The volume looks at the interpretation and understanding of the main results of Greek history from the Mycenaean collapse to the late classical period (c. 12th – 4th centuries BC.).
1. It covers two main aspects of the problem. In particular, the first focuses on the crucial metamorphoses of the Archaic period (8th–6th centuries BC.), including new technologies in material production and social integration, political regimes and culture, religious beliefs, and social psychology. The two valuable results of the epoque are put out by modern scholars – on the one hand, the formation of the city-state, the universal paradigm of social and political consolidation of Greeks, on the other hand, the hoplitization of the army (phalanx), which is credited with paving the way for the democratization of society. All these metamorphoses implied the Greek way of socialization after the Bronze Age collapse. Greece entered the Archaic Age as a world of numerous city-states with their peculiarities in social structure, government, religion, and culture. Despite military clashes and enmity, they complemented each other. Another aspect of the Archaic Age was the Great Colonization from Caucasian Colchis to Spain (Iberia), which reshaped the Greek world into a network based on various state and individual relationships. Greeks entered into active contact with other tribes and nations, which changed the borders of their identity.

2. The next aspect of our investigation concerns the Spartan social experience. In the extreme ethnic conditions, the creative aspirations of the Spartans met with serious impediments and lost momentum. At the social level, this gave rise to the strict military domination of the Spartiates (the Dorian minority) over the entire population of Lacedaemon (the Achaean majority). This confrontation gave rise to self-sufficient (autarkic) social estates, including the Spartans, Perioeci, and Helots. The Spartiates with full social and political rights were at the top of this pyramid. They constituted the “community of equals” led by kings, the elite, and the priesthood. They owned all the land of the state and other resources. The perioeci were on the second level. They had personal freedom, lived in autonomous cities, and were engaged in crafts and trades. However, they did not have the right to vote. The helots occupied the lowest level of the social pyramid: they were slaves, attached to land allotments that belonged to the state. They were distributed among Spartiate families without the right of alienation.
3. The last two estates made up the majority of the population in Sparta. Overcoming this imbalance, Spartiates enhance and consolidate the government resources exclusively. The political regime of Sparta had a tripartite configuration, including elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. All these institutions were accessible only for the Spartiate minority. The first element was represented by two kings, the descendants of the two most prominent families. The second was the Gerousia (Senate), the house of elders distinguished for their ancestry and merits. The third represented the Public Assembly open to all Spartiates. At a later date, a new institution was introduced to counterbalance the absolutization of kings and elders. It came to be known as the colleague of the ephors.

4. Despite origin, the social status of a Spartiate was determined by his education, which consisted of four stages. Passing through them, a boy grew into a full-fledged citizen who had his place in the Popular Assembly and Phalanx. Severe competition and examinations selected their leaders. After that, the young Spartiate gained the right to marry. He also gained entrance into male unions with a hierarchy (in some cases) different from that of the official.
5. All aspects of Sparta’s social institutions were installed and described in the “Lycurgan Rhetra”, the constitution of the legendary reformer of the 7th century B.C. It brought, on the one hand, strict stability to Spartan life, but, on the other hand, contained elements of degradation. These tendencies acted in parallel. The first generated a strict hierarchy, excluding creativity in various areas, from technology to mentality and forms of social organization. As a result, they were ritualized. Ritualized strategy and tactics reshaped the Spartan military forces into the most powerful army of the time. Through that, Sparta subjugated the Peloponnese and part of Central Greece, and founded the Peloponnesian League.
6. The second tendency had less impact in the initial stage of history, but gained momentum in the Classical period. It was combined with the individualization of history. Sometimes, kings and ephors deviated from the traditional way, proposing reforms in various areas of Spartan life. They acted under communal or individual stimuli. However, at the beginning of the 4th century, both resources were exhausted. It became explicit after the victory over Athens in the long Peloponnesian War. Sparta declined under the burden of “glorious successes.” Soon, its irrelevance in leading and ruling Greece also became evident. And its degradation gradually became irreversible.
7. The last problem under consideration is the Platonic text on the ideal social organization described in the “Republic”.

It is usually credited to have been composed after the Spartan paradigm. However, this reflects only the first impression. The philosopher’s approach to the Spartan affairs is complicated, he intended to overcome their innate vices.
He proceeded from the concept about a human being consisted of three principal elements, bodily, affective, and mental. Their correlation was thought to be strictly personal, distributed to everyone from birth. Consequently, they were dominated by one element, either bodily, affective, or mental. This heritage had to be developed through education, resulting in philosopher-rulers, soldiers, and producers. In other words, Plato drew on the concept of anthropomorphism to envision an ideal society. Despite real parents, nature and destiny determined the essence of every citizen. Therefore, a philosopher-ruler could give birth to a producer and vice versa. Plato believed that the knowledge of the nature of members of the ideal community and their relevant education would pave the way to eradicate the principal vice of Sparta, the genetic separation and autarky of social estates. However, the philosopher’s program was too schematic and had no chance to be carried out in real historical time and conditions. For centuries, it remained an interest for intellectual aesthetes of the West.