Respond with your thoughts and ideas to the following key questions:
1. To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to
Athens?
2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at
Athens?
3. Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic?
Democracy and Imperialism Discussion Forum 2013-4
Democracy and Imperialism Discussion Forum 2013-4
Discussion of Term 1 Lecture 4 Persian Wars: Key Questions
You need to be logged in to post in this topic.
-
0 likes
-
1. To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to Athens? There were some obvious long-term benefits that stemmed as a result of the Greek sucess in the Persian Wars, particularly for Athens. Having such an influential role in the Battles, Athens saw fit to reap the rewards from other poleis'. The biggest question here is defining 'long-term' though; in the immediate short term, the city itself was left devastated, economically and physically. If we are just to consider these factors then, Athens didn't benefit in the short term, so the only benefits Athens could have had were long-term, if any. Although Athens were able to solidfy themselves as the central power in Attica, if not the whole of Greece, eventually though, they succumbed to Sparta in the Pelloponesian Wars, not too long after the conclusion of the Persian invasion. Therefore, I don't believe that Athens had any particularly major long-term benefits, rather some minor, mid-term benefits. 2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens? If you subscribe to the theory that Athens' democracy was full-fledged in the early 5th century, then the Persian Wars certainly demonstrated the structural weaknesses of democracy, and how easy it was to fall back onto the older, more familiar, aristocratic systems. In particular, the figure of Themistocles showed how the Athenian citizen body needed an individual to rely on; obviously in war situations, then strong military generals are required, but from Herodotus, we are given the impression that Themistocles was 'running the show' behind the scenes, even when another was 'officially' in charge. In this sense then, Themistocles does not come across as an ideal democratic character, and this is the 'face of Athens' during this period of time. 3. Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic? At the moment, I don't know enough about this area, but Athens' democracy may not have been very pure anyway, combining aspects of an oligarchic and democratic system to form a scheme that works for the state. If you consider someone like Cleisthenes, he came from an Aristocratic family, and although he introduced 'democratic' concepts, his personal interests would've been selfish, i.e. in the interests of the rich. However, this does not necessaily imply Imperialism. If we also consider the ever-fluctuating political systems of Athens over this period, it's hardly surprising that democracy eventually led to an Athenian Empire, but whether it was innately linked into the creation of Athens' democracy is harder to answer, and as I said, I'm not particularly sure.0 likes
-
*To what extent did the Persian Wars only bring long-term benefits? * The Persian wars had considerably more long-term benefits for Athens than short-term. The immediate reaction to the Persian invasion was to seek revenge and refrain from repairing their city until they had achieved this, as recorded in the Oath of Plataea. Following the battle of Salamis the Athenians created the Delian League and as a result gained regular revenue whilst expanding their power. This wealth and influence allowed them to re-build over time the destroyed sanctuaries. They also produced statues and monuments in the sanctuary at Delphi to commemorate their victory. In the long-term the Persian Wars consolidated Athens’ image by proving how successfully they could overcome an attack and how much of a formidable power they were. *What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens?* Athens strongly opposed the Persians as they represented tyranny and imperialism whilst Athens viewed itself as being governed by a fairer system government. In addition the Persians had secured the support of Hippias, Athens' exiled tyrant, which gave Athens all the more reason to oppose tyranny. However in order to gain enough support and resources to conquer the Persians Athens joined the other Greeks together in first the Hellenic League and then the Delian League. The latter essentially developed into an Athenian Empire whilst Athens evolved into a tyrannical force bullying other cities into giving them revenue and resources. Despite Athens trying to celebrate their fair and equal government they were governing others with tyranny. Therefore these wars ultimately undermined their fair democratic ideas as they were not projecting them outside of Athens. *Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic? * Athens may have naturally been imperialistic however they were not alone. The Peloponnesian League was initially meant to be a defensive alliance but gradually progressed into a means for Sparta to increase its influence over allies. In addition the Persian wars began as a result of the Ionian’s desire to break away from the Persian Empire which emphasises the extent of Persian control as Ionia tried and failed to leave for several years. Therefore the fact that the Delian League eventually became the beginnings of an Athenian Empire, shows that perhaps many states at this time had an imperialistic tendency and it was not just Athens.0 likes
