Chapter 11: Archaic Greece and the Emergence of Tyranny
Periodization of Ancient Greece
Bronze Age c. 2000-1200
Dark Ages 1100-800
Archaic Age 800-500
Classical Age 500-323
Hellenistic Era 323-27 BC
Important dates:
Persian Wars 499-478
Peloponnesian War 431-404
Alexander the Great 336-323
Migrations during the Dark Age Era.
Similarities in dialect and cultural attributes
indicate a pattern of small scale, gradual migration from the Greek mainland
across the Aegean to central and south coastal
Anatolia during the Dark Ages (c. 1100-800
BC). Discernible dialects include Aeolic in the north (from Thessaly
to Lesbos, for example), Attic/Ionic across
the Cyclades, and Doric from the Peloponnesus to Crete, Rhodes, and Halicarnassus.
Along with this evidence survive traditions of refugee migrations from Greek
mainland centers of Mycenaean civilization to new settlements across the seas. Athens, for example,
claimed never to have been conquered by the invading “Dorians.”
The Mycenaean site served as a point of embarkation for people fleeing across
the Aegean. Like Athens Ionian states tended
to revere Athena as their patron deity; they claimed to have been founded by
descendants of the Athenian royal house of Erechtheus;
and their tribal organizations bore the same names as those that survived in Athens. This furnishes
one example of how Mycenaean populations dispersed themselves across the Aegean, settled into subsistence-based rural communities
in their new locales, and gradually began to expand their populations. It is
important to recognize that until very recent times the “Greek world” and the Aegean were synonymous. Greek settlement existed all
along the shores of the Aegean Sea, with no
Greek settlement more than 80 km from the sea. The Greeks were a decidedly
“liminal” people who depended on the sea for communication and food supplies.
Most settlements, new and old, remained isolated by the rugged topography of
the Greek mainland (85% of the Greek mainland is mountainous, and less that 15%
can sustain agriculture) and the omnipresence of the sea. Gradual rise in
population and the reconstruction of Mediterranean trade routes induced
isolated Greek populations to become aware of affairs beyond the horizons of
their immediate habitats. It is important to recognize, therefore, that ancient
Greece
was neither a country nor a territory, but rather an assemblage of more than
300 Poleis, or separate autonomous Greek city states scattered along the shores of the Aegean
and beyond. Because so many celebrated writers lived in Athens, the historical record of ancient Greece tends to
exhibit a decidedly Atheno-centric point of view. The
reality, of course, was that each and every separate Greek polis had its own
historical tradition and its own unique perspective on wider developments. A comprehensive
analysis of the Greek historical experience remains an extremely complex
undertaking.
The twin dynamics of Greek historical development were Particularism and Pan Hellenism. Particularism
embodies the notion of identity with one's immediate community, usually
delineated by its mountainous topography. Separated from neighboring
communities by intervening ridge lines and the shore of the Aegean
Sea, it was easy for inhabitants to believe that nothing of any
importance happened beyond the horizon of their immediate settlement. This
sense of contentment finds expression in the relaxed, sometimes playful
representations of local aristocrats in their plastic arts. Pan Hellenism, on
the other hand, expresses those tendencies that induced Greek communities to
recognize their place in wider Greek culture. Early Pan-Hellenic influences
included the religious sanctuaries at Olympia,
Delphi, Nemea,
and Isthmia, which were important destinations for
religious pilgrimages and came to sponsor international festivals. This meant
that at least one pan-Hellenic festival,
incorporating cultural as well as athletic competitions, occurred somewhere on
the Greek mainland each and every year. These festivals became pivotal
occasions for the descendants of emigrated Hellenic populations to revisit the
Greek “homeland,” to reconnect with family and friends, to establish ties of
guest friendship with leading figures of separate communities, and to reaffirm
the essential Hellenic basis of their origins. The local hierarchy that ran the
Olympic Games first recorded the names of victors in their athletic
competitions in 776 BC, the earliest surviving annalistic record in all of Greece. It is
interesting to note that most of the recorded victors at Olympia originated from Greek settlements in Italy and Sicily, not mainland Greece. Since visitors from beyond Greece
regularly traveled to these sanctuaries, local administrators gained
intelligence about the outside world that transcended that of ordinary,
isolated habitants. As the reputation of sanctuaries such as Delphi
grew, they received emissaries from as far away as Lydia, Persia, and Egypt. This
empowered local priestly authorities with the knowledge necessary to predict
events before they occurred. Accordingly, pan Hellenic sanctuaries played an
important role in nurturing a common sense of identity among Aegean
inhabitants.
By the time that Greece acquired literacy (borrowing
the written technology from the Phoenicians by the eighth century BC), proto city states existed in “tribal” areas such as Attica, Laconia,
the Megarid, the Corinthiad,
and Boeotia. Within these rurally dispersed
populations, social structure was organized according to the priorities of
aristocratic clan-based hierarchies. In most settlements the Mycenaean kings
had disappeared and were replaced by oligarchic rule. There were four
identifiable bases for aristocratic control:
Ø
Genos - an extended clan claiming
descent from a common ancestor usually descended from the gods. The genos enjoyed a common cult and typically preserved a tomb
of its ancestral hero. Funeral games performed at these tombs appear eventually
to have led to the construction of athletic facilities and ultimately to the
formation of schools (the gymnasium complex). Through the promotion of the
gymnastic educational system, land-holding elites instituted the means to
regenerate and to sustain their social dominance.
Ø
Oikos – a large self-sufficient
agricultural estate, the oikos
was the basis of aristocratic wealth (from which evolves the term, oikonomia, or
estate management).
Ø
Military - Aristocrats claimed ascendancy because they provided for the common
defense of their respective communities. Military prominence was determined by
the ability to furnish armor at one's own expense. Recent studies have
indicated that most Archaic Greek military establishments consisted of warrior
bands supplied by the local genoi.
Ø
Law
– the aristocrats consulted the gods of their cults and on that basis claimed
legal authority. Ancestral "custom" essentially originated with the
claim of descent from the gods.
Common patterns of political organization are also
visible throughout the Archaic Greek world. Instead of rule by kings as in the
Mycenaean era, most Archaic Greek states were ruled by boards of annually
elected magistrates. In Athens there were nine
annually elected archons, with a recorded list of archons dating back to 684
BC. Next came a Council of Elders (in Athens the Areopagos)
which typically consisted of all ex-magistrates who entered the council for
life at the expiration of their year in office. Elections were conducted by an Assembly
of Warriors (the Ekklesia in Athens) that consisted of all freeborn,
property holding male citizens able to bear arms (that is, those who able to
furnish a panoply of armor at their own expense since
no state support existed for this purpose). The assemblies remained primitively
organized according to “tribes,” they met to elect magistrates, to vote on
legislation, treaties, and issues of war and peace, and to conduct trials for
state offenses of high crimes and misdemeanors. However, the role of the
assembly was typically limited to up-or-down votes on matters prearranged by
the councils with no opportunity for deliberation. Issues of public concern
tended to be restricted to two spheres: the common defense, and the reduction
of the causes of blood feuds that persisted among the clans. Since there was no
genuine “law” and legal redress was limited to notions of “self-help,” a
citizen naturally turned to his “kinsmen” for protection and redress in the
event of abuse. This frequently led to violence and it is interesting to note
that six of the nine archons in Athens
were named the nomothetai,
or the “keepers of the custom.” In Archaic Athens law was in essence an agreed
upon list of recorded remediations intended to
resolve clan-based disputes short of the resort to violence. Political identity
remained firmly rooted in the clan-based oikos communities of the
countryside. Power resided in the hands of the heads of individual aristocratic
households; status was determined by the numbers of supporters such a headman
could muster to the “tribal” assemblies; elections were frequently determined
by the vigor of pushing and shoving exerted by one group against another in the assembly.
In the end power remained invested in the membership of the council of elders,
which represented the repository of all political, military, financial, and
judicial experience of the community. Nothing got done without the approval of
this body. The only potentially off-setting determinant was the recognized
principle that those who participated in the common defense had a right to
political franchise. Originally, only members of the aristocratic cavalry and
those who could afford to furnish their own armor could aspire to this right.
However, once military innovations that demanded greater and better organized
manpower began to set in, this principle allowed for the expansion of the
political franchise to wider elements of the citizenry.
Cultural identity revolved around participation in
the polis. Topographically a Greek polis exhibited the following
characteristic features:
1.
Acropolis – the defensive heights of the city, not necessarily the tallest
mountain in the vicinity, but rather the one most accessible
2.
Agora
– the combined town square, meeting place, and market place, a central node
where rural inhabitants could convene and learn about goings on
3.
Limen
– the harbor. Most Greek city states existed within relative reach of the
Aegean shore and used their harbors to communicate with the outside world
By the end of the Dark Age (that is, as soon as recorded history
"began" with the texts of Homer and Hesiod, ca. 750 BC), it is clear
that excess population was a problem in most Greek communities. Put simply,
there were too many mouths to feed. Two basic strategies emerged to confront
this problem: a community could fight for more land by taking it from one's
neighbors (hence, increased warfare),
or it could seek more land beyond the existing areas of settlement through colonization. These parallel
consequences of Greek land hunger (colonization and increased warfare) gave
rise to Greek tyranny.
