*This topic is for discussion of key questions from Term 1 Lecture 2: Athens
in the Sixth Century BC*
*•Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms?*
*•Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’
history?*
*•Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a
radically different political system to other Greek poleis?*
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
-
*Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms?* Solon is often seen as a champion of democracy, and in fact he was even voted into office (supposedly as an all-powerful leader at a time of social crisis). However, the division of citizens into four political classes, which is one of Solon’s dominant reforms, is decidedly undemocratic. This is largely because the top group of the four (Pentacosiomedimnoi) were the only ones allowed to run for high office as Archons, meaning that only they could be admitted into the Areopagus. Exacerbating factionism seems to me to be moving further away from democracy as we expect it to be, when each faction is assigned according to Solon’s decision on how much political power the weak vs the powerful should have. Also, can his reforms to free the indebted from debt-bondage be considered democratic at all, or just people-pleasing? Considering that these are, as far as I can see, the most important changes made under Solon, I cannot see how these alone uphold him as a figurehead of democracy.0 likes
-
1. The reforms of Solon were far from democratic, even by the standards of 5th century Athens; they maintained class division and restricted rights from the poor, such as holding office and indeed voting. How could a government that didn't represent such a vast group vast of people be considered democratic? However the reforms were undeniably a step in the right direction and without them further social change might not have been possible. 2. Regardless of Peisistratus' political record, the benefits he brought to Athens in his tyranny cannot be denied. So many of Athens' most iconic features (her Acropolis, the agora and the Dionysia to name but a few) were either created or improved under Peisistratus and as such the later democracy owed him a huge debt. He may have been a tyrant, but he at least brought plenty of improvments to the city that he controlled. 3. While it is almost impossible for anyone in this modern age to put themselves in the shoes of an ancient Athenian (especially before 508 BC), it seems doubtful that anyone aware of other poleis at the time would feel that Athens had an especially unique political system. Indeed other city-states (such as Sparta) would probably be seen as more of an exception at that time than Athens, who was still under the control of a family of tyrants. Admittedly the reforms of Solon may have marked Athens out as unique to a certain extent but a good tyranny is still a long way away from a democracy.0 likes
-
*Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms? * Solon’s reforms benefited Athens’ economy in a more significant way to its political structure. By dividing men into different citizen groups he allowed the nouvaeu riche to be part of the most elite class (pentakosiomedimnoi) therefore enabling them to advance in public office. Meanwhile the abolition of debts and debt-bondage ensured that the labourers and lower classes did not suffer financially. However in terms of giving equal rights to all men, Solon’s reforms were not democratic. Although Solon gave the poor financial ease and the “new money” access to political office, he still divided Athenian citizens and distributed power unevenly. By giving the Thetes significantly less political influence than other classes and only allowing aristocracy to hold certain offices he sustained a rigid social structure that can be seen as undemocratic. *Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history?* Regarding Athenian history Peisistratus was a beneficial force responsible for the development of Athens. Under Peisistratus the Agora expanded into the iconic cultural hub of the city, whilst sanctuaries, festivals and temples were introduced and improved. Peisistratus’ desire for Tyranny and his political regime can be seen as harmful however the development of Athens under his leadership was mostly advantageous. *Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis?* It is doubtful that an Athenian citizen would consider the way in which their polis was governed to be drastically different to other poleis. Peisistratus was succeeded by his son as tyrant in the 520s BC thus making Athens another polis ruled by a single ruler from an influential aristocratic family. Despite reforms to the social structure, the political system was not significantly unique.0 likes
-
*Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history? * Peisistratus must be seen as beneficial in terms of Athens’ development, but in history his seizure of power can be seen as harmful. This is because the fact that he was even able to become tyrant and make such broad changes, especially when at the time democracy was supposedly on the rise, means that Athens was still misguided in exactly what they would later recognise as democracy rather than tyranny. It is still obvious, however, that the huge advances made in coinage and architecture were in the long run very beneficial for Athens’ history and advancement. *Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis?* Perhaps it was not a radically different Polis, but it would probably have been clear to an Athenian citizen that Athens was on the cusp of becoming great and very unique. Architecturally, Athens was really shaping up to become a religious and commercial success; although the governance was very similar to most other Poleis, the physical changes would have been tangible and visible in the agora and all around the city.0 likes
-
1. Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms? This is a difficult question to answer when what exactly is meant by the term ‘democratic’ has not first been clarified. It is clear that the reforms made by Solon would have had very little relevance to what would be considered as democratic in modern society. Another important point to consider is that even Aristotle (a seemingly huge ‘fan’ of Solon) only described the reforms as ‘demotic’ and not democratic. However, although it is clear that Solon’s reforms were not democratic as such - they were ‘eunomia’ (a fair order) rather than ‘isonomia’ (equality before the law) – they made a drastic difference to many aspects of Athenian society. By banning debt-bondage and opening up the top offices to more than just the aristocracy, Solon may have not made Athens into a democracy, but it can surely be argued that he had provided the basic foundations which would later be built up into democracy. 2. Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history? It is very easy to see Peisistratus as a ‘bad guy’ in many ways, especially considering his multiple attempts (and his ultimate successful attempt) to seize power. The fact that he was a tyrant ruling Athens also appears to be harmful. However, whilst it is easy to see Peisistratus as a harmful tyrannical force, slowing-down Athens from taking her course as the home of the ‘first democracy’ in the west, this is only a relevant argument in hindsight. So, Peisistratus only appears to be a hindrance to democracy if it is to be believed that democracy was inevitable in Athens, which it of course, it was not. In fact, if anything, Peisistratus benefitted Athens greatly, in terms of helping to create its ‘iconic’ image in architecture etc. and ensuring that the reforms made by Solon survived (albeit by rigging the archon elections). 3. Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis? I believe that an Athenian citizen in the 520s would not have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek cities. At this time, the Athenian citizenship would still have been ruled by a tyrant in the form of Peisistratus until his death in 527 BC and then by his son Hippias. In addition to this, although steps had been made towards a more democratic political system, they were minimal in terms of what it would become. If anything, the various inscriptions which we studied from places such as Dresos in Crete, imply that it wasn’t uncommon for cities to have been demonstrating what we not see as the ‘seeds of democracy’.0 likes
-
1. I do not think that Solon's reforms were very democratic, as he created four classes based on wealth. The lowest class were only allowed to attend the assembly and law courts, whereas only the highest class were eligible for archonship, hence still very undemocratic. 2. I see him as a benefitial force in Athenian history and long term democratic Athens, although he may have been a tyrant he was behind some of Athen's most important buildings for example the Agora, which was central to Athenian democratic ideology. 3. I do not believe that the ordinary Athenian citizen would have considered themselves radically different, or even realised that they were the pioneers of democracy. I think rather they would have seen it more as the gradual granting of basic rights they thought they were entitled to. Most citizens were probably very unware of other poleis' political systems.0 likes
-
I agree with most of the points raised so far, so I don't want to repeat the same arguments. However, I have a few things to add. Although Solon's reforms were not essentially democratic, I think it is worth thinking why then he was celebrated so much as a father figure of Athenian democracy. There are a few matters to consider. Firstly, it is very important what Shani has said about the economic value of Solon's reforms. Last week a lot of people underlined the economic factor as a crucial one for the development of democracy. In this way Solon indirectly made later democracy possible. Another thing which might be taken for granted is that his reforms seem to have been acceptable for all citizens and in this manner they were quite "democratic". Solon considered interests of all social classes and tried to reach a consesus for the whole society. It was completely impossible to force a truly democratic reform which would abolish all legal differences between social classes. Solon was as democratic as it was possibe at this time. Moreover, he created a system on which people like Kleisthenes could build on later and develop it in a more democratic direction.1 like
-
1. I would not call Solon's reforms democratic as, although it was a good base for democracy. The main reaosn simply being that it relied on class divisions and that any access to office was restricted to the upper classes. We must remember, however, that the point of Solon's reforms was not equality (isonomia) but fairness (eunomia), and I do believe that this was achieved to an extent, such as the abolition of debt bondage. The problem with this question is that our perceptions are tainted by what we see as a democracy. We would focus more on equality/isonomia, whilst Athens, as we can see, focused more on fairness and justice etc. 2. I actually think that Peisistratus was quite a positive force on Athens in terms of development, as he did build upon the agora, articulate sanctuaries and develop festivals. Thucydides tells us that the Peisistratids preserved Solon's reforms (although they would have tinkered with them slightly in order to make the archon elections work for them).0 likes
-
•Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms? They certainly made Athens a lot more democratic than it had been but in terms of how democratic they were in todays views, not very. Whilst the reforms were in a sense democratic (despite the class divisions) they were only relevant, and strictly limited to, males with Athenian citizenship. Therefore all other groups (women, slaves, foreigners) in Athens would have had no more political and social rights than they had had before. Can reforms that don't even take into account such a large proportion of society even be considered democratic? •Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history? I agree with most of the posts on here so far, tyrants are generally given a bad press but Peisistratus maintained Solon's reforms and through his encouragement of arts and culture, Athens appears to have thrived under his rule. •Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis? By this time Athens had established itself as a different kind of polis as it was known to be a centre for culture and learning. However I think it is difficult to assess the thoughts of an Athenian at this date as most of the sources we have are writing after this period (aristotle, herodotus, xenophon, thucydides) and so they naturally praise how radical and brilliant the Athenian democracy was in comparison to other poleis as was famed in their time to have a successful political system.0 likes
-
*Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis?* * *It is hard to answer this question as we cannot know for certain how an Athenian in the 520s would have felt towards the political system due to sources being written at a later date etc, another thing to consider is that there was still a hierarchy within the community which may have manipulated ones opinion, for instance, the thetes may have felt differently to the pentacosiomedimnoi, the well-travelled to the non-travelled. However, I wouldn't be surprised if an Athenian citizen in 520s BC did consider themselves in a different, more advanced politcal system, afterall Athens was the leading polis at the time, other poleis would not have hesitated to mould themselves from the Athenian politcal system, which may have made Athenians feel like they were the innovators of new politics. Whatsmore, Solon left himself a legacy, Aristotle described him as 'the people's champion', and modern sources remember him as 'scrupulous and fair-minded', therefore Athenians may have believed that due to Solon and his reforms, Athens was in a far superior position to other poleis politically, almost like Winston Churchill and his effect on the UK (It may be for different reasons but that pride and patriotism is still there. Not entirely confident of this analogy but thought I'd throw it out there). There are certain aspects however which point towards Athens being no different to other poleis, for example, being ruled by one leader/tyrant that was Peisistratus, but whether or not Athenians of the day noticed this is impossible to tell.0 likes
-
*1) Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms?* Perhaps a better question might be ‘just how good a basis for democracy were Solon’s reforms?’, this being because Solon’s reforms were not what might be understood as ‘demokratia’; equality was not established amongst the social classes at this point (if it ever was). Rather, Solon’s reforms were branded with ‘eunomia’ – more synonymous with the term ‘fair’ than ‘equal’ – the lower class did not have access to offices, for example. Solon did not establish a democratic system, but rather created a fair basis or foundation, upon which democracy might have a chance to stand. *2) Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history?* With regard to ‘tyrants’, it is important to cast aside the contemporary connotations so negatively associated with the word. As we saw in the lecture, there was much development in Athens under the rule of Peisistratus; the agora and the acropolis were elaborated and expanded upon, and so too was the Panathenaea created. Herodotus claims that Peisistratus governed ‘in accordance with custom’ and kept much of the magistracies in place, nor indeed did he change the laws (Histories 1.57-59). This would suggest that Peisistratus’ tyrannical rule was neither overly radical nor oppressive. Peisistratus, therefore, was probably beneficial rather than harmful in the narrative of Athens’ slow move towards democracy; Herodotus praises him in the fact that he ‘adorned the city well and beautifully’, after all.0 likes
-
1) Insofar as we view the reforms of solon as giving more political power to a broader base of people they are "more" democratic than before. A basic prequisite of a democratic state is the ability to have equal access before the law and from that perspective it was certainly improved from this point of view. While there still were offices you could only run for in a formal sense if you were part of the right wealth class, the emphasis on this may well be over-stated. Even in "proper" democracy later on these barriers effectively existed in terms of being able to progress - so the difference is largely one of semantics here. This is not of course to say that Solon intended Democracy as later manifested in Athens, only that he intended a political system with broader access than had existed up until that time. 2) So there are really 2 ways to judge this depending on your value set. Through a modern prism of thought Democracy as an inherent good then obviously he was a bad thing. He intentionally set back the ability for self-ownership of political decisions and maintained a tight control on power even if he did make concessions in the role of Archon. On the other-hand if we want to assess the build-up of Athenian hegemony as the ultimate "good" for Athens - then his reforms were probably incredibly useful. He built up Athens architectually certainly, and kept stability for an extended period of time in what would otherwise have probably been volatile political infighting as was the case before his third attempt at rule. That stability no doubt put Athens in a necessary position to be able to dominate the local area and eventually expand further once democracy took hold - partly through the cultural pull of the large festivals initiated. 3)Realistically we probably can't tell. The literary out-put of Athens is minimal and the system is certainly not radically othered in the same way that the Spartan politcal system was othered in Herodotus and their poetry directly characterises themselves as explicitly martial. But even on the lower level it's unclear how much the formal reforms giving some more people access to offices like Archon would actually play on the minds of people who had no realistic chance of achieving that office.0 likes
-