-
1. The extent to which Athens capitalised on the Persian wars is great, and in opportunities derived from this Athens positioned itself for the long term. The ATL could be one example of their long-term approach after the second invasion, also the manner in which they rebuilt, in particular the Acropolis. Athenian success in the wars enabled it to gain hegemony of the Greeks and added to its pre-eminence. 2. By supporting non-democratic states which would be useful in assisting against Athens 3. So far, I think yes. But this view might change. I think the Athenians were exultant at their overwhelming successes and good fortune during the course of the Persian wars and that the government afterwards saw an opportunity to create an empire consisting of overseas dependants. I believe they had this view.0 likes
-
1. To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to Athens? The Persians destroying Athens and burning it to the ground can be seen as having more of a positive effect on the Athenians rather than a damaging one as it motivated them to seek revenge on the Persians and swearing not to rebuild their city until they had done exactly this (Oath of Plataea). So the acropolis, their central hub, remained in ruins and must have brought some initial disruptions e.g. how did this affect the Panathenaic way when the temple of Athena Polias was in ruins for a good 40 years. However, I think that the Persian Wars did have a long – term benefit it that it strengthened the democracy; the survived and came out better – the power of the lower classes was strengthened and overall there was a strengthening of feeling liberated. 2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens? In my opinion, I do not think that the Persian wars really undermined democracy at Athens at all. Especially after the first invasion, it seems as if life carried on as normal despite the fact that the city was in ruins and in fact the wars strengthened them as a whole because they all were focused on seeking revenge against the Persians (who had allied with Hippias, further pushing the Athenians away from wanting to go back to being under tyrant rule). On the other hand, you could argue that there was focus on military during the period of the Persian wars and nothing was advancing democratically. 3. Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic? I’m not too sure but right now I would say yes, Athens’ democracy was naturally imperialistic but this opinion could change and I think Thucydides in saying that the goal of the League was to ‘avenge the wrongs they suffered by ravaging the territory of the king’ does give the impression that the Athenians were on the offensive and wanting to gain territorial acquisition.0 likes
-
*To what extent did the Persian Wars only bring long-term benefits? *It is true that there was a short-term benefit of the Persian Wars in the form of commemorative architecture. However, most of the benefits of these wars were clearly long-term, such as the renewed confidence in the power of democracy and the common man to take part in it, as well as the growth of a strong Athenian navy. So there were not/only/ long-term benefits. *What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens?*Democracy began to be undermined as a result of these wars when there was dispute about who 'won' at Salamis and Plataea: rich claimant individuals added to the commemorations at Delphi and Olympia to try to claim the glory of having 'won' the battle for the Greeks. This may back up the value of freedom, but in terms of Athenian democracy this is not supportive action, but rather demonstrative of a division amongst the people, and of disloyalty to the people's/shared/ glory. Also, the destruction of the temples on the Acropolis was left in this state as a constant reminder...but of what? Why was such a democratic and fundamentally crucial space in Athens left in disrepair rather than hurriedly patched up? *Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic? *At this point I can see the natural connection between Athens' competitive spirit and the desire to expand into an empire, especially to make use of the improved navy and largely-improved sense of identity each citizen had by now, as an Athenian victor.0 likes
-
