or similars or equals to represent the fact that they had equal rights and, to some extent, equal access to wealth, although this latter part of their status changed over time.