1. As most people have already mentioned, Solon's reforms did not provide the widespread equality (largely in terms of access to top offices and councils, such as the Areopagus) we might associate with 'democracy', however as Eliot pointed out he definitely improved the system to become/more / democratic. I think a more pressing question regarding the reforms is how democratic could they have been at that point in time? In such an aristocratic society, would they be so willing to share the power with the lower classes? However, the very fact that Solon was voted in with absolute power suggests that Athenians recognised that radical change was desperately needed, so perhaps there was some way he could make the system more democratic than he did. 2. It is difficult to assess whether a force is "beneficial" or "harmful" in any history, particularly concerning this dynamic time period, where opinions change radically over short time periods. For example, Peisistratus, or his son, attempted (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not) to set a precedent of familial succession with the archon role. Whereas this may first appear harmful to Athens as this is a very "undemocratic" idea, Hippias (Peisistratus' son) became known as an infamous tyrant, and his expulsion from Athens was widely remembered as part of their democratic tradition (along with Harmodius and Aristogeiton) and possibly could therefore be viewed as a beneficial force, in terms of the long run. 3. I do not know much about the other states at the time, but from reading other people's replies what seems to be agreed on is that the average Athenian citizen probably would not have seen themselves in a radically different political system - but they were probably acknowledging and deciding that theirs was becoming better than others, with the excitement over Solon's reforms we see and the idea that Peisistratus woke the "men of the hills" in later sources suggesting there was a lot of political buzz around Athens. Adding onto this that there was a lot of building work also going on at the time, perhaps Athenian citizens actually living in or around the city may have been of the opinion that their political system was much better, and getting much better, than others'. However, I am not sure how far this excitement would have travelled, to those citizens living further away.0 likes
-
Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history? It is interesting that many scholars take the approach that hoi tyrannoi, which made an emergence into the Greek world in the 8th century BC, were a growing reflection of 'people power'. (Fleck, R. & Hanssen, A. 2013 ‘How Tyranny Paved the Way to Democracy: The Democratic Transition in Ancient Greece’ in Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 389-416 – one such example). It is often assumed that, with the growing development of some sort of 'hoplite class', impoverished individuals forced sympathetic individuals into a position of total control in order to gain representation. However this is simply not the case. In the vast majority of tyrant stories (i.e. at Hdt. V.92.1), there is a strong correlation between individuals acquiring foreign forces before illegally seizing the state by subversion. These tyrants then and only after their seizure of power, commonly gained popularity through redistributing aristocratic land holdings. Furthermore a hoplite tomb dating to the 8th century (Courbin, P. 1957. 'Une tombe geomctrique d'Argos' in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellinique, Vol.81, pp. 322-386.) shows how the very first hoplites were in fact aristocrats – as supported by the gold found in the tomb. As Snodgrass (Snodgrass, A.M. 1965. 'The Hoplite Reform and History' in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol.85, pp.110-122. ) has convincingly argued, farmers would not have had the time (nor the money to afford the armour!) to leave their work in order to train as a hoplite and the early ceramic record shows hoplite armour being used in individual combat i.e. the phalanx had not yet been invented. What does this have to do with Peisistratus? Merely to affirm, he, like so many other ambitious Greek individuals saw an opportunity for power and took it. His building programme was nothing more than a 'bread and circuses' edict designed to justify his rule ad hoc. He was neither a beneficial or harmful force, just an inevitability (as in so many other Greek communities) of the individual pursuit for kleos which pervaded the ideology of the elite. His actions were not a reflection of a developing 'democracy' in Athens.0 likes
-
1) I do not think that Solon's reforms were democratic. There was a class system implemented in the reforms, and while those in the lower classes were given slightly more rights, it was those in the richest parts of society that were given the most power i.e. to be archon. The reforms themselves were not designed to be democratic,/demokratia/ did not exist as a concept in the time of Solon. The reforms were fair but not equal,/eunomia /not / isonomia/. As such the reforms were oligarchgic in nature. 2) Peisistratus was beneficial for the city. It's very easy for a modern scholar to associate the word tyrant with a cruel dictator, when in fact in the ancient world tyrant applied more to a sovereign or ruler. Peisistratus was not a democratic ruler but he paved the way for institutions in Athens that would both fuel and assist democracy in Athens such as the agora and the Panathenaic festival. 3) Athens would not have seen itself as different to the other poleis. In the 520s BC Athens was still ruled by tyranny like many other poleis. It might have seen itself as different in terms of it was a fair city but it would not have been radically different in terms of its political structure.0 likes
-
The question relating to Peisistratus is particularly interesting. As other people have mentioned, there are lots of ways to look on his actions as both harmful and beneficial for Athens. I completely agree. I think you have to look at his impact on art and culture and it's importance in terms of its creation of the right conditions and atmosphere in which new ways of intellectual thought could prosper in the period following. The way in which Peisistratus elaborated the Athenian agora appears to be a major factor in the development of democracy as well.0 likes