/*1.) To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to Athens?*/ Wars are never entirely beneficial to everyone – the very nature of them determines that there will inevitably some degree of loss and disadvantage, even to the overall victor. However, the Persian wars were not without advantage to the Athenians. The Battle of Marathon, for example, became the battle that the Athenians could ever claim was their great military victory, and went a long way towards establishing themselves as a leading military power in mainland Greece. Athens, though, did suffer the destruction of the acropolis, and suffered in general as the entire city was sacked by the Persians. Whilst Athens used this establishment of military power, in Attica and Greece in general, to their advantage and founded the Delian League, which eventually morphed into the Athenian empire, this is clearly a ‘long-term’ benefit, yet it is arguably outweighed by the fact that it cost them the destruction of their city (if only a temporary destruction). /*2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens?*/ Democracy in Athens itself does not seem to have been hugely affected by the Persian wars, indeed it is rather the Peloponnesian wars that had a much great effect on Athenian democracy. What is of note, however, is that following the Persian wars and the founding of the Delian League, a purportedly ‘democratic’ state governed over the other ‘league’ members with a decidedly tyrannical hand. /*3. Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic?*/ Perhaps Athens was not in itself naturally imperialistic, but rather there was a power-struggle through-out Greece at the time, as there were many powerful poleis competing against one another. Athens were in a strong position militarily and economically, they saw themselves as able to take control and perhaps even saw themselves as a beneficial force at first. Nonetheless, Thucydides sums it up well – they sought to control the weak, as they were strong: “We have done nothing surprising, nothing contrary to human nature, if we accepted leadership when it was offered and are now unwilling to give it up…it has always been a law of human society that the weak are controlled by the strong” Thucydides 1.760 likes
-
*1. To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to Athens?* The Persians tried twice to destroy Athens, and though the second time they destroyed many of the city's buildings, they never managed to inflict a lethal blow against it. In that respect, and considering how for much of history Athens has been held to be a near utopian society in western thought (in contrast to the views held about the Persians for much of history), Athens definitely seems to have come off better than the Persian Empire. More practically, it gave the Athenians the drive to construct many of their most notable architecture, and fed into their imperialistic ambitions. *2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens?* The Persian wars helped mainly to add emphasis to the Athenian democratic system. The aid given by Athens to the Ionian cities and the Battle of Marathon set up Athenian politics as being directly opposed to the Persian monarchy, making Athenians see themselves as the defenders of this new and improved political system against the expansionistic zeal of the Persian Empire. Later the Battle of Salamis, which was won through not just the efforts of the wealthier sections of Athenian society but through the efforts of the poorest people, showed the undeniable power of even the lowest members of Athenian society. It seems likely that these two victories helped fuel the passion of the average Athenian for democracy, and gave the politicians much in the way of propaganda. *3. Was Athens' democracy naturally imperialistic?* Athenian Democracy, despite being called democracy, was actually in many ways founded on an idea of Athenian racial supremacy. This can be seen in the way only 'pure' Athenians were able to vote, and the complex relationships between Athenians and the foreigners living within Athens. It seems only natural then that they should have an imperialistic attitude towards the rest of the world, given that, by definition, the rest of the world was in some way inferior towards Athens. There is also the idea held by many Athenians that democracy was the best form of government, though to what extent they actually spread democracy rather than just setting up puppet regiemes is less than supportive of this being the primary cause of their imperialism.0 likes
-
1. The long term benefits of the Persian wars allowed Athens to recover from the devasation inflicted by the Persian invaision. With a bold and swift counter attack the Athenian fleet had lead the united Greek armies in clearing the Aegean and the Ionian coast of Persian forces and gaining their empire. The empire allowed the Atheniaans to rebuild both their city and their economy. 3. My problem with the question is the use of the word "Naturally". Athens had been highly militaristic in defending its form of governance but the Persian invaision required a strong response and a swift counter caampaign in order to achieve some kind of security for the Athenians and other greek cities. I would say that the Athenian demos was imperialistic by neccessity rather than it was naturally imperialistic.0 likes
-
There was some immediate success in the short term - a lot of celebratory architecture had popped up to celebrate victory over the Persians at Marathon. Following this, when the city was destroyed, there was a period of 40 years where Athens was in ruin. If the Acropolis was in ruin, it meant that the 'heartbeat' of the Athenian democracy was missing during this period, which would have been detrimental to Athens. The long term benefits were that they could rebuild after their success over the Persians - with victory and democracy at the forefront of their minds. Perhaps their greatest success was the fact they overcame the greatest force in the world at the time - the propaganda of victory and military prowess allowed the Athenian Empire to develop and gave a sturdy platform for democracy to push on.0 likes
