1. How much desire does there seem to have been specifically for democracy
in the years running up to 508 BC in Athens?
It is clear there was a desire for political change but I agree with what
has been said on here concerning the problems with looking specifically at a
desire for something that even if it existed at this time the form in which
it did was constantly evolving. From the terms eunomia and isonomia it seems
they were aiming for a fairer and more equal society but not specifically
for democracy.
Democracy and Imperialism Discussion Forum 2013-4
Democracy and Imperialism Discussion Forum 2013-4
Discussion of Term 1 Lecture 3 508 BC: Key Questions
You need to be logged in to post in this topic.
-
0 likes
-
1.How much desire does there seem to have been specifically for democracy in the years running up to 508 BC in Athens? I think we can say there was no specific desire for democracy itself, because the concept didn't exist, however there was a desire for change and greater equality with the lower classes. As we get closer to 508BC we can potentially see the increasing desire for democracy as the system started becoming identifiable. 2.To what extent should the ‘invention’ of democracy be called an accident in ancient Athens? Again, the idea of democracy was a new one and it is difficult to say that it was intended. I think the fact that it was such an evolutionary process and not a singular complete reform shows some elements of accidental creation, but it is clear that the overall goal was eventual rule of the people not the aristocrats. 3.How fundamental and how different were Cleisthenes’ reforms? His reforms were important because they divided people not on the basis of wealth but on geographical terms. We can see democracy emerging under his reforms with the boule and it how it was ran by the people, even if democracy wasn't fully achieved, he played a fundamental role in its creation.0 likes
-
1. I find it difficult to argue that there was a desire for democracy in the run up to 508BC. There seems, certainly, to have been a desire for change but as to how far this actually went is rather difficult to gauge due to a lack of sources for the period. To make the statement that there was anything even close to democracy desired by the majority of the people would be very hard to prove and I feel almost certainly wrong. 2.Democracy was not an accident, it was a considered political move on the part of Cleisthenes to ensure that his rivals did not take power. His divide of Attica into the tribes gave his family a clear advantage due to their support base in the city and prevented his rivals from using their own traditional supporters from the countryside. That individuals were more empowered by these reforms was just a by product.0 likes
-
#1 - Aside from some bickering by the Alcmaeonids, Peisistratus seems to have had a fairly stable and unchallenged reign. Hippias' rule only became widely unpopular, at least according to the literary sources, because after his brother's death he became cruel. But even when people started considering replacing the oligarch, the idea that they wanted to introduce a democracy is questionable. While Peisistratus may have taken power through a popular uprising, Cleisthenes really begins the Athenian practise of making concessions to the people in return for their support, which eventually leads to a democracy with paid jurors and magistrates under Pericles. So there is no reason to suspect most people thought they/could/ form a democracy, let alone planned for it. #2 - This question really depends on how you view the plans of the Athenian aristocrats. On the one hand, it is hard to suggest Cleisthenes did not realise the impact his reforms would have on the way the city was run. On the other, it may well be that his reforms were at least partly motivated to create temporary political success for his family, and so were really just another step in the old aristocratic power struggle. In that case, slowly surrendering most of their power probably wasn't what they intended. Certainly, democracy wasn't the planned end result of all the 7th and 6th century Athenian domestic policies.0 likes
-
1. I am still puzzling sightly over this question; I think there was a desire for something different in Athens, some sort of change, whether or not that was specifically democracy is hard to answer confidently. I think the need for change led to democracy, but whether or not democracy was what they set out to create at this time could be questioned because, again, the question of what democracy was to the Athenians as opposed to us is still needs remembering. I would say that there was a definite shift in the mind of Athens as a whole from the power of a few to the desire to have power for the majority, so to a degree, because this is very close to our modern definition of democracy I would say that there was a desire for some sort of democracy in Athens, whether they knew it was democracy or not. 2. I think accident is both the right and wrong way to word this, as there were undoubtedly actions put in place that led to democracy but there was no definite way of predicting the final outcome of those actions, so perhaps it could be looked at in the sense that the actions set in motion would lead to democracy and it was guided to that end but there was always the chance that it would have a different outcome.0 likes
-
1. A lot of people in this thread have picked up on the use of the word 'specifically' in this first question. I agree with the general sentiment that there was no strong desire amongst the Athenians 'specifically' for democracy; as we all know, 'democracy' as a concept had yet to be developed. However, given the tyrannical political climate that existed before Cleisthenes and his reforms, it is clear that there was a strong desire for change and improvement. 2. I don't agree that democracy, as it developed, was an accident per se. Cleisthenes' reforms certainly spread equality, albeit as a bi-product of his main intention to further his own political career. Democracy was a gradual evolution from 508BC, constantly being improved and built upon.0 likes
-
1.It is inherently unlikely that there was a conscious, specific drive for democracy underpinning the actions that led to its creation, not least due to the fact that the concept had not even been verbalised yet. The desire for a more stable, less tyrannical nature of governing seems likely and widespread, following the complete downturn under Hippias. It was accepted when Peisistratus was working well with the people but the instability of a system that relies on the wills of one man became palpable under Hippias, which would perhaps had led some Athenians to question single rule. Of course, we cannot know the opinion of the 'average' Athenian, but the demand for change cannot be construed as a demand for democracy itself. 2. Cleisthenes' reforms of course had a large part to play in the eventual conception and creation of democracy. It cannot be realistic that Cleisthenes (as Theo pointed out) would have not been aware of the potential repercussions of his actions but whether he could have predicted such radical change is up for debate, as well as his motives for doing so. No step in the process of democracy seems to have been an 'accident', but the overall outcome was unpredictable, so in the long term accident may be the right word.0 likes
-
*2.To what extent should the ‘invention’ of democracy be called an accident in ancient Athens?* The invention of democracy was not so much an "accident" as it was largely the result of Cleisthenes's reforms. Whether these reforms were purely aimed at being "democractic" is another question entirely; they were perhaps the result of a contest for power between the aristocracy, with the new system breaking up political allegiances that existed purely on a family basis and potentially giving more power to natural Alcmaeonid supporters in the city. *3.How fundamental and how different were Cleisthenes’ reforms?* Cleisthenes's reforms were very fundamental and different. The division of the demes into 30 trittyes which stretched across Attica was particularly radical, breaking up old land connections and affiliations and forging new ones. Furthermore, the fact that now all offices (except military generals who required field experience) were decided by lot and rotated was a big change, especially as all citizens were no eligible for office. Deciding positions by lot was not necessarily a new thing, but the freedom for people lower down the social ladder to take up these important positions was a big change and a step forward in the development of democracy in Athens.0 likes
-
*1.How much desire does there seem to have been specifically for democracy in the years running up to 508 BC in Athens?* Not a great deal. The only reason it had gotten so far along the process by 508BC was because of the petty squabblings of a handful of aristocrats, which in an of itself betrays the those with real power and influence in Athens at the time. *2.To what extent should the ‘invention’ of democracy be called an accident in ancient Athens?* It would be pretty fair to describe it as such, each set of reforms that had taken it legislatively as far as it had gotten were responses to events and circumstances that had little relevance to the demos' desire for self governance.0 likes
-
1. Although there does not seem to have been a universal acclamation for democratic reform it would seem that there were elements within Athens who wanted a form of democracy0 likes
-
/*How much desire does there seem to have been specifically for democracy in the years running up to 508 BC in Athens?*/ I'm struggling to see how this can be properly answered. On the one hand, after the death of Hipparchus, and if we are to believe the sources, Hippias' behaviour as a tyrant deteriorated in quality; in fact, it may be one of the reasons why a tyrant has such negative connotations in modern context, as prior to this, tyranny and dictatorship (something we tend to link together) were not mutually related. Therefore, in that sense, a shift in political regimes may have been desired. However, it is hard to 'specifically' desire something that does not exist, and is merely a concept based on a fusion of isonomia and isegoria, among others, so really, it depends on whether you believe it's possible to specifically desire a concept which does not exist. */To what extent should the 'invention' of democracy be called an accident in ancient Athens?/* The most ambigious term here is accident, as I'm reading 'invention' as, 'we shall call it invention in lieu of a better word'. Regarding accident though, we can take it as 'an event that happened unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause', and with this definition, my suggestion would be that is was not necessarily an accident. Although there may have been no plan to employ a democthought here was intent to remove a tyranny, which left an opening for a new system. Even if we accept that this wasn't necessarily a democracy, after Cleisthenes' eventual rise to prominance, there was certainly a 'democracy-adjacent' planned system, following on from Solon and Peisistratus. Although the run up to democracy itself was more fortuitous, the actual invention, in my mind, seems less so, with at lease some intent there. */How fundamental and how different were Cleisthenes' reforms?/* Cleisthenes' entire system relied on his separation of the attic territories into their respective tribes, and smaller denominations, and his system of democracy was heavily cantered around this. A similar comparison can be made with the constituencies in Britain, although on a more advanced level. The representatives of each tribe was there to convey the opinions of the majority of their tribe, in the same way we elect members of the HoC. In this instance then, they were extremely fundamental. How different is harder to know, primarily due to lack of sources. He certainly wasn't the first to explore outside of just the polis, and if we are to accept this as the first democracy, then it was extremely different. Of the poleis that we do know about, it would certainly be difficult to draw many similarities with say, the Spartans (that isn't to say they don't exist though), but overall, it seems as though they are relatively different to what has come before them.0 likes
-
1.How much desire does there seem to have been specifically for democracy in the years running up to 508 BC in Athens? The long political history of Athens is strikingly different to others in one respect, the democratic Athenians had no historical model of democracy from which they might hope to learn. As has been raised by others, there is scarce literary sources to determine whether there was a universal desire for a greater involvement in politics from the bottom of society. It seems that a sort of social awakening arose from the aristocracy such as Cleisthenes. The preference of this form of 'democracy' to the pre existing tyranny is manifest, however with no concept of this innovative political system from 508 BC it is impossible to tell whether there was any desire for it.0 likes
-
1) The lack of evidence documenting what the average citizen thought is obviously problematic when attempting to answer a question such as this. The issue with the word "specifically" in relation to the notion of democracy not being an established idea has already been raised, so there is no need to explore it further. Nevertheless, there does appear to have been a desire for something different. 3) Cleithenes' reforms were of extreme importance and were indeed radical. The breaking up of old factions in the reorganisation of demes and tribes itself is a vitally important progression in Athenian politics without even mentioning the opening of governing positions to the male citizen body.0 likes
-
1. It seems apparent that during the years approaching 508 there must have been demand for a fundamental change in how Athens was organised. However, there seems to be little evidence to suggest a particular demand for democracy. In fact, the idea of/demokratia /does not appear prevelant in sources until later, therefore it is arguable that the concept had not fully been imagined at this time, the focus appears to be much more on equality. 2. It seems clear that reform was necessary for the function of Athens and that the competition between ruling families was unsustainable and by 508 this power struggle had become greatly detremental to the well being of the city. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that democracy was not an idea already created that was simply implemented but rather it seems to have been something that democracy grew more organically from the reforms of Solon and onwards. 3. The reforms from Cleisthenes can be seen as fundamental in many ways but the election by lot of Athenians to positions of power can be seen as truly revolutionary. The handing out of power in this way seems to give the greatest opportunity for people to truly have equality and a voice.0 likes
-
*1.How much desire does there seem to have been specifically for democracy in the years running up to 508 BC in Athens?* People probably more likely had a desire for increased participation over democracy specifically, as it was an unheard of and untried system at this time. It seems problematic to assume that people wanted a system that they had no experience of. It is important to recognise that different sectors of the population would have desired different things in these years also, which also makes it difficult to quantify how much desire there seems to have been for democracy. *2.To what extent should the ‘invention’ of democracy be called an accident in ancient Athens?* It can be considered an accident in that democracy was not something that had been intentionally worked towards or was expected to come into fruititon. Democracy probably was an accident, but rather than it being 'invented', it was the 'accidental' result of a gradual development of policy.0 likes
-
1.How much desire does there seem to have been specifically for democracy in the years running up to 508 BC in Athens? I think the majority of citizens would have desired equality amongst all instead of the tyranny that presided before it. However, the issue with the first question is “specifically”. It’s uncertain that there was even a concept of democracy at this time. It would therefore be near impossible for a citizen to desire something that did not exist at the time. What makes this question even more problematic is due to our lack of sources. It’s particularly difficult to gauge what the “ordinary” citizen would have wanted. Would they have even wanted change? If so, would the ordinary citizen know what they wanted changing?0 likes
-
Apologies, didn't realise I was signed in on Oli's account 1.How much desire does there seem to have been specifically for democracy in the years running up to 508 BC in Athens? I think the majority of citizens would have desired equality amongst all instead of the tyranny that presided before it. However, the issue with the first question is “specifically”. It’s uncertain that there was even a concept of democracy at this time. It would therefore be near impossible for a citizen to desire something that did not exist at the time. What makes this question even more problematic is due to our lack of sources. It’s particularly difficult to gauge what the “ordinary” citizen would have wanted. Would they have even wanted change? If so, would the ordinary citizen know what they wanted changing?0 likes
-
1. It is hard to answer this question given the lack of adequate sourcing (from where can we find the opinions of all or of all average citizens?) and so there may not have been desire for these democratic reforms. After all, change implemented is rarely taken well at least at first. 2. I think that democracy was in part a happy accident, however there are undeniable active changes, for example by Cleisthenes, which show that there was serious intent for democratic change at least. 3. The official division of society into social and financial groups was the first of its kind, and his appointment of officials changed the system to be much more inclusive of smaller demes. So his reforms can be called fundamental at this time, and certainly different.0 likes
-
1 : To an extent one could say that democracyt came about more due to the lack of a political system left after the departure of the tyrants, with Cleisthenes coming into power, there was the opportunity for the beginning of democracy to arise. Whilst there was to some extent a clamour for some form of reform, there wasnt an outcry for democracy.0 likes
-
I believe that democracy came about simply from Inter-class pressures, the origin of the movement was accidental and then the end result with purpose. It is exemplary of what can occur when the masses develop a sense of power.0 likes