DIAGRAM
-- COLONIZATION AND INCREASED
WARFARE LED TO TYRANNY
Greek Colonization
Between 800 and 500 BC, many Greek communities
exported excess population by creating overseas colonies. Much like the
Phoenicians the locations of these settlements was determined by access to
resources in demand at the mother city, typically grain and metals. Unlike the
Phoenicians, however, Greek colonizing enterprises typically were organized
with the intention to form settled agricultural communities in distant lands.
Regions with limited potential for agricultural expansion tended to assume the
lead in Greek colonization. Hemmed in by the Lydian Empire, for example, Miletus founded 90
colonies in the north Aegean and Black Sea regions. Situated on the narrow Isthmus of Corinth, Corinth
founded colonies along the western coast of Greece, Italy, and Sicily (including Leucas,
Corcyra, and Syracuse founded 733 BC). These two
cities forged links to create a trans-Mediterranean trading network linking
finished goods and luxuries available in more advanced Near Eastern empires to
the raw natural resources of the West. Eventually Greek migrants colonized
overseas regions ranging from the remote corners of the Black Sea (Phasis, Trapesus, Sinope, Olbia, Tolmis, where they generated grain, timber, and fish) to
southern Italy, eastern Sicily, Sardinia, Gaul (Massalia,
modern day Marseille), and Spain. By 600 BC, it was possible for goods to move
from Spain
to the Black Sea entirely by means of Greek
transport. Contact with native peoples lent Greek speaking peoples a greater
appreciation for their own Hellenic identity. Despite local and regional
animosities, in other words, they came to recognize that they were all Hellenes
who spoke a common language and worshiped the same gods. Those who could not
speak Greek were termed, "barbaroi," those
who spoke bar-bar (gibberish). The end result of Greek colonization was
the reconstruction of Mediterranean trade lines, a quickening of the economic
pace, higher demand for imported prestige goods (since these were now
available), a slow but unmistakable adaptation to surplus production for export
purposes (with Aegean populations concentrating on the production of wine and
oil), the development of skilled production of finished goods such as armor,
weaponry, and ceramic finewares, and the rise of
artisans and traders who were responsible for the emerging economic system.
There were two additional problems with this development: one was the emergence
of wealthy social elements, usually non native
artisans and traders, who lacked commensurate political rights. Nonnatives
settled in Greek city states as metoikoi
(dwellers around the oikos) or metics.
They were required to pay taxes and to fulfill military obligations when
summoned, but they lacked the right to participate in the assembly or to hold
office. They could not enter the council of elders accordingly. The other
problem was that, much like the citizenry of Israel, ordinary subsistence
farmers failed to adapt to specialized forms of agricultural production for
export purposes and fell behind economically. In Athens by 650 BC, one hears about the hektomoroi, the 1/6thers, or indebted small-scale
subsistence farmers who were unable to pay their debts. Typically these farmers
were freeborn commoners who labored on neighboring aristocratic oikoi as tenant farmers, or agricultural dependents
who farmed the marginal land along lower slopes of mountains, eventually
exhausting the soil and provoking yield-reducing erosion. Their debts probably
began as loans in kind in the form of grain and foodstuffs from their
aristocratic patrons and neighbors. Prior to the rise of foreign trade these
debt relationships were possibly encouraged by Dark Age era aristocrats, as a
way to enhance their status by adding manpower to their clan-based warrior bands
and by serving as a demonstration of aristocratic status in voting assemblies.
As economic conditions changed, however, poor farmers permanently mortgaged
their land to their creditors, with some at the lowest threshold (referred to
in Athens as
the thetes) falling into debt servitude. With the
resumption of Mediterranean trade aristocrats reportedly began to export these
indentured servants outside Attica. Attic
hoplites reportedly "hocked" their armor to pay debts, sold members
of their families, and fell into slavery themselves. If allowed to continue,
this trend, regardless of its true magnitude, had the potential to threaten the
security of the polis.
INCREASED WARFARE
Greek land hunger also led to the rise of the hoplite phalanx -- a large
formation of heavily armored infantry. Participation and place in the phalanx
was determined by one’s possession of the necessary weaponry. Those who could
afford full panoplies of armor stood in the front ranks and assumed importance
as heroes and military leaders. Those with less armor or partial armor stood in
the back ranks of the formation and used their physical weight to push. The mass propulsion of large formations of
warriors became crucial to the outcome of all Greek battlefield engagements.
The tactical objective was to maneuver effectively and with enough thrust to
break the line of the opposing forces. Hoplites wearing 50-80 lbs. of armor
could not flee the battlefield (typically their armor had to be fastened and
unfastened by servants who accompanied them into battle) and were ultimately
cut down by aristocratic cavalry. Emerging from an era of aristocratic “warfare
as ritual,” suddenly there were genuine consequences to military engagements --
winners and losers -- that could impact territorial claims to landholdings and
the survival of respective warring communities.
Politically the emergence of the hoplite phalanx appears to have represented
the formation of national militias commanded by annually elected magistrates,
in other words, the
subordination of clan-based warrior bands that were previously controlled by
aristocratic warlords into nationally organized militias under the command of
the magistrates. In this respect it represented the subordination of the oikoi to the emerging polis of the Greek city state.
In the first recorded hoplite victory, the tyrant, Pheidon
of Argos, defeated Spartan aristocratic warrior bands at Hysiai
in 669 BC. This defeat sent Sparta
into a military tainspin. Rapid adaptation to mass
armored formations appears to have occurred throughout Greek mainland and
spread as well to Greek (and Italian) communities in Sicily and southern Italy. Its
origins possibly lay with Greek mercenary service overseas, service for the
kings of Lydia
and Assyria, and the pharaohs of Egypt. Greek
mercenary warriors acquired armor produced in Phoenicia, for example, and
returned to Greece
at the end of their mercenary service. The need to maintain a hoplite phalanx
for purposes of security placed greater emphasis on the recruitment of artisans
who could produce armor and weaponry, as well as on that of the wider male citizenry of a city
state. The success of a military confrontation was increasingly determined by
the size of the military formation that could be mobilized on the battlefield.
One presumed consequence of the Hoplite Phalanx was the declining importance of
aristocrats in the military. Manpower requirements were increasingly furnished
by any and all male inhabitants who could furnish their own armor, including
wealthy artisans, traders, and small farmers. The hoplite phalanx has long been
perceived as a “leveling force,” or "democratizing influence" on the
Greek city state. However, the effect of the quickening of the economic pace in
Greek society generated another, diametrically opposed development. Artisans
and Traders, though wealthy, enjoyed no commensurate political rights; small
farmers were slipping into indebtedness and hocking armor because they were
unable to adapt to a surplus-oriented economy. Economic and social pressures
mounted within individual Greek city states as the importance of the phalanx
rose. In many instances opportunistic aristocrats who recognized the emerging
importance and political potential of the national militias committed
"class treason" by becoming popular leaders. They used the weight of
the armed militias to seize power in their communities and to establish
themselves as tyrants.
The Greek Tyrant
was a non-hereditary ruler who acquired power through unconstitutional means,
usually with widespread popular support, i.e., the support of the hoplite
phalanx. Greek tyrants have been
characterized as follows:
1. Tyrants did not produce substantial constitutional changes. They tended to
perch on top of existing constitutional systems without altering them.
2. Tyrants were men of great energy, who ease the economic and social problems
of their times.
3. Tyrants were great builders; they engaged in public works projects to
provide jobs for displaced subsistence farmers.
4. Tyrants broadened their aristocracies to include wealthy outsiders (helping
wealthy resident alien traders and artisans to obtain citizenship, hold office,
and enter the council for life)
5. Tyrants weakened aristocratic hold on society; they broadened the base of
the aristocracy to include wealthy outsiders and provided economic stability
for small farmer-citizen-soldiers who had formerly been dependent on
aristocratic patrons for survival.
6. Tyrants represented the breakthrough of the individual in politics. In Greece voters
tended increasingly to identify with strong personalities rather than with
political "parties' in the modern sense.
Tyranny represented a transitional phase in the Greek state formation; nearly
every polis was affected by it to one degree or another. Tyrannies are on
record at Corinth,
Sicyon, Megara, Athens, Mytilene, Miletus, Ephesus, Samos,
and Naxos. Tyrants essentially
"jump-started" their societies; they created the means to convert
their communities from dispersed, decentralized subsistence agricultural
communities to outward looking commercially active cities. From a
“constitutional” standpoint, however, tyrants lacked political legitimacy. They
stayed in power only so long as they succeeded at delivering on promises made
tor their popular supporters. Once their supporters turned against them,
tyrannies inevitably collapsed. No tyranny survived beyond three generations.
The best two examples for the effects of tyranny remain Sparta and Athens, if only because the responses of their
inhabitants were so different. Sparta
resisted the threat of tyranny to become an extended, state-supported
oligarchy; Athens
experienced the full cycle of tyranny to emerge as the most commercially
active, democratic society in Greece.
I. THE SPARTAN HOPLITE SYSTEM
As a settlement Sparta
existed as a cluster of four villages bordering the Eurotas River in the plain of Laconia or Lacedaemonia. It was protected on both sides by towering mountains, particularly
the Taygetos
Range that separated Laconia from the
neighboring plain of Messenia. Early evidence gives little indication that Sparta was heading in a
unique direction. Its early constitution to some degree resembled those of
other archaic Greek States. There were two Kings, each with the power to
cancel the actions of the other. The Agiad line
claimed descent from the Bronze Age kings of Sparta; whereas, the Eurypontids
had been elevated to the level of royalty by the aristocracy during the Dark
Age. Since each could veto the acts of the other, their powers amounted to a
form of “collegiality.” There was a Gerousia,
literally, the council of elders. The Gerousia
consisted of the two kings plus 28
members selected by Apella from a pool of eligible
candidates. By requirement these were war veterans who had fulfilled their
military service and had lived to attain sixty years of age. The Apella, or assembly of warriors, consisted of all
full-blooded, able bodied Spartan warriors who possessed their own armaments.
The Apella executed up or down votes on wars,
alliances, and treaties, but there is no evidence that its members were allowed
to deliberate on matters. The evidence of Spartan painted pottery production
and colonization in Italy
(the foundation of Tarentum) indicate that early Spartan social development was
similar to that of other emerging Greek city states. Evidence of accelerating
local conflicts indicates as well that Sparta
pursued a deliberate policy of attacking its neighbors to acquire more land.
The Spartan warrior elite, the Spartiatai, successfully "conquered" the
neighboring peoples of the Eurotas valley and
subordinated them to the status of "perioikoi",
or the dwellers around the "oikoi." These
people preserved their autonomy but became politically subordinate to the
Spartans. When summoned they furnished manpower and logistical support to the
Spartan hoplite army; they also manufactured arms. Other elements captured in
warfare were reduced to the level of field laborers, called Helots, who farmed Spartan farmland for
the warrior elite. Helots were essentially agricultural serfs, in that they
could not be displaced from their lands nor sold into slavery.
By 750 BC, Sparta
was the master of all Laconia.
In the early eighth century Sparta
began a sustained effort to conquer the neighboring valley of Messenia.
The Messenians were a Greek population like Sparta with traditions
extending back to the Bronze Age (the Spartans claimed descent from Menelaus,
the brother of Agamemnon; the Messenians from King
Nestor of Pylos). The conquest of Messenia
did not come easy. Two violent drawn-out Messenian
Wars transpired, one ca. 750-700 BC, another two
generations later. Sparta
also extended its military supremacy northward into the Peloponnesian
highlands. Eventually it came into conflict with the emerging tyrant, Pheidon of Argos, who was credited with organizing the
first hoplite phalanx. At the battle of Hysiai in 669
BC, the Argive phalanx delivered a stinging defeat to the Spartan army and sent
it into a crisis. The Messenians and other
neighboring communities rebelled, and Sparta
was confronted with insurrection from within and without. This forced its
aristocratic leadership to adapt to changing circumstances. The Spartans elected
to adapt to a military caste system in which the entire society devoted itself
to the maintenance of a newly enhanced "defense establishment" of highly
trained hoplite warriors.
CHANGES TO THE
SPARTAN CONSTITUTION AND SOCIETY
Although traditionally identified with the legendary
Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus, modern consensus holds that Spartan social and
political changes were instituted at this time to promote the creation of a
national army. Lycurgus allegedly obtained religious sanction for his new constitution
from the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi,
bringing Sparta
his rhetra, or recorded law code intended to
furnish eunomia (legal justice) to the
community. In the new constitution there was one significant change. While the two
Kings prevailed as commanders in chief in war and chief priests of the
state, five new annually elected magistrates, the
ephors, emerged as the chief
administrative officials of the state. The ephors
were entrusted with the maintenance of the Spartan military establishment.
Although the Ephorate had the appearance of a
democratic innovation, elected annually as they were by the Spartan warriors,
the record indicates that the ephors remained largely
under the control of the Gerousia and served as a
check and balance on the powers of the kings. The ephors
exacted a monthly oath of loyalty from the kings; they watched the heavens
every ninth year for signs of divine displeasure with the kings; and two ephors traveled with kings on every military campaign. In
addition, the ephors received foreign embassies to Sparta and introduced
them to the assembly, they convened meetings of the Gerousia
and the Apella, introduced legislation, controlled
lesser magistrates, and together with the Gerousia
they adjudicated high crimes and misdemeanors. Most importantly, they were
responsible for the general supervision of educating the young, about which
more will be said below. The Gerousia enjoyed a probouleutic
function, that is, it packaged legislation to be presented to the Apella for an up-or-down vote. There is evidence that the Gerousia, representing the aristocratic landed elite, could
bribe the ephors to do its bidding against the kings,
particularly charismatic kings who demonstrated a capacity to win the support
of the Apella. Sparta
remained a staunchly reactionary society, accordingly. The Apella
was expanded to include all full-blooded, able bodied Spartan warriors
sustained by the state -- the homoioi, or equals. The Apella now
elected the ephors, and voted on legislation put
before it by these officials. The true innovation to the political reforms at Sparta was the decision
to incorporate all free-born able-bodied, full-blooded Spartan warriors into
assembly by furnishing them with economic means of subsistence.
As is evident, the Spartan political system was in many respects similar to
those of other Greek city states. What was unique about its direction was the
Spartan way of life. According to tradition Lycurgus redistributed the land to
level rich and poor, creating uniformity and equality among the warrior elite,
referred to as the homoioi,
or the “equals.” In all likelihood the division of land was a long-term process
beginning in the eighth century on the Eurotas River, but especially in the Pasimus valley in Messenia
following the uprising of the second Messenian war.
Suppression of rebel Messenians in the mountain
fastness of Mt. Ithome
probably required many years and the installment of a garrison force in Messenia itself. As a solution to the problem of land
hunger, the Spartan aristocracy perhaps agreed to allow the ephors
to redistribute conquered Messenian lands and
laborers piece-meal to lower class Spartan warriors. This would have furnished
them with means to sustain their careers as warriors. In essence, Sparta evolved into a
totalitarian society in which "all land" and all souls were committed
to the maintenance of the Spartan hoplite aristocracy. The purpose of the
educational system was to produce the perfect specimens of warriors.
The ephors were charged
with the responsibility to maintain the Spartan military caste system. The
system was based on the following institutions:
1. The Kleros
was a Spartan land allotment. Allegedly, all land was controlled by the state
and awarded to individual Spartan hoplite warriors upon adulthood (20 years of
age) by the ephors. Each allotment came with helot families who did the actual farming to
sustain the family of the Spartan warrior and themselves. Spartan warriors were
exempt from all subsistence labor in order to devote their entire energies to
warfare. Land could not be bought or sold; Sparta prohibited money supposedly and used
iron spits for currency. A tradition held that the Spartans would exchange gold
and silver captured from neighboring peoples for iron in order to make weapons
to conquer more neighbors, plundering their gold and silver, thus, foraging
onward.
2. The Phiditia
was the Spartan mess hall and barracks, representing 20 to 30 hoplites, or a
wing (ila), or company of
the phalanx. "Cadets" from ages 7 to 20 lived at the phiditia and served the adult hoplite warriors. All adult
warriors were required to eat their main daily meal at the phiditia.
Provisions had to be furnished by individual soldiers from their land
allotments. If for some reason they lost control of their land allotments they
became “inferiors” (hypomeiones)
and could no longer dine at the phiditia. The phiditia was the key to building camaraderie among Spartan
warrior elite. State supervision made it the basis of the national militia.
The process of Spartan social reform is best seen through the maintenance of
its educational system. As children women allegedly received the same athletic
training as the men. In fact, Spartan women probably received greater exposure
to literacy and mathematics since, once married, they assumed primary
responsibility for managing Spartan agricultural estates. Athenian sources
describe Spartan women as being robustly beautiful but not very bright. At
birth male offspring of arranged marriages between full-blooded Spartan males
and females would be examined by the ephors for
physical defects that might prevent its development as a warrior. If defects
were visible the infant was exposed (infanticide). At age seven the youth
entered the Spartan cadet corps where he would spend his next thirteen years
learning how to become a Spartan warrior. This amounted to a form of Spartan
"outward bound" program. The youths were sent into the mountains to
live off the land for months at a time, drinking from pockets of trapped
rainwater and stealing food from the fields in the valleys below. By going
without food, water, or shelter, they learned the limits of human endurance. If
they were caught stealing food by the krypteia, the cadets were beaten. The Krypteia was a form of secret police composed
of senior cadets selected by the ephors to train the
young and to spy on the helots as a check on rebellions. Members of the krypteia would disguise themselves as helots and work in
the fields. If they detected any helots with rebellious tendencies those helots
would disappear overnight, never to be seen again. The purpose of educational
process was to produce ideal warriors in the service of the state. Cadets
trained for hours and learned to execute complex military maneuvers in quick
succession. Their strength and stamina enabled them to sustain their lines on
the battlefield for hours. Soldiers were taught an uncompromising military
ethos: their job was to return from battle with their shields on their
shoulders in victory or to pay the ultimate sacrifice by returning dead upon
their shields. After the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, Sparta's first momentous
military defeat, the women of the surviving soldiers reportedly mourned the
return of their brethren because they had disgraced their families in defeat,
whereas, the women related to the dead being carried on their shields were
deliriously happy because their brethren had maintained the honor of their
families. One can only assume from this description that a sort of mass
psychosis seized Spartan society following the defeat of its army at the Battle
of Hysiai and that this perception of reality was
sustained by the persistence in the belief that Sparta was surrounded by
adversaries.
At the age of twenty the Spartan warrior was allowed
to marry a bride selected for him by the ephors.
Almost like horse breeders the ephors engaged in a
practice of eugenics: they paired off tall spouses with short, limber ones with
strong, all in an effort to produce the perfect specimen of warrior. At this
time the warriors would also receive a kleros with
attached helot farmers, but he continued to reside and work at the phiditia for another ten years. Soldiers between the ages
of 20 and 30 formed the
shock troops of the Spartan hoplite phalanx and kept themselves
at highest state of readiness for emergencies. At the age of 30, a warrior was
allowed at last to live at the kleros with his family
and to vote in the Apella, but he continued to eat
his main meal at the phiditia. Close camaraderie
among the warriors, including the encouragement of homosexual relationships,
insured an emotional bond that was believed necessary to preserve one another
on the battlefield. Spartan soldiers remained eligible for military service
until the age of 60, at which point they could retire and/or seek election into
the Gerousia.
The implementation of this social system resulted in
the development of a professional army, the greatest hoplite phalanx in Greece. Spartan
soldiers demonstrated tremendous skill and stamina in battle. Clad in 50 to 80 lbs of armor they could endure long hours on the
battlefield in the heat of day. With an estimate force unit of 6000 hoplites
and 300-400 cavalry, the Spartan hoplite phalanx was not particularly large.
The phalanx of Athens
was larger (ca. 15,000). However, their discipline and determination on the
battlefield made them seemingly invincible. Around 560 BC, the Spartans began
once again to project force into the Peloponnesian highlands, by defeating
their perennial rival, Tegea. Expanding conquests led
to the formation of a Spartain hegemonic
alliance known as the Peloponnesian League
or "the Lacedaimonians and their allies."
States defeated by the Spartans received back their autonomy and freedom from
tribute payments. Instead, they were required to have the same friends and
enemies as Sparta
and to maintain their national militias to serve alongside the Spartans when
officially summoned. The Peloponnesian League
became a permanent defensive alliance under Spartan leadership. Although
Spartan subject states essentially lost their freedom in foreign affairs, they
benefited from the security furnished by the growing alliance. Sparta alone could convene the league, but each
member state enjoyed a vote in the deliberations. Under the presidency of the
Spartan king, a majority vote by the league determined war and peace. However,
if the Spartan kings happened to disagreed with an item on the agenda, they
could refuse to convene a league assembly. By 500 BC nearly every state in the Peloponnesus, including the large commercial city of Corinth, had forcibly or otherwise joined the
league. To accommodate its burgeoning force units, the Spartan army evolved
into an extended "officer staff." In military confrontations the
Spartan phalanx was usually placed on the exposed right side of the line, with
Spartan officers distributed throughout the allied ranks to maintain force
cohesion. During the Persian wars the Peloponnesian League assembled some
60,000 hoplites. At the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC, reportedly some 80,000
Greek hoplites opposed the Persian invaders, with 3/4ths of this army
represented by the Peloponnesian League.
Achieved through great sacrifice on the part of its
citizens and laboring populations, the Spartan war machine emerged as the dominant
land force in the Greek Aegean and can properly be described as an empire. With
possession of the farming regions of Messenia
and Laconia,
the Spartan hoplite aristocracy controlled approximately 40% of the arable land
of the Peloponnesus and guaranteed its
agricultural self-sufficiency. With little need for trade relations or overseas
colonies, the Spartan empire probably sustained some 150,000 people, although
fewer than 6000 males represented the elite.
Agricultural self-sufficiency put Sparta at odds even with several
commercially oriented member states of its own league, such as Corinth.
Internal factors similarly reduced Sparta’s
effectiveness in foreign policy and rendered its leadership wary of involvement
in affairs beyond the peninsula. Since the entire social system was sustained
by a helot-based field economy, the threat of helot revolts remained a constant
menace and severely limited the range of Spartan military operations. The
Spartan hierarchy could ill afford to dispatch its forces to distant theaters
for extended periods of time. Another problem resulted from the closed
character of the Spartan hoplite “aristocracy.” To be a Spartan warrior
required Spartan lineage on both sides of one’s family. Citizenship was thus
restricted to a limited number of families that totaled probably no more than a
few dozen. The impact of continuous inbreeding, of high rates of infant
mortality, and of the inevitable loss of manpower on the battlefield culminated
in declining numbers of Spartan males eligible for service. As the male population declined, land
holdings fell increasingly into the hands of Spartan females. The perioikoi
remained recognized as social inferiors, incapable of rising into the Spartan
caste system.
Another source of dissension arose from the fact
that Spartan land distributions were never truly “equal.” Although in theory
the kleros
system of land-allotments was controlled by the state, in reality a powerful
clique of aristocratic families appears never to have relinquished its landholdings.
By dominating the inner circle of the Gerousia, these
families exerted a profoundly conservative influence on society. In order to
avoid the threat of tyranny, they may possibly have agreed to redistribute
“public land,” in particular the newly conquered lands of Messenia,
the dominance of which had fallen at risk during the Second Messenian War. Many of the land allotments assigned by the ephors were indeed located in Messenia.
This enabled the Spartan aristocracy to replenish its ranks with full-blooded,
landless Spartans, while at the same time imposing a garrison force on the
rebellious inhabitants of Messenia. The Spartiatai occupying lands and/or quartered in phiditiai in Messenia now had a stake in maintaining the helot system.
But that essentially was as far as the Spartan landed aristocracy was willing
to go. Unwilling to open their ranks to non-Spartans such as the perioikoi, the
Spartan establishment never found an solution to its declining numbers of
warriors, and the problem of land falling into the hands of fewer and fewer
families remained a significant source of instability and discontent.
Conclusion
When faced with threat of tyranny, the Spartan
aristocracy evaded this by agreeing to redistribute "land" to create
a widened aristocracy of full blooded Spartan warriors. It then closed ranks to
become one of the most conservative societies in Greece. The “Lycurgan”
reforms established a privileged class of citizens with the necessities of life
furnished by inferior castes of periokoi and helots. Thus freed from subsistence labor Spartan warriors devoted their
entire lives to service to the state. They became an invincible force on
the battlefield, but the limitations of their subsistence agricultural system
and the threat of helot revolts limited their range in external affairs. Highly
conservative in outlook, the Spartans tended to favor oligarchies like
themselves and to oppose the rise of tyranny throughout the Greek world.
Political Transformation in Athens – Law Giver (Solon), Tyrant
(Peisistratus), Political Reformer (Cleisthenes), Democrat (Pericles)
Archaic Athens
Athens came late to the problem of
land hunger and tyranny, probably because Attica
as a region possessed greater carrying capacity and was able to sustain a larger
subsistence population than most neighboring populations in Greece. When it
did arrive at the tipping point, the community endured repeated attempts at
intervention by outside powers, including neighboring tyrants, Sparta, and Persia. Much of the political
development in Athens
was directly affected by the reaction to these perceived threats. Unlike Sparta
Athens underwent the full tyrannical experience and emerged by 500 BC as the
leading urban, commercially oriented state of the Aegean world. There were
three principal phases to this development – the tyranny of Peisistratus
(546-527 BC), the political reforms of Cleisthenes (510-ca. 500), and the
democratic machine of Pericles (ca. 465-429 BC).
As two of the most important aristocratic families of Athens the Alcmeonidae
and the Philaidae reveal through their family trees
symptomatic political trends of Classical Athens.
|
THE
ALCMEONIDAE
|
|
|
|
Cleisthenes,
tyrant of Sikyon, c. 600-570 BC
|
|
Megacles of Athens, ca. 560 BC, married Agariste
|
Agariste, the daughter of Cleisthenes of Sikyon
|
Hippocrates
(a relative)
|
Cleisthenes
(archon in 525, political reformer 510-500 BC)
|
|
Agariste married Xanthippus
|
Xanthippus archon in 479, ostracized in 484
|
|
Deinomache, daughter of Cleisthenes, mother of
Alcibiades
|
Pericles
son of Xanthippus (ca. 495-429 BC), 17 times
commander in chief, married Aspasia
|
Aspasia
of Miletus, the hetaira, ca. 470-400 BC
|
Alcibiades,
the ward of Pericles, ca. 450 – 404 BC
|
|
|
|
THE
PHILAIDAE (from Brauron)
|
|
Cypselus, tyrant of Corinth,
ca. 680-627 BC
|
|
|
|
Miltiades
(grandson of Cypselus of Corinth), died ca. 524 BC
|
Hippokleides, a relative who lost the hand of Agariste to Cleisthenes of Athens, archon ca. 566 BC
|
|
Miltiades,
archon in 524 BC, the victor at Battle of Marathon, 550-489 BC
|
|
|
Cimon,
Delian League general, 510-450 BC
|
|
|
|
A
relative, Thucydides the historian (430s BC)
|
These family trees demonstrate not only the political longevity of Athenian
aristocratic families, but also the degree to which they were courted by
neighboring tyrants attempting to dominate Athens through arranged marriages and
"guest friendships" (hospitality). For example, Theagenes,
the tyrant of Megara,
married his daughter to an Athenian aristocrat named Cylon.
This latter figure mounted a failed attempt tyranny in 632/1 BC. By the end of
the seventh century BC, therefore, popular desire for tyranny posed a genuine
threat to aristocratic supremacy in Athens.
The response to Cylon’s uprising was Draco's Law code
in 621/0. Although it offered the benefits of a written law code, it was viewed
by the public as extremely severe (“written in blood”). Land conditions noted
in the previous chapter had, meanwhile, resulted in the emergence of the hektomoroi, an
element of Athenian small farmer citizen soldiers who had fallen into
indentured servitude. By the time of the actions of Cylon
and Draco impoverished Athenians who had undoubtedly heard about the political
reforms in Sparta
were clamoring for the annulment of debts and the redistribution of land. They were
obviously interested in tyranny.
To appease this movement and to resolve the growing debt crisis, Solon (638-558
BC) was appointed "lawgiver" with wide reaching powers in c. 573/2.
An Athenian war hero, Solon was the younger son of an aristocratic family who
had made his fortune in overseas trade. He sailed extensively in the eastern Mediterranean and came to be known as one of the seven
sages of Greece,
largely because of his poetry. Solon obtained the office of lawgiver probably
because he was viewed as a moderate, someone whose views were acceptable to all
parties in the dispute. He used his lyric poetry to record his political
reforms. According to his own writings his main accomplishments were his
program of debt reform, or seisachtheia (“the shaking off of debts”),
and his avoidance of tyranny. Solon abolished all debts by removing the Horos stones (mortgage stones) from mortgaged land parcels,
temporarily liberating impoverished Athenian small farmers from debt. However,
that was as far as he went; despite the public outcry he refused to
redistribute land. He did create census classes to enable wealthy non
aristocrats (artisans and traders with whom he sympathized) to run for office
and thereby obtain access to the Areopagus (council
of elders). This element probably represented his main source of support. He also tried to
encourage the development of local crafts and trades, but he lacked the
resources necessary to stimulate real economic improvement. In essence his
reforms delayed but did not deter the rise of tyranny. After his term as
"lawgiver," Solon departed Athens
for ten years. When he returned he found the city in chaos. The Athenian archon
list indicates two consecutive years in which no archon was elected, i.e.,
"anarchia". To add insult to injury,
one of his own relative, Peisistratus, was promoting himself as a suitable
candidate for tyranny. Peisistratus’ first attempt to seize power ended in
failure in 561/0 BC, when he ran afoul of the powerful Alcmeonid
clan and was driven from the city. Undaunted, he traveled about the Aegean, forging alliances with the tyrants of Naxos and Argos,
investing in Macedonian silver mines, and procuring the services of a mercenary
army. He returned to Athens
by force to establish his tyranny in 546 BC. With his passing in 527 BC, his
sons Hippias and Hipparchus maintained tyranny until 510 BC, when Hippias was
driven from city following the assassination of his brother.
The Peisistratid Tyranny (546-510 BC)
Peisistratus used newly instituted state revenues
and his own personal income from the mines he acquired in Macedonia to
resolve the land question. His main objective appears to have been to make
farming sustainable at the hoplite level by restoring the largest possible
population to the land. He did this partly by redistributing land that he
confiscated from aristocratic opponents, but he also imposed a 5% income tax on
all citizens and used this revenue to make loans to farmers. This enabled many
small farmers to make the transition from subsistence to surplus agricultural
production, especially the production of Attic olive oil and wine. He used
similar tactics to weaken aristocratic authority at the local level. He
instituted a body of circuit court judges who journeyed about the countryside
to hear local grievances on appeal; he also forced the relocation of several
prominent religious cults to Athens
and gave them national focus. The cult of Artemis of Brauron
was moved to the Acropolis, the popular harvest festival of Dionysus was likewise
relocated to the urban center. The Dionysus festival in particular was a
popular annual event celebrated throughout the Attic countryside with prayers,
choruses, and fertility rites. Under Peisistratus’ patronage chorus writers
developed a method of advancing singers from the chorus to recite poetic
dialogues. This marked the beginning of Athenian dramatic performances and the
birth of Greek Tragedy and Comedy. Peisistratus also established religious
festivals at Eleusis
and the Panathenaia in Athens.
In other respects Peisistratus worked to transform Athens from its
subsistence origins to newfound status as an Aegean maritime power. He utilized his “tyrannical contacts” at Naxos, Samos, Argos, Thessaly,
and Macedonia
to improved the city’s commercial footing in the
wider Aegean. He also enhanced trade through
colonial settlements at Sigeon and the Chersonessos on the Hellespont,
the gateway to the grain trade in the Black Sea.
Domestically, he fostered the rise of the Athenian polis through a number of
measures. He undertook public building enterprises paid for by his own silver
revenues. In this manner he created wage laboring opportunities for the "thetes," or landless poor citizens of Athens. Displaced agricultural laborers
quickly migrated from the countryside to the urban center of Athens to seek new opportunities for
employment. In Athens
he constructed the Temple
of Olympian Zeus, the Temple of Athena (the Hekatompedon), the Theater of Dionysus, and the Fountain
House of the Nine Springs. He also constructed the Telesterion
at Eleusis. As
noted above, Peisistratus also promoted the Panathenaic
festival to international status. Originally celebrated every four then every
two years, this Attic festival quickly assumed international importance as a major Hellenic
festival. As prizes the victors of its
competitions received Panathenaic amphoras
of Athenian wine and oil. The amphoras were painted
first in Black, then in Red Figure style, demonstrating the newfound mastery of
Athenian fineware production. Begun around ca.
600-580 BC, Attic Black Figure vase production transited to Red Figure around
530 BC, precisely during the era of the tyranny. Attic Red Figure vases quickly
became the most popular fineware of the entire
Mediterranean world. Arguably the most widely distributed artifacts of the
Classical era, their presence in excavated contexts
clearly identifies Classical layers of occupation (c. 530-400 BC) wherever they
are encountered. Peisistratus also invented the Attic tetradrachmae,
or four drachma coin. Equaling roughly 12 grams of silver, the consistent
weight and purity of this coin secured its place as the standard medium for
international exchange throughout the Classical period. Finally, Peisistratus
appears to have offered grants of citizenship to wealthy metics
(metoikoi, resident aliens) to encourage
skilled artisans and merchants to establish residence in Athens. Following the expulsion of the
tyranny in 510 BC, conservative Athenian aristocrats demanded a scrutiny of the
census roles to remove illegal citizens, thus, confirming the tyrant’s efforts
to enfranchise useful foreigners.
Although Peisistratus did not tinker with the constitution, he made certain
that his political allies obtained the archonship year in, year out and entered
the Areopagus (council of elders) for life. He
appears as well to have resolved the land crisis in Athens. One hears no more about mortgage
crises or debt bondage in Athens.
In the Classical era the estimated size of the Athenian hoplite phalanx stood
at 15,000 men. This means that thousands of small farmers were firmly implanted
on the Attic countryside, cultivating small farms of approximately 10-20 acres.
This size was apparently sufficient to sustain an Athenian family and one or
two household slaves. This element of small farmer citizen soldiers became Athen's
"broadened aristocracy.” As property holding citizens they increasingly
shared the conservative outlook of the aristocracy vis-à-vis the landless thetes in the urban center. The thetes,
meanwhile, contributed to the economy by engaging in public works programs when
these were available, and by furnishing seasonal agricultural labor during the
demanding phases of planting and harvest. Through the tyranny Athens became connected to maritime trading
networks of surplus commodities extending all the way to the Black
Sea and Egypt.
Peisistratus had found Attica
a dispersed, uncooperative, highly segmented population settled around the rural oikoi of the aristocratic families. He left it a
prosperous urban community of perhaps 100,000 inhabitants known internationally
for its crafts production, its building enterprises, and its surplus
agricultural goods. The city promptly assumed first place as a trading power in
the Aegean world. Its harbor at the Piraeus
attracted merchants and sailors from throughout the eastern Mediterranean.