-
1. As most people have pointed out the Persian Wars left mainly long-term benefits for Athens, largely in terms of the Delian League and solidifying itself as a main power within the Greek states. However it would be difficult for any short-term benefits, other than satisfaction in having beaten the Persians, to have been reaped as the sacking of the city would have meant it was hard for Athens to find many immediate advantages in the situation. 2. Arguably the Persian Wars did very little to undermine democracy actually at Athens, and in fact strengthened it in many ways, particularly in a cultural context, as the lower classes had a more important role in the Battle of Salamis particularly, as they rowed the boats, and as a "democracy" they had defeated a distinctly undemocratic society. However, it could also be argued that the rising significance of individuals within the system was undemocratic. But largely I believe that the Persian Wars mainly strengthened the ideals of democracy and liberty at Athens. However I also believe that it could be argued that the impact of the Persian Wars (rather than the Persian Wars themselves), especially in terms of the Delian League becoming the Athenian Empire, undermined the overall ideals of democracy of Athens - however whether it undermined democracy/at/ Athens is more ambiguous in this respect. I do also think it is important to recognise that the democracy of the fourth century may have allowed for Athens as a whole to rule over other states like an autocracy if you look at it in terms of simply a way of governing its own people, and to make them stronger, and not necessarily as a way to make other places stronger. 3. I'm really not confident on this point, though I think I've sort of addressed part of it above.0 likes
-
#1 and #2: Not sure if this question means "only long-term benefits" or "only for Athens". Going to assume the latter, simply because having your city razed and moving your entire people onto a fleet can hardly be considered beneficial so I don't see there being much of a question (although Marathon might have some benefits). Certainly the Persian Wars and the behaviour of Sparta's generals during them allowed the Athenians to rise to hegemony and form the Delian League. Imperial politics certainly contributed to the creation of pay for magistrates and jurors, arguably creating a more democratic Athens. Since by this point all the potential benefits of oligarchy or tyranny over democracy were no longer present in Athens anyway, this could only be a good thing. The Persian Wars also created some of Athens' first great generals - Miltiades and Themistocles - and in doing so gave the city some experience in dealing with those whose power and success made them a threat to democratic values. Miltiades' desire (and failure) to be placed most prominently in artwork depicting the battle of Marathon is a good example, and both he and Themistocles were ostracised during their careers as Athens got used to enacting its democratic mechanisms against those who had the potential to form a tyranny or stir up resentment among other citizens. #3: Thucydides identifies two traits in Athenian democracy - daring and / eros/, in this case desire for things far-off - which made it naturally imperialistic. Certainly for him it was. I think the rapid expansion of Athens' sphere of influence, which attempted to control others from very early after the establishment of a democratic system, is testament to the possession of inherent traits motivating imperialism. Athens' early actions to control places like Salamis suggest a natural willingness to take risks in the hope of gain, traits which culminate in the Sicilian Expedition during the Peleponessian War. Every imperial decision made by the Athenian Assembly, even when responding to the encouragement of demagogues, ultimately display a desire on the part of the democratic body to expand the city's power. Whether this was due to mob mentality or civic pride, it caused the Athenian people to exemplify these two traits Thucydides sees as most Athenian.0 likes
-
2. The Persian wars can be seen as both promoting and undermining their democracy. To the people of Athens it was largely reinforcing their newly developed democracy as Athens set themselves up as directly opposing the monarchy that was Persia. The involvement of every strata of society in the battle of Salamis further promoted the idea of equality and inclusion and could be seen as empowering those from the lowest classes. In the past those from the lowest classes would have no impact on the future of their state but now they could have direct involvement, not only through the political system but through direct activity within the Persian war. This could be seen as strengthening Athenian democracy for its citizens as they could feel like they had a form of power for the first time. However, from the perspective of an outsider the democracy of Athens could be seen as undermined by the creation of the Delian League and the tyrannical role that Athens took within it. Thucydides describes Athens as being 'severