*1. Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms?*
Solon’s reforms were not democratic as his re-negotiations redefined
citizen groups based on wealth and reorganizing the citizens into four
classes, which meant that the old aristocracy still retained power. It is
the reforms to the lowest class that is focused on; the abolition of debt
bondage. I think it’s important to refer to the Greek terminology and that
the Greek word ‘democratic-ness’ is isonomia meaning equal before the law
and that Solon was not branded with this term but with eunomia meaning good
order and therefore showing how the people did not have equal access across
the four different classes. Therefore Solon’s reforms were not democratic in
the way 4th century sources or we would recognize it.
*2. Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’
history?*
In many ways, it is Peisistratus who elaborates the arch and framework of
the structure that becomes the democratic system. I agree with the points
being made so far about the modern day negative connotations of the word
tyrant and also the positive effect of Peisistratus’ architectural work etc.
and so overall I see Peisistratus as being more beneficial to Athens for the
stability that he provided that allowed democracy to develop.
*3. Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a
radically different political system to other Greek poleis?*
I’m not that well read in the political systems of other Greek poleis in
the 520s but based on mainly Sparta I would say that as an Athenian would
not have thought there political system was drastically different. I reckon
though that from this point onwards, as they were unknowingly edging towards
democracy, that the further reforms would have made the differences more
important and so past the 520s yes an Athenian citizen would begin to notice
the political differences but not at the time under the leadership of
Peisistratus.
Democracy and Imperialism Discussion Forum 2013-4
Democracy and Imperialism Discussion Forum 2013-4
Discussion of Term 1 Lecture 2 Sixth Centry BC Key Questions
You need to be logged in to post in this topic.
-
0 likes
-
1) As most of us seem to agree, Solon's reforms were not strictly democratic. Admittedly it made Athens more democratic than it had been previously, yet the reforms were underlined by a class system. The rich had far more access to office and influence within the city than the poor. However, as many have stated previously, Solon's reforms were based on eunomia (“fairness”) rather than isonomia (“equality”). The difficulty in answering this question lies with our modern definition of what a democracy stands for. Democracy today focuses on widespread equality, where as Athens was centred on justice.0 likes
-
I believe that Solon did help put an end to the extreme oligarchy and began to shift power from the aristocracy to the lower classes. However I do not believe his reforms were truly democratic, but instead helped pave the way for democracy by beginning a process of change within the old systems. For example when an archon was voted in, he was given absolute power; the fact that he was voted in could be viewed as a good move towards democracy, but he was then given complete control, which is still tyrannical. As for Peisistratus, I agree with what most have already said about him; he helped to transform parts of the city, such as the Agora, and introduced numerous temples and sanctuaries which only benefited the city. Yes, he was a tyrant but if we look beyond this and do not simply assume that due to this he was a bad force, we can see that in actuality he carried out many good acts for the city. I do not think Athenian citizens would have seen the city as different to any other poleis; tyranny was still present, like in the other poleis, and despite the changes they were not radical enough to drastically change perception.0 likes
-
Just how democratic were Solon's reforms? I think that Solon's reforms were definitely progress towards democracy, but compared to what we consider democracy now, they were not democratic at all, due to the separation of classes. I was reading an article by E. Harris, 'Did Solon abolish debt-bondage?' and he argued that Solon only abolished enslavement for debt, not debt-bondage. He cites Aristophanes' 'Clouds', where Strepsiades worries that if he is unable to repay borrowed money, his creditor will seize him and take him away. Although abolishing enslavement for debt would have lessened the pressure for the lower classes and made a big change for them, it appears likely that debt-bondage remained during the 5th and 4th centuries BC and therefore there were still many issues with his system.0 likes
-
1. There is a problem in assessing how democratic Solon was as there is a lack of developed political concepts and vocabulary in the ancient sources and they often can interpret political conditions in the light of later developments. Solon’s focus may have been on creating a ‘fair’ society and not a democratic one in order to avert crisis, but I would say Solon took steps towards democracy in Athens. His political reforms created a mixed timocratic/democratic system of institutions. He made changes to eligibility for political office so there was no longer a monopoly of aristocrats by inheritance; the Eupatridai, and the nouveau riche gained access to the governing Council of 400. But all highest offices still seemed to be enjoyed by aristocrats- the Areiopagos, archons and priesthoods and membership of the pentakosiomedimnos was still limited to large landowners, excluding even the wealthiest individuals whose wealth was only commercial. The middle-classes, zeugitai, and hoplites seemed to be able to hold only lesser magistracies and the lowest class, thetes, were unable to hold any office but these classes appear to have had increased rights in political activity in the Assembly. Elections and key policy decisions had to come before the Assembly and be voted on by all citizens. Solon strengthened governance by creating two new institutions; the council of 400 and a court of appeal to ensure the people's wishes and Assembly were acted on. He also importantly introduced legal rights; laws and their application were now under public control and all Athenians could expect the same justice. Although he may not be seen as democratic in modern terms or in the direct democracy of 5th and 4th, Solon’s 'constitutional laws' had the effect of raising citizens’ political awareness, sense of responsibility and involvement and participation. The best way to see Solon and his reforms is as proto-democratic, in the sense that they were found much later to be integral components of, or at least compatible with, a genuinely democratic structure of governance.0 likes
-
/*Just how democratic were Solon's reforms?*/ As Solon was legitimately voted in as an archon, it's difficult to argue with the democratic legitimacy of his reforms. In particular, his opening of the Helaia, and abolishment of debt-bondage can be seen as appealing to the demos. However, if we are to believe the sources, this instead should be construed as 'demotic', i.e. concerning the demos, rather than providing the people with power. Also, the emphasis on eunomia suggests, in my opinion, a less rigid structure than democracy, as it relies on a level of subjectiveness, rather than 'equality before the law'. */Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens' history?/* It would be difficult to argue that Peisistratus had a negative impact on Athens in my opinion; his archaeological developments alone are often associated with the identity of the city. Adding this to his cultural (Panatheneia and City Dionysia) and national impact (purification of Delos), and it initially appears as though Peisistratus' life was entirely beneficial. Politically, it's a slightly more difficult answer to determine, mainly due to the events conflicting the sources. Although we're told that he fiddled with Solon's reforms, rather than removed them (pro-democracy), his constant presence as a tyrannical ruler can not have been beneficial. On the other hand though, perhaps it's more suitable to view him as a means to an end, with the eventual 508 BC coming at the expense of the Peisistratids, and had he not put his family in that postion, perhaps Cleisthenes may not have seen enough of a reason to revolt? */Would an Athenian citizen in the 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis?/* Certainly, an Athenian citizen, i.e. an 18-or-higher year old, and therefore born earliest in 438 BC, would've lived through a tyranny, and to what extent this is different to other poleis', I am unsure. However, if we were to consider the older citizens, those born earlier than 560 BC, for example, then it becomes more interesting, as they would've lived through at least two attempted tyrannies, possibly three, and this seems as though it would've been a less universal system. During these as well, it's worth remembering Solon's reforms were still in effect, admittedly being 'tweaked', but these certainly are noteworthy within a demos, so to that extent, they must have considered themselves more 'demotic' than other cities, even if not more 'democratic'.0 likes
-
#1: As has already been brought up, the restriction of access to offices based on class (and/or ancestry) substantially mars the idea of Solon's reforms as democratic - after all, the power didn't lie with the the people in general under such a system. Although I doubt he was ever aiming to create a democratic society, but rather one that would be more resistant to class struggle. #2: Arguably, the greatest harm caused by Peistratus was the fact that expelling his son from Athens required intervention by the Spartans and caused a certain amount of unrest in Athens. Unless you believe autocracy to be an intrinsically worse form of government regardless of the qualities of the ruler, Peistratus offered Athens a great deal and seemed to largely rule from afar, not interfering with the day-to-day running of the city or even its normal politcal system (as shown by the records of who held the archonship). His cultural institutions and building projects became hallmarks of democratic Athens, and helped make it the city it was. #3: The Athenian tyranny included most of the hallmarks of those in other poleis such as Megara (including, probably, the seizure of power by popular support). The way the Peisistratids are remembered as tyrants indicates that their hands-off rulership style did not mask the power they possessed, and so the Athenians likely considered their tyranny much like others in Greece.0 likes
-