-
*Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms?* They were not democratic, they were based on a concept of 'fairness' that sought to make sure Athenian society functioned according to a sense of 'the natural order of things'. *Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history?* He was entirely beneficial. He created the cultural infrastructure that underpinned the rest of Classical and Late Antique Athenian history, both physically with his initiation of a range of building projects and culturally with the establishment of a number of events that came to shape Athenian public life. When looking at the great deal Peisistratus was able to get done in the time he was in office, could it be that Athens would have had an even richer artistic and architectural heritage had democracy not come about? I would cite the cultural flourishments under both Augustus and Nero as being evidence that this may have been the case. *Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis?* No. Although the Athenian system was perhaps organised slightly differently it wasn't particularly manifest it the day to day life of the ordinary citizen, culturally or otherwise.0 likes
-
1) Solon's reforms were not democratic, but they were fair, these reforms protected the poorest citizens giving them rights, such as freedom from bondage, this gave them a certain quality of life and the protection under the law which they required. At the same time Solon's reforms allowed the wealthy citizens, those who had power and were unlikely to accept a dramatic shift in the status quo, to keep their place at the top of society. It was a matter of practicality, Solon was not instructed to bring about a democratic society and I do not see why he as an aristocrat would really wish to create one. Is there any reason that Solon would not fear a democracy? He had nothing to gain by it and he and his family could actually suffer if one were to be established. Furthermore if we look at the context of wider Greece at this time we find that tyrants rose on the back of the support of the poorest, would Solon not have feared that one would have risen in the same way if the masses were given the power to have a say in government?0 likes
-
1. I don’t think they were actually very democratic. I think Solon’s reforms were necessary for his times, especially the removal of debt-bondage. 2. He seems to have ruled well down to his death in 527 BC, even though his means of obtaining power was not ‘democratic’. 3. I think that with the increasingly developed nature of Athenian identity and the increase in the city’s splendour (Acropolis, littered with votives, etc.) would have had a profound effect on what the Athenians thought of themselves as a polis, but if they thought that their political system was radically different I do not know.0 likes
-
*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.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
-
*Just how democratic were Solon’s reforms?* * *Though hailed a champion of democracy, Solon's reforms themselves weren't inherently democratic by any means. The wealth-based class system was retained, if remoulded, as were the exclusive offices and priesthoods held by the aristocracy. To dismiss the reforms as undemocratic is limiting however; they were contributors and sparks for the greater social change to come, and they had a positive effect on the lives of the poor masses (particularly with regard to debt bondage). No, they didn't give the everyman a vote and share in government, but given the context they were positive changes. *Do you see Peisistratus as a harmful or beneficial force in Athens’ history?* I agree with what the majority have been saying on this question - though a tyrant and inherently a dangerous figure ideologically, the Agora and other important buildings can be credited to him. The Agora being perhaps the most important in the context of this module given it was a democratic hub later. *Would an Athenian citizen in 520s BC have considered themselves in a radically different political system to other Greek poleis?* * * With tyranny still a threat and an undoubtably patchy knowledge of how other Poleis were run in detail, it is difficult to assume a definite sense of individuality in the political spectrum of ancient Greece. The Athenian would likely have felt the cultural benefits that their system accomodated and allowed to thrive, but I imagine this would be the only palpable individuality the average Athenian would have felt societally. Later writers acknowledge the 6th century Athenian politics as important but this opinion is loaded with hindsight. Things maybe not have seemed so radical at the time.0 likes
-
As most people have already stated, though Stolons reforms were not particularly democratic, they were what was considered a "fair" improvement for the lower classes of society. It definitely marked a step towards a more democratic and egalitarian society. However since most of the power was reserved for the nobility, his reforms would not classify as "democratic".0 likes
-
At least in the modern sense, Solon's reforms were not truly democratic. His division of the Athenian populace into four groups meant that citizens did not participate as political equals. Additionally, there were still extensive restrictions on who could become a citizen, which further deepens the sense of political inequality in the period. I don't think Athenian citizens would fundamentally have considered themselves to be in a radically different political system from neighbouring poleis. While it's true that Solon had public support when he came into office and he encouraged reforms that enabled Athenian citizens to have a greater say in government, ultimately an all-powerful ruler still presided over Athens. There seem to have been few mechanisms to ensure that such rulers were accountable to the people, for example.0 likes