Why was ancient Sparta always ruled by two kings at the same time?

Ancient Sparta's governmental system was an intricate amalgamation of monarchical, oligarchic, and democratic elements, which has been called a 'mixed constitution' by scholars.

Central to this structure were the two hereditary kings, each hailing from two royal families – the Agiads and the Eurypontids.

Their reign was for life, and their roles were primarily military and religious, often leading their forces into battle and officiating religious rites.

Yet, the kings did not govern in isolation. Their power was kept in check by the Gerousia, or the Council of Elders, composed of 28 men over the age of sixty, elected for life, along with the two kings.

The Gerousia prepared the motions to be voted on by the Apella or Assembly, which was made up of male Spartans over the age of 30.

The Apella had the final say on major decisions, effectively serving as the democratic arm of this system.

Together, these institutions comprised the Spartan government, with the dual kingship at its helm.

Adding a further layer of oversight were the Ephors, a group of five officials elected annually by the Apella.

They held significant power, acting as both executive officers and a check on the kings' power.

The Ephors could even bring a king to trial if he was believed to have overstepped his authority, underscoring the delicate balance of power in this unique city-state.

The dual kingship of Sparta traces its roots back to both mythology and the deep-seated historical traditions of the city-state.

According to legend, the Spartan dual kingship originated with the twin sons of Aristodemus, a descendant of Heracles (Hercules in Roman mythology).

When Aristodemus died, his sons, Eurysthenes and Procles, were both still infants. Rather than choosing one child over the other, the Spartan people decided to honor both as kings, each founding a royal house – the Agiads and the Eurypontids.

From then on, these two families ruled concurrently, marking the inception of Sparta's diarchal system.

While this foundation story is steeped in mythology, it was deeply significant in Spartan society, underpinning the city-state's complex political structure.

By linking their kingship system to the revered figure of Heracles, the Spartans imbued their dual monarchy with divine authority and legitimacy.

From a more practical standpoint, the dual kingship may have evolved as a mechanism to prevent power from becoming too centralized.

The co-king arrangement provided a built-in system of checks and balances, ensuring that one king could not unilaterally make decisions without the agreement of the other.

The system also allowed for continuity of leadership in times of war; while one king led troops into battle, the other could remain in Sparta to govern.

Historians speculate that the establishment of dual kingship also likely reflected the political realities of the time.

Sparta, originally, was not a unified city, but a collection of four villages. The establishment of two royal houses might have been a way to unify these distinct entities under one government while still maintaining the leadership structure of the original villages.

While the concept of two kings ruling concurrently might suggest the potential for power struggles, in Sparta, the roles and responsibilities of the two monarchs were delineated clearly, contributing to the stability of this unique political system.

The Spartan kings, despite their royal status, were not absolute rulers. They were first and foremost generals in times of war, leading the Spartan armies on campaigns.

This military role was paramount, and history often finds them at the head of their troops, exemplified by King Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Apart from their military responsibilities, the kings also played key religious roles.

They were the chief priests of the state and performed various religious ceremonies and sacrifices.

This dual responsibility for warfare and religion underscores the interconnectedness of these two spheres in Spartan society, with success in battle seen as dependent on the gods' favor.

The kings had a limited role in civil administration and jurisdiction. They could give public speeches and propose new legislation, and only had some involvement some judicial functions.

In theory, the kings shared power equally. However, in practice, it is likely that the balance of power fluctuated over time depending on the kings' personalities, their relationship, and the broader socio-political context.

While the kings enjoyed considerable privileges, as previously mentioned, their power was kept in check by other elements of Spartan government, notably the Ephors and the Gerousia.

While the Spartan dual kingship system had its distinct advantages, it was not without its drawbacks and criticisms.

From power struggles between the co-rulers to the potential for confusion and inefficiency, the diarchy presented several challenges that could potentially undermine the stability of Spartan society.

One of the most evident pitfalls was the potential for conflict between the two kings.

These disputes could cause political instability, disrupt decision-making, and divide loyalties among the citizens and the military.

The historical record notes several occasions where kings from the two royal houses found themselves at odds, leading to periods of tension and conflict within the state.

In addition, the diarchy could result in inefficiency and delays in decision-making. With two kings needing to agree on significant matters, the system potentially could stall decisions, particularly if the kings held divergent views.

Critics have also suggested that the dual kingship system, while providing a check against absolute power, nonetheless maintained an elitist structure that concentrated power among the few.

The hereditary nature of the kingship meant that power remained within the two royal houses, limiting the opportunity for wider civic participation.

Finally, the ability of the Ephors to check the kings' power sometimes led to tensions and power struggles that could destabilize the political environment.

The Ephors, chosen from the citizenry, had the authority to impeach a king, a fact that sometimes brought them into direct conflict with the royal houses.

Over the centuries of Spartan history, several kings left indelible marks on the city-state and the broader Greek world.

They navigated the complexities of Spartan dual kingship and exerted their influence in times of war and peace.

Here are a few notable examples:

Leonidas I (reigned from 490-480 BC)

Leonidas, of the Agiad house, is perhaps the most famous Spartan king, primarily due to his role in the Battle of Thermopylae during the Persian Wars. In 480 BC, he led a small Greek force, which included 300 Spartans, in a valiant but ultimately doomed stand against a vast Persian army led by Xerxes I. His heroic death and the sacrifice of his troops became a symbol of courage and resistance against overwhelming odds. Though he fell at Thermopylae, his actions galvanized Greek city-states, contributing significantly to their eventual victory over Persia.

Agesilaus II (reigned from 399-360 BC)

A Eurypontid king, Agesilaus II was one of Sparta's most influential and controversial figures. Despite being lame from birth—an usually insurmountable obstacle in Spartan society—he rose to become one of Sparta's most renowned military leaders. His reign was marked by the shifting power dynamics of the Greek city-states post-Persian Wars, and he played a critical role in Sparta's victories during the Corinthian War. Agesilaus was a strong advocate of expansionist policies, leading multiple campaigns in Asia Minor against the Persian Empire.

Cleomenes III (reigned from 235-222 BC)

From the Agiad house, Cleomenes III was an ambitious and reform-minded king. Recognizing the decline of Sparta's power in the Greek world, he embarked on a comprehensive program of social and political reforms aimed at reviving Sparta's military and political strength. Though ultimately unsuccessful, his attempts at reform demonstrated a willingness to challenge traditional Spartan customs and institutions.

The dual kingship system in Sparta was a remarkably resilient institution, lasting for several centuries.

However, the political tides of the ancient world were ever-changing, and by the time of the Roman conquest of Greece, the power of the Spartan kings had significantly waned.

Sparta's decline began in the 4th century BC after its defeat at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC by the Thebans.

This loss marked the end of Sparta's military dominance in Greece. Over the following centuries, despite several attempts at political and social reform, Sparta was unable to regain its former stature.

Its influence gradually dwindled, and by the time of the Roman conquest of Greece in 146 BC, Sparta was a shadow of its former self.

The Romans reorganized the Peloponnese into the province of Achaea, and Sparta was reduced to the status of a Roman provincial city.

Its unique political institutions, including the dual kingship, were dismantled in favor of Roman administrative structures, although it did retain a degree of local autonomy.