2. Just how democratic were Solon's reforms? It is very difficult to say whether Solon's reforms were democratic or not. Solon was put into power during a difficult period; the social crisis pitted all the classes against each other. Solon had to resolve the problem while keeping everyone happy, which was no easy feat, in particular when it came to the aristocracy, who would not approve of overly democratic reforms for fear of losing their power and influence. Solon therefore seems to have implemented a mixture of democratic, and non democratic reforms. In favour of equality, he introduced a law that dispensed political power and positions according to wealth. While this did indeed favour the rich aristocratic families (in fact, the lowest level of this new financial hierarchy were not even allowed to hold a post in governent) it can be considered democratic in that it takes into account social mobility, where an individual can accumulate wealth through trade. In the short term, it favoured well established aristocratic families, keeping them happy, but it the long term, it favours diversity. Furthermore, Solon was also careful to allow the poorest the basic right to vote; Aristotle considers this one of his most important moves, as "when people are masters of the vote, they are masters of the state" (Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, 50). It is indeed important in terms of democracy, as it also allows the poor power some early entrance into politics, as well as a say in affairs. It seems so far that Solon's aim was to create democratic reforms while appeasing the nobility, which is further illustrated by his attempts to support basic human rights: by abolishing the law that humans to be sold as slaves to pay off their debts, Solon seems to be as much of a hero as later sources such as Aristotle, Plutarch or Aeschines seem to think he is. However, Solon did in fact restrict some of the most important political posts to the aristocracy. For example, only the nobility were allowed to become Archons, therefore restricting access to the Areopagus, which, as Aristotle puts it, "administered most and the greatest of the city's affairs" (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution, 44). Yet, this may have been an attempt to protect the state from incompetent members of lower classes, as he may have assumed due to their meagre backgrounds they would not have the knowledge or training needed to be successsful in that post. Or, he simply needed to show the aristocracy that they were not in fact losing all their privileges through his new reforms, thereby protecting his laws from future change. It seems Solon did indeed have democracy in mind when implementing his reforms, although he was also careful to protect the state and appease upper classes. This becomes an even stronger argument if one believes he refused the position of tyrant (Plutarch, Life of Solon 44). Being capable of denying the prospect of long term, absolute power indicates a strong motivation towards democracy.1 like
-
Solon certainly made steps towards a "fairer" system in terms of protecting the lower classes from some of the abuses they had suffered from prior to the reforms, it is hard to judge them in terms of whether they are "democratic" or not. The idea of equality before the law (eunomia) is in itself very democratic, and the laws themselves were displayed in the agora and so were very public and sharply defined. However, the continued existance of a class system in which those lower down the ladder had no access to top offices, despite their improved representation and involovement in city life, means it is hard to call the reforms of Solon "democratic" as we would understand them.0 likes
-
1. Solons reforms although he made things fairer, were by no means democratic. By enforcng the division of society he kept the large proportion of the population out of the loop and therefore unable to change or influence the running of the Polis. However his reforms where an effective means of slowing down the social crisis that was beginning to tear Athens apart. 2. I see Peisistratus as a beneficial force on Athenian history. Without him many of the buildings which we associate with Democracy like the Agora would not exist. He also gave those who wished to prevent the rise of tyranny something to aim for and the point at when they encouraged the rise of democracy. Also without the Dionysia both western art and drama would be much poorer. 3. An Athenian citizen by this point would have noticed that their Polis was beginning to change despite their tyranny with the rise of the power of the citizen. Even the tyrant was careful to acknowledge the laws and customs of the city in the case of his exile he waited out the ten year period before making his return.0 likes
-
1) Trying not to retread old ground. I think it is unfair to judge Solon on what we, or even 5th-4th century Athenians saw as democracy. If it democracy comes from demos and kratia, I don't think this has to necessarily mean they were given political power. He may not have allowed the lowest classes to have political power, but by wiping away their debts he gave them the power to rise through the class system- the 'Athenian dream'. It may not be likely, but they still did have the potential to get there. So that's a form of power I think. And because the class system which defined what political role you could have was based on how much land you owned, I can envisage a situation where a lucky peasant farmer gets a good fertile patch of land, invests wisely and can start to purcahse more land, and thus more political power. It is not based on family name, which inherently excludes the lower classes. And the lowest classes had the right to vote in assembly too. Maybe they could not be the person looking for votes, but realistically in modern democracy how many people from deprived areas become politicians? Not many. We have a political elite, just as the Athenians did. However now the lower classes could vote in the assembly and thus hold this elite to account. So in summary I think he did allow the lower classes the possibility to become 'politicans' via making class an economic rather than hereditary issue- even if this was very hard to do; and he let the Thetes vote in the assembly, which I would imagine was a far more politically engaged role than most of us have in the modern day.0 likes
