As states develop, it is common for class structures to become more rigidly defined through wealth inequality, often codified through harsh debt laws and harsh clear distinction between the lifestyles of the rich and the common people. Examining the history of Sparta, Athens, and Rome around the middle of the first millennium, it is easy to see that each of these states was forced to confront the political consequences of this inequality, and there are numerous records detailing how each state attempted to address these issues. In Sparta, Lycurgus won popular support and promoted social reforms that created an atmosphere completely inhospitable to wealth inequality. In Athens, Solon instituted radical reforms to relieve citizens from crushing debts, while in Rome, conflict between patricians and plebeians nearly forced Rome into catastrophe before a group of powerful magistrates were created to ensure fair treatment between the classes. Since each state faced similar difficulties, finding commonalities in the method of solution and the procedure used to achieve it can provide a number of generalities about the political climate and development of Mediterranean city-states at the time. Upon examination, while each state has pursued a different set of solutions, one thread that ties each effort together is the tactic of appealing to mob rule. Regardless of the system of government the state relied on, solutions to wealth inequality depended largely on the support, not of key political leaders or rational individuals, but on the approval of the population at large. What happened, however, was not that the will of the people was done, but that the politician who could best garner crowd approval through extreme ideas was the most successful, while those who adopted moderate ideas were been abandoned and reviled by everyone. sides. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The problems of wealth inequality in Athens, Rome, and Sparta have been well documented in the Athenian Politeia, Livy's History of Rome, and Lycurgus' Life of Plutarch, respectively. Athenian citizens were described as "slaves of the rich... and if they ever failed to pay their rent, they and their children were liable to arrest" (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 2). Livy notes plebeian resentment arising from systematic inequality in Rome, writing that "while fighting in the field for liberty and empire they were oppressed and enslaved by their fellow citizens at home", and describing a story in which a war veteran Sabina incited a revolt by describing how “not only had she lost the produce of her land to the depredations of her enemies, but her farm had been burned, all her property plundered, her cattle carried away, the war tax exacted when least he was unable to pay it, and was in debt,” and the debt eventually forced him into slavery (Livy, 2:23). Indeed, Livy goes on to describe an ongoing conflict within Rome that was entirely fueled by plebeian resentment of laws regarding wealth and debt. Even in Sparta, before the reforms of Lycurgus, we note that "the city was heavily burdened with destitute and defenseless people, and the wealth was all concentrated in the hands of a few". (Plut, Lyc.8.1). It is clear, then, that in the period with which we are concerned, each of these states struggled, at least to some extent, with wealth inequality, often with specific regard to debt slavery. The question to ask yourself, incomparing these states, then becomes how each state has chosen to deal with this conflict. In Athens the issue was addressed rather directly, where after a long struggle between opposing political parties, Solon was eventually chosen as the arbiter of the dispute and was given the position of Archon to implement the reforms that would be necessary. His reforms were radical, the most famous being the “Shaking Off of Burdens,” which simply and directly exempted citizens from all debts, and was then followed by a series of laws to prevent the accumulation of debt and outlaw debt slavery altogether (Aristot, Ath. Pol.6). In Sparta, Lycurgus carried out equally direct reforms regarding the distribution of land, as he “persuaded his fellow citizens to make a piece of all their territory and divide it again, and to live among themselves on a basis of total uniformity and equality,” also choosing to implement some indirect policies, such as the imposition of canteens and the transition to iron currency (Plut, Lyc. 8.2). These changes ultimately helped erode and destroy class systems in Sparta, eliminating class differences and discouraging interstate trade. Plutarch notes that the imposition of an iron coin interrupted trade with other cities, and that "luxury, thus gradually deprived of that which stimulated and supported it, died of itself, and men endowed with large possessions had no no advantage over the poor, because their wealth found no public outlet" (Plut, Lyc. 9.4) and that with a single table for all people meant that "the rich man could neither use nor enjoy nor even see or show his abundant means, when he went to the same meal as the poor" (Plut, Lyc. 10,3). It is easy to see that Lycurgus and Solon were able to implement these reforms due to the great support they received from the people, with Solon giving control over the Athenian government as a final measure to quell the conflict between the classes, and Lycurgus returning to power in Sparta at the popular request of the people. In Rome, the conflict was more staggered, with reforms only being implemented when the plebeians attempted total secession from Rome, forcing the patricians to compromise by creating the office of tribune, so that the rights of the plebeians would be protected. This helps establish that wealth inequality existed and was addressed differently by each of the states in question. What now needs to be determined is what precise role the “mob” played in these conflicts, and how this influenced moderate voices. To this end it will be important to take note of two subjects; Pisistratus and Appius Claudius. Peisistratus was a dictator of Athens who ruled Athens several decades after Solon's departure, ending the infighting and political squabbles that governed the city when Solon left. Appius Claudius was a staunchly anti-plebeian ruler who was elected consul despite his harsh rhetoric, even asking to be made dictator in order to establish firm rule over the plebeians, saying: "Let me see someone hit a lictor then, when he knows that the his shoulders and even his life are in the sole power of the man whose authority he attacks” (Livy, 2.29). this article, there have been a number of examples of "mob" rule, particularly within Sparta and Rome, where Lycurgus took power not by birthright or election, but because the people of Sparta called for return. In Rome, the patricians were not forced to compromise until the plebeians took steps to separate themselves from the city completely, and in previous years attempted to force reforms through riots..