Economic progress was possibly slowed by the Persian conquest of Thrace and Macedonia in
514 BC (under King Darius I). Persian authorities tended to block trade with
communities outside the empire, and this would have separated Peisistratus’
successors, Hippias and Hipparchus, from the proceeds of their silver mines in
the north. When the Peisistratids could no longer
fund public works programs, the Athenian public lost enthusiasm for the regime.
An aristocratic conspiracy suddenly caused the assassination of Hipparchus,
provoking a violent political purge by his brother Hippias. This only served to
accelerate the growing movement against the tyranny. Driven from Athens by an array of
political factions, Hippias fled to the palace of the Persian satrap at Sardis (Lydia) where he
was welcomed as an exile and maintained as a tool for future use. At the right
opportunity the Persian satrap clearly intended to reinstate Hippias as tyrant
of Athens and
thus gain a foothold in mainland Greece. Athenian ambassadors who
were sent to Sardis
to demand the ex-tyrant’s extradition were advised by the satrap to accept him
back as their ruler. This event marked the beginning of a long period of
hostility between Athens
and Persia.
Despite the expulsion of Hippias, the Athenian aristocracy remained divided
regarding the proper mode of governance after some 35 years of tyrannical rule.
Long suppressed sources of disagreement quickly boiled to the surface.
Conservatives wishing to turn back the clock began to clamor for the
restoration of the "ancestral constitution," a vague political slogan much repeated
during the coming century. More moderate aristocrats, led by Cleisthenes the Alcmeonid, realized that by “ancestral constitution” the
conservatives meant to restore the aristocratic political system that existed
prior to the reforms of Solon. Civil war ensued. When the conservatives found
themselves outnumbered, they invited the intervention of Sparta and the Peloponnesian League. A
particularly aggressive Spartan king, Cleomenes, who
had done much to expand the influence of Sparta
throughout Greece,
saw his chance to impose a friendly government in Athens and marched his army into the city.
His strategy quickly backfired. Forced to engage in urban street fighting, he
soon found himself besieged inside the acropolis. The leaders of the
Peloponnesian League states who were present suddenly refused to participate
any further in the operation, arguing that Cleomenes
was meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign Greek state. They withdrew,
leaving Cleomenes and his Spartans trapped in the
acropolis. Eventually the faction siding with Cleisthenes agreed to allow the
besieged forces of Spartans and renegade Athenians to leave. The democratic
reaction that followed was swift and forceful. Cleisthenes introduced dramatic
political reforms to prevent a return to aristocratic rule in Athens. Peisistratus had successfully
reformed the economic order; Cleisthenes would now tackle the constitution.
CLEISTHENIC POLITICAL REFORMS, C. 510-500 BC.
TABLE OF CLEISTHENIC CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS
CLEISTHENIC
|
FORMERLY
|
|
10 GENERALS
|
NONE
|
ELECTED
|
10 ARCHONS
|
9 ARCHONS
|
SORTITION
|
COUNCIL OF 500
|
AREOPAGUS
|
SORTITION
|
ASSEMBLY-10 TRIBES
|
4 TRIBES
|
ONE MAN
ONE VOTE
|
POPULAR COURTS (6000)
|
|
SORTITION
|
For one of the most significant political figures of Athenian history,
Cleisthenes' career remains a mystery. Apart from the archonship that he held
under the tyranny in 525 BC, what office he held, when, and for how long remain unknown. Athenian sources, nonetheless, attributed
most of the significant political reforms to the constitution to him. To add
another curious dimension, Cleisthenes appears to have been profoundly influenced
by contemporary Greek philosophical ideas, particularly the mathematical
breakthroughs of Pythagoras. Pythagoras and his followers emphasized the need
to attain harmony with the universe by living one's life according to perceived
natural laws, particularly those identified by "magic numbers."
Cleisthenes attempted to organize the Athenian constitution according to the
"magic number," ten. By use
of harmonious numbers he reorganized political institutions in such a way as to
insure that aristocratic influence could no longer prevail on Athenian society.
Cleisthenes embraced the slogan isonomia, or
equality before the law. His reforms marked the inception of "one man, one
vote" in Athens.
In essence Cleisthenic
democracy meant hoplite democracy. All those who furnished arms in
defense of the state were allowed to participate in the assembly. Cleisthenes
instituted a new political system organized according to demes
(voting wards). At the local level, he created some 174 demes. These in turn
were organized into 30 tritteis or
thirds of tribes, which were in turn assembled into 10
new voting tribes, each named after a significant Athenian hero.
Each new tribe consisted of 3 tritteis
ideally drawn from different regions of Attica.
Collective organization within the Ekklesia (the
assembly), and hence within the Athenian army, now consisted of citizens drawn
from a cross section of the Attic population. In the battle line of the
phalanx, a soldier’s life depended on the cooperation of the soldiers to his right
or left; instead of members of the same clan-based warrior band, soldiers
participating in the Athenian phalanx now haled from distant areas of Attica. Artificially, this diminished an individual
citizen's tendency to identify with his immediate origin and to view his place
in broader, more national terms.
Cleisthenes’ reorganization of the government likewise required the invention
of new offices. At the top of the government he created ten generals
(originally one from each tribe). Able to hold office repeatedly and
consecutively, these annually elected chief magistrates directed the ten tribal
units of the army in what were increasingly hostile times. The number of
archons was similarly raised from 9 to 10, one per tribe, to administer the
popular courts. However, after 487 BC, the archons became selected by lot and
could only be held once. Apart from the creation of the ten generals, the other
innovation of the Cleisthenic reforms was the Council
of 500 as the new clearing house for public business. The chief responsibility
of the Council of 500 was to package legislation to be put before the Ekklesia. The council consisted of 500 representatives, 50
per tribe, selected by lot from all eligible citizens for a period of a year.
The council itself was organized internally according to ten prytanies or governing committees whose members
worked full time duties in Athens
for a period of one month. Since the Athenian year had ten months, each prytany of fifty councilors would preside for a tenth of
that time. Like the selection of the council members themselves, the calendrical order of prytanic
governance was determined by lot. Within the prytanies
committees of ten, meanwhile, would work through the night each day to handle
untoward emergencies, with the daily order of each committee likewise
determined by lot. The presidency of the council also was determined by lot. Cleisthenic political reforms displayed a heavy reliance on
the process of sortition, therefore. Sortition was originally a religious tool, essentially a
process of leaving a choice to the will of the gods. Examples of sortition within sortition within
sortition, as demonstrated by the administration of
the Council of 500, testify to the resolve of the new democracy to eliminate
any and all methods to “predetermine” a political outcome by instituting
seemingly random means of selection to political office. With most selections
being determined randomly, theoretically every Athenian citizen could expect to
serve at least once on the council during his lifetime. The traditional council
of the Areopagus receded into the background,
meanwhile. The Areopagus continued to consist of all
ex-archons for life and to assert authority over traditional religious matters;
however, its supremacy was now largely supplanted by the Council of 500 in the
new democracy. Apart from a brief resurgence during the Persian Wars, the
importance of the Areopagus declined throughout the
era of the democracy.
Now organized according to ten voting tribes, the Ekklesia,
or Athenian voting assembly, emerged as the principal organ of governance.
Presided over by the president of the council, with all available generals
present, the assembly determined all public affairs through open public debate.
Once a bill or treaty was introduced before the assembly, any adult male
citizen was free to address its particulars. Business was no longer conducted
according to simple up-or-down votes, in other words, but through a process of
potentially spirited deliberation among any and all citizens who were present.
All crucial matters, such as votes of war and peace, treaties, citizenship, and
taxation, were decided by the assembled citizenry, convened four times per
month plus emergency meetings. Although the cumbersome nature of the popular assembly
made it an impractical place to draft legislation, its members were free to
propose amendments, riders, and revisions that the Council of 500 would then
have to address. Cleisthenic Democracy was
essentially participatory democracy exercised by all those who could afford to
attend the once-weekly meetings. In conjunction with the revamped assembly,
Cleisthenes also appears to have reorganized the Helaia
or popular courts. Although the origin of the popular courts
appear to lie with Solon, Cleisthenes remodeled the courts not only to
manage the city’s burgeoning legal business but also to serve as the final
arbiter of disputes that might emanate from the assembly. The courts were
reorganized according to ten venues of justice, each administered by an archon.
Chosen by lot from a pool of 6000 jurors
(annually chosen by lot), its juries adjudicated all public and private legal
suits. In some instances public issues became too complex to be deliberated by
the popular assembly, particularly disputes concerned with the questionable
legality of certain instances of “parliamentary procedure.” If challenged by an
accuser in the assembly, the magistrate responsible for a seemingly illegal
measure (or the citizen responsible for proposing it) would agree to debate the
matter with the accuser in the popular courts, where an uneven number of jurors
(101, 501, or 1001), chosen by lot, would decide the final outcome. The popular courts,
thus, represented a final voice of arbitration for the assembly whose decisions
would be binding on the state.
Along these lines one other political mechanism, Ostracism, appears to have been invented by
Cleisthenes to insure the effective maintenance of the democracy. What was
essentially a national unpopularity contest, ostracism was first
successfully used in 486 BC. Every Spring before the
military season a vote would be taken in the assembly to determine whether or
not there was need for a vote of ostracism. If the vote was positive, a date
would be set for the election, and campaigning among rival political factions
would begin. Voting would occur at the Sacred Pit at the agora, with citizens
casting their votes inscribed on broken pieces of pottery (ostraka).
Apparently a quorum of 6000 votes was necessary for the vote to be official. If
that number was achieved the politician receiving the most votes would have to
leave Attica forthwith for ten years' exile, without option of appeal, but
without personal loss of citizenship or property. He simply had to leave the
city for ten years.
The purpose of ostracism was to eliminate political
gridlock that arose between antagonistic voices in the assembly whose influence
was inadequate to mount a majority but all too capable of thwarting action. As
is evident today gridlock is an outcome all too common in participatory
democracy. Repeatedly in Athenian history debate in the assembly became
polarized between two or more leading politicians and their followings, such as
the dispute that arose between Themistocles and Aristides over the proposal to construct a fleet
of 200 triremes in 483/2 BC. The intensity of debate brought all public
business to a standstill on the eve of a potentially serious military
emergency, namely, the invasion of Greece by Xerxes in 481 BC. Ostracism served as a "release
valve" by eliminating one point of view so that the other could initiate
policy in an intended direction, for better or for worse. During moments of
political polarization such as this, the intensity of competition was so great
that the electioneering to expel one’s rival could exhibit remarkable energy.
The voting sherds themselves were preserved by the
magistrates as religiously sanctioned artifacts. Closed contexts of buried sherds have been recovered in various sacred precincts
about the city, including the Agora, the Kerameikos,
and the Acropolis. Sherds from several of the most
celebrated ostracisms in Athenian history have thus been recovered, including
those cast between Themistocles and Aristides. What is more, archaeologists
have been able to reconstruct entire vases from recovered sherd
fragments and to demonstrate that each sherd from a
given vase was inscribed by the same hand. Willful practices of electioneering
clearly transpired outside the voting precinct as politicians handed out previously
inscribed “ballots” to facilitate the removal of their rivals. Plutarch relates
one particular encounter between Aristides and a rustic Athenian farmer during
the voting. Standing outside the voting precinct, Aristides with sherd and stylus in hand asked the apparently clueless
citizen whom he wanted to ostracize. Not knowing that he was talking to
Aristides in person, the man replied he wanted to expel Aristides. When
Aristides asked him why, he insisted that he was simply tired of repeatedly hearing
the name “Aristides the Just," day in, day out, and wanted him gone. True
to his legendary name, Aristides wrote his own name on the sherd
and gave it to the voter. Although he ultimately lost the vote and went into
exile, Aristides was recalled by Themistocles shortly afterward to assist in
the Athenian defense against the Persians. Despite being ostracized, in other
words, Aristides remained a devoted Athenian citizen and patriot.
Political developments in Athens required nearly a century long process
of adaptation that included transiting through full blown tyranny into
participatory democracy. Peisistratus converted Attica
into a commercial power centered on the urban center of Athens; Cleisthenes introduced political
reforms to impose isonomia
throughout the citizenry. Despite these significant contributions, however, the
democratizing process remained incomplete. Due to the fact that regular
participation in the democracy required financial means and free time, only
those who could afford to attend the assembly or to hold office would typically
do so. Since the landless poor of the city, the thetes,
had to labor whenever the opportunity presented itself, they could rarely
afford to attend. Hence, the argument that Cleisthenic democracy represented an intermediate form of
landholding or “hoplite democracy.” The degree to which perceived
threats, both internal and external, propelled this process must also be borne
in mind. To a significant degree political and social progress of Athens was the product of
the shifting events and developments of the wider Aegean world.
Radical Democracy in the Age of Pericles (465-429 BC)
The last phase in the political development of
Athenian democracy occurred simultaneous with the political rise of the
democratic leader Pericles. Pericles emerged as a public figure at the end of
the 460s BC and died during the plague that struck Athens in 429, at the outset of the
Peloponnesian War. At that time we are told that he had held the office of
general seventeen consecutive years, usually being recognized as "strategos autokrator," or
commander-in-chief of the Athenian military. A gifted statesman, orator, and
politician, Pericles simultaneously guided Athenian foreign policy through the
creation of empire and its domestic policy through the emergence of
"radical democracy." Radical democracy
meant "pay for service." In
essence, under the Periclean administration Athenian
citizens were paid by the state to participate in public affairs. During
Cleisthenic democracy only those who could afford to
participate in political affairs did so, namely, the aristocracy and the
hoplites. Various component features to this policy enabled thousands of
landless, poor Athenian males, the thetes, to obtain
some portion of their earnings through participation in the government,
particularly in the Ekklesia ad
the Popular Courts. The decision to pay citizens for service, and thereby
elicit broader participation in the Athenian political life marked an important
transition from Cleisthenic democracy. In essence,
radical democracy marked the outcome of a logical progression in Athenian
political thought. In some respects what Pericles created was an urban
political machine. Poorer voters voted in massive numbers to support his
political agendas because they stood to benefit directly from the results. This
development marked a dramatic transformation in the character of Athenian
society, its population, and its social structure.
By the time that Pericles arrived on the political landscape, Themistocles had
already created the fleet of 200 triremes that proved instrumental in defeating
the Persians at the Battle of Salamis (481 BC). The establishment of an
Athenian navy provided both military justification and military pay to the
landless poor of the city and the metics who
increasingly served in the navy. Given the widely held perception that those
who participated in the military defense of a polis enjoyed a right to
participate in its political processes, the role of the thetes
in the Athenian navy furnished them with newfound political legitimacy. The
problem remained that most property-less Athenian citizens could ill afford to
attend the four monthly meetings of the assembly, let alone to participate in
the Council of 500 or the offices. Following the logic of payment for service
with the fleet, the Periclean solution was to make
all political activity remunerative, in essence, to pay Athenian citizens to
participate in political life. Pericles used the benefits of empire to create
additional state-funded laboring opportunities to keep citizens employed
throughout the year. As Plutarch observed,"Pericles
created allowances for public festivals, fees for jury service and other grants
and gratuities. He succeeded in bribing the masses wholesale and enlisting
their support against the Areopagus." Typically,
an Athenian citizen could obtain payment of a day’s wage (two obols or one-third of a drachma) for a day’s service in any
of the following:
Ø
Rowing with the fleet and hoplite campaigning
Ø
Service as jurors in the popular courts (6000 annually)
Ø
Legal business of the empire (typically some 700 officials served at
large throughout the empire in any given year)
Ø
Pay for service on various state boards of magistrates (generals,
archons, etc.) and the Council of 500.
Estimates suggest that some 8000 citizens were
supported by the state in any given year. In addition, as announced during the Delian League Congress in 449/8 BC, Pericles embarked on
the most ambitious building program in Greek history. Several simple
Doric-style temples and monuments found their inception during this building
program, including the Temple of Athena
Parthenos, the Propylaea
(monumental entrance gates), and the Erechtheion
(Temple sacred at the same time to Athena, Poseidon, and the Bronze Age royal
dynasty of Athens) on the Acropolis, the Temple of Hephaistos
in the Agora, and the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion.
Laborers working on these projects received a day's wage for every day they
worked. Obviously, the construction of such monuments required equally
significant contributions by skilled labor -- architects, draftsmen, stone
cutters, and sculptors, and for this work Pericles recruited experts, such as
his friends Iktinos, the architect who designed the
Parthenon, and Pheidias, the sculptor who designed
the 40-foot-tall chryselephantine (gold and ivory) statue of Athena that stood
inside. But the building program also called for the manual labor of thousands
of Athenians and unquestionably helped to keep many sailors of the Athenian
navy employed during the long, non-sailing months of winter. Jury duty and
government service kept another 8000 citizens at least occasionally employed.
Naturally, the opportunity to find remuneration in any of these activities
carried with it an obligation to participate in the assembly and to vote in
favor of Pericles' political agenda.
Recently, the degree to which the costs of these
enterprises were borne by the contributions of the Delian
League member states has been called into question. Conceivably, Athens drew sufficient
revenues from its own state-run silver mines and tax revenues to pay for these
activities. Many of the costs were defrayed as well by public-spirited citizens
of the wealthiest census class, who voluntarily took on the burden of "liturgies", or the performance of state
duties at private expense. These included activities as varied as the funding
of dramatic performances during the public festivals (the costs of creating and
performing Greek tragedies and comedies) and the maintenance of a trireme
(paying for equipment and crew for an entire campaign season). During the
heyday of the Athenian Empire, civic minded citizens actively competed with one
another to recruit the fastest crews and the gaudiest sails and ornaments for
their warships. However, it remains difficult to see how Athens could have managed so many expenses
and maintained the enormous costs of empire without the constant flow of
tribute payments from Athenian subject states to the treasury in the Parthenon.
The opportunities created by Pericles for Athenian citizens ultimately placed a
premium on the value of citizenship itself. Citizenship opened the way for
potential remuneration by the state, and Athenians became zealously protective
of this privilege. The assembly passed laws restricting citizenship to those
who could show direct Athenian descent on both sides of their family. Since his
mother was allegedly a Thracian, this would have prevented even Themistocles
from holding office one generation earlier. It proved equally embarrassing to
Pericles himself after he had two sons by his mistress and second wife, Aspasia, the notorious courtesan from Miletus. To obtain
citizenship for his sons, Pericles had to secure passage of a special exemption
by the assembly, an embarrassing though attainable task for someone in his
position. Access to the benefits of radical democracy by metics,
or resident aliens in Athens,
remained limited, accordingly, despite their commensurate obligations of
military serve and tax payments. Despite these restrictions, it appears certain
that non-Athenian metics benefited in many ways from
Pericles’ control of the democracy and that thousands of foreigners migrated to
Athens and
especially to its port, the Piraeus,
to exploit the opportunities made available by the Athenian Empire. Several
emerging figures in Athenian political life owed their fortunes to the new
urban environment of the democracy. For example, the father of the notorious
Athenian demagogue, Cleon, was alleged to have run a successful tannery; the
father of the orator, Isocrates, was a flute-maker; the family of the orator,
Demosthenes, ran two "sweatshops" employing hundreds of slaves, one
manufacturing swords, the other, furniture. The father of the orator, Lysias, was a shield maker (with shops similar to
Demosthenes) and personal friend of Pericles who was encouraged to immigrate to
Athens from Syracuse. The politician
Nicias contracted out hundreds of slaves to mine silver at the state mines at Laurion. Slavery, particularly as a consequence of war
(reportedly some 20,000 prisoners were captured during the Battle of Eurymedon alone), furnished a colorful, cosmopolitan
atmosphere to everyday life in Athens
and most particularly to the Piraeus,
where most foreigners resided. Athenian slaves originated from throughout the
eastern Mediterranean (including significant
evidence for the presence of sub-Saharan Africans), but most particularly from
the hinterland zones of Asia Minor, such as Phyrgia, Lydia, Mysia, and Cappadocia.
Archaeological exploration in the Piraeus
has revealed the presence of cult centers for the worship of foreign gods such
as Egyptian Isis and Syrian Atthis, including
inscribed lists of cult administrators bearing foreign names and oftentimes
female gender. Artists, intellectuals, teachers, entertainers, weapons-makers,
and warriors all migrated to the chief city of the Mediterranean
in search of fortunes and fresh beginnings that were no longer attainable in
their home communities.
Traditional estimates for the population of Athens indicate the presence of 45,000 adult
male citizens, 30,000 metics (resident
aliens), and perhaps 100,000 slaves, yielding a total of 175,000
inhabitants. However, since this estimate fails to account for Athenian women
or children, most scholars would argue that the figure needs to be doubled
(350,000). There is no denying that the population of Athens was an anomaly; in comparison with
Athens Corinth, the next largest city in Greece, probably enjoyed a
population of less than 100,000. Recent studies based on the ecological limits
of subsistence agriculture and the carrying capacity of the rugged Attic
landscape have significantly scaled down the size of the Athenian population to
125,000 total inhabitants. These analyses fail to account for the impact of
seaborne imports of foodstuffs and provisions from overseas sources such as Egypt and the Crimea on the Black Sea,
however. Lack of textual data and limited discovery of ship remains from this
era greatly impede our understanding of the scale of maritime transport at this
time. The recent discovery of a large shipwreck near Alonnessus
on the Attic coast bearing some 10,000 amphoras of Mendean wine offers at least a hint of its potential. Only
a market with significantly high demand such as Athens can explain this sizeable and uniquely
laden cargo. Prior to the discovery of this wreck by members of the Greek
archaeological service, many scholars rejected the idea that cargo vessels of
this capacity were in use in this era. The presence of this find demonstrates,
therefore, not
only the potential scale of seaborne transport in this era but also the likely
impact that the burgeoning metropolis of Athens
had the flow of surplus commodities throughout the eastern Mediterranean world.
The dependency of the Attic population on outside sources of grain was so
great, in fact, that the Ekklesia passed a decree requiring
the offloading of all grain shipments in the Piraeus by cargo vessels belonging to Delian League member states. This measure was clearly
intended to insure adequate local storage of food supplies for the urban
population. To minimize the risk of the urban population in Athens becoming
separated from its food supply by military siege, the Athenians constructed
powerful defenses known as the “Long Walls” (160m apart, 6000 m long, and 20m
tall), connecting the city to its harbor. Leaders such as Pericles recognized
that to withstand a potential invasion the Athenian population could no longer
depend on the yield of its own agricultural hinterland. Repeatedly during the
Peloponnesian War, the rural population was drawn inside the Long Walls for
defense, thus, abandoning the agricultural landscape while the Athenian navy
maintained control of the seas. So long as the navy and the Long Walls could
guarantee the flow of foodstuffs to the city, the Athenian population could
weather a potential invasion and return to its farmland in the countryside once
the emergency had passed.
Such were the foundations that Pericles and other democratic leaders created
for Athens. The
city became the hub of the entire Mediterranean world, a great commercial city,
a military power of enormous reach, and the world's leading cultural center.
Not only did the presence of so many talented people generate a unsurpassed
burst of intellectual achievement -- the scale and quality of Attic Red Figure finewares, remarkable breakthroughs in painting,
architecture and sculpture, the development of Greek tragedy (Aeschylus,
Sophocles, and Europides) and comedy (Aristophanes),
breakthroughs in philosophy (Socrates), mathematics, and political science -
but, Athens being a relatively small place, most of the celebrated figures of
this era actually knew one another and saw their lives overlap.
As an individual Pericles remained a relatively reclusive figure who preferred
the company of intellectuals with nonpolitical backgrounds. Having received the
greatest possible education from the celebrated pre-Socratic philosopher,
Anaxagoras from Clazomenae in Ionia,
Pericles avoided public appearances except when necessary, perhaps because he
knew that familiarity inevitably breeds contempt. His oratory was reputedly so
incisive and deliberate that his opinion always prevailed in the assembly.
Physically, he reportedly possessed a cranial deformity that he liked to hide
by wearing a helmet tilted back on his head. Although a political mastermind,
he appears to have found politicians boring, and collected around himself a
cluster of intellectuals referred to by modern historians as the "Periclean Circle."
These include such prominent figures as Anaxagoras, already noted above,
Sophocles the tragedian, with whom Pericles is reported to have dined,
Herodotus, the historian from Halicarnassus, for whom Pericles devised the
means to acquire Athenian citizenship, Pheidias, the
sculptor of the statue of Athena (later driven out of Athens on the charge of
embezzling the remnant fragments of gold and ivory; he relocated to Olympia and
sculpted a similar statue of Zeus), and Aspasia, the courtesan from Miletus,
for whom he abandoned his Athenian wife. If Pericles had a vision for Athens it was to make it
symbolic of the best instincts and accomplishments of the Greek world as a
whole. The emergence of the Piraeus
as the most cosmopolitan community in the Mediterranean,
a polyglot city of foreign merchants, artisans, and warriors, was perhaps the
inevitable result of the imperial development of Athens. Despite abundant evidence of
hostility toward non-citizens, the Athenian assembly and people in general
remained remarkably open-minded and tolerant of dissent. The Athenian people
displayed a refreshing willingness to entertain unorthodox political and
philosophical views as well as to laugh at its own failings, as the popularity
of Aristophanes' comedies makes clear. However, the fact that this city, its
culture, and its empire was built on the labor of allied Greek states and
enslaved inhabitants who had no say whatsoever in the Athenian democratic
system must always be borne in mind. The surviving monuments on the Athenian
Acropolis serve as a careful reminder that the benefits obtained by any
civilization were usually attained through the unwilling efforts of invisible,
unsung masses. What is more, Pericles' sudden death during the plague that spread
through Athens
during the second year of the Peloponnesian War (429 BC) revealed an important
and unforeseen flaw to his political genius. He had neglected to train
political successors capable of assuming control of the government in the event
of his death. After more than 17 years of direction by one man, the Athenian
democracy found itself at a loss regarding the proper conduct of a war or the
maintenance of an empire that Pericles himself had initiated. For more than a
decade the democracy lurched from one military crisis to another under the
direction of weaker, lesser men. Eventually, Athenian efforts to maintain the
empire would fail, creating political doubt where confidence had once
prevailed. In his play, Oedipus Rex,
the great tragedian Sophocles seemingly had the person of Pericles in mind when
he portrayed Oedipus, the Bronze Age king of Thebes, as an over-confident, even
arrogant rational being. As Sophocles presaged in his tragedy, much like
Oedipus, Athenian confidence in its collective reasoning and empire-building
would result in its own demise.
[Useful reading: Russell Meiggs, The Athenian
Empire; Victor Ehrenberg, From Solon to Socrates. Charles Hignett, the History
of the Athenian Constitution; Solares, The Ecology of Ancient Greece]