-
This is basically repeating what others have said but basically Solon's reforms were not democratic, certainly by modern standards. Athenian citizens remained divided by the creation of four different classes with only the highest classes being eligible for archonship whilst the lowest classes were only allowed to attend the the law courts and assembly. Although, as others have already stated, Solons reforms provided the foundations for which democracy could build on. Peistratus can be viewed as both a harmful and beneficial force in Athens' history. He created and improved many iconic Athenian buildings such as the Agora and Acropolis and also the Dionysia. Although he was a tyrant and very un-democratic he did ensure that Solon's reforms survived thus helping democracy to develop. It is difficult to say if an Athenian citizen would consider themselves to be in a radically different Poleis. I doubt they wouold have considered themselves radically different to other Poleis perhaps with the exception of Sparta. Athens itself was still technically under Tyrant rule in 520 B.C so it seems unlikely that they would consider themselves to be radically different.0 likes
-
•Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms? With respect to the political context, reforming society along grounds of wealth is an important and radical move towards democracy since it started the redistribution of power from the land-owning classes to those who met a monetary standard; this redefinition of the strata of society provided the groundwork for later redistribution of power to people other than the aristocracy. Furthermore in giving some political power to the people, it started the politicisation of the/demos/ whose increasing political weight and involvement became the driving force for later democratic changes. However inasmuch as the changes form Athenian society into a more meritocratic oligarchy rather than any form of democracy, his reforms weren't wholly democratic. •Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history? Harmful inasmuch as he was a tyrant and stood in the way of democratic forms, beneficial because his constructions within Athens monumentalised the political space for democracy. •Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis? They would have considered themselves as politically distinct from oligarchies and monarchies as evinced by Herodotus's treatment of the formation of the new Persian dynasty after Cambyses' downfall. However creating a history for democracy created an authority for their goverment for the Athenians, which would have meant that the Athenians would have perceived their system as less iconoclastic than others, but more a natural choice along a spectrum of political governance where government is understood to be the weighting of the distribution of power to citizen bodies.0 likes
-
1. As many have already argued, I think it is very difficult to see the reforms being made by Solon as democratic in their nature. However, I think that rather than looking at it from our perspective now and judging whether it fits with what we recognise as being democratic today, we must consider how fundamental these changes were to the politics of Athens then. If we consider that at the time there was no such thing as democracy, this concept of/eunomia/ was, in my opinion, revolutionary. Whilst it may not be democratic, I think it is a significant stepping stone towards democracy. It may have been inevitable that changes would have come about in a society that required reform, what form these changes would have taken was in no way definite and it is arguable that without Solon's specific reforms democracy may not have been established in the same way that it was. 2. I agree that Peisistratus was primarily a beneficial force as the imporvements that he made to the infrastructure of Athens would not only positively contribute to the city at the time but would become culturally important to Athens for years to come. 3. I do not believe that Athenians would have seen Athens as different from other poleis at the time. However, I do think that they would have recognised that there was a change occurring within their political structure. As far as it being radical, I think that the changes that had been made were quite substantial but I think they would have seen themselves as in the process of developing as opposed to being literally different to other poleis.0 likes
-
Question 1 How democratic were Solon's reforms In terms of evaluating the democrtaic nature of these reforms, one must consider that the reforms were a step in the right direction for democracy with the cancellation of debt bondage as an example. However one must also acknowledge that his reforms still consisted of clear class divisions which restricted office to those of the higher classes, meaning that still the poorest were not placed on an equal footing in terms of politics. Solon can be seen to be starting the change, yet he most certainly didnt make the first truley democratic reforms.0 likes
-
1. To some extent I think that for something to be 'democratic', the motivations behind it also need to be for the purpose of democracy. Peisistratus wanted to maintain a 'good order' and seemed to have no personal intention of moving towards a democracy. 2. Overall, Peisistratus probably brought about more good than harm, shaping Athens culturally in terms of things like Panathenaic festival. Whilst we, usually coming from a democratic perspective, often tend to view tyrants as automatically harmful, it seems that Peisistratus developed Athens and if anything made her more prepared for a transition into a democracy. 3. Due to their increasing success and wealth, especially with a growing distinctive culture of theatre, Athenians probably did see themselves as radically different to other Poleis, however probably less so in terms of their political system, given that this seems relatively similar to aristocracies and tyrannies in other Poleis.0 likes
-
Question 2 : Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history? Whilst Peisistratus was a tyrant, and thus was opposed to any idea of democracy, one can not suggest that he was harmful towards the history of Athens. Many city projects were started by Peisistratus and he also created the idea of the panathenea. These are key parts to Athenian history which followed into their democratic age, and could therefore be suggested to be highly beneficial. Whilst Peisistratus was a tyrant and his son took over his reign after his death, showing a tyrannical progression, he did create some of the founding religious and city festivals and buildings that were still heralded in democratic Athens. 3 Would athens have seen their system as different to other greek cities? Most probably not as their system of governance was hardly the most extravagent of all the city states, the Spartan ruling system was more or less far more individual than that of Athens. Also in terms of how much the average citizen knew about the running of city states is uncertain, however it is unlikely that they had a great knowledge of all the forms of government of the Greek cities, and therefore would probably not consider their governing system as outrageously different from the few cities they did know about. It is difficult to know truley as in this modern age, we all have access to information on all the countries governments in the world, this just simply wasnt the case in the 520's BC, so whilst Athenians probably didnt see their government as individually different from others, most people probably didnt even know about another government to compare it to.0 likes
-
This post has been flagged for a moderator to review.
1. The reforms of Solon were clearly a step in the right direction. However they were far from what we would consider purely democraic, they maintained class division and restricted rights from the poor, such as holding office and indeed voting. There is no way that a government, from a modern perspective, could be considered democratic with such a large proportion of people unrepresented. However the reforms were better than nothing.0 likes -
*Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms?* Solon’s separation of classes corresponding to wealth mars his democratic legitimacy in my eyes, and seemingly most people’s. Whilst his election to the position of archon shows a progression from the oligarchic times of the previous century, the restrictions which he put in place regarding elections to positions of power taint his democratic credentials. *Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history?* Modern connotations with the tern ‘tyrant’ would suggest that Peisistratus’s reign in Athens was more damaging and autocratic than it actually was. There is little evidence to suggest that his rule was met with much opposition, and whilst his rule kept power in the hands of the wealthiest citizens, it can be noted that despite ‘democratic’ reforms, Athens under Solon would’ve been ruled by the same group. Peisitratus’s construction work can be seen as a major plus point to his rule, as the buildings and monuments erected during his tyranny furthered a sense of Athenian pride for years to come. *Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis?* It is hard to comment on the views of an average Athenian citizen and how they would’ve felt towards their political system. The cultural advances which accompanied democracy would have fostered some sense of individuality, and the measures put in place to guard against tyranny may have indicated that their polis was changing, but I do not think Athenians would have regarded themselves as radically different in the 520s BC.0 likes
-
I also agree with many of the opinions expressed so far, so don't want to just repeat what others have said. In terms of Solon, his reforms were not strictly democratic, but he seems to have favoured increased participation of the citizen body. In Aristotle's Athenaion Politeia 8.5 Solon's law which required that "Whoever does not join the side of one faction or the other in a situation of civil war shall be an outlaw" is related for example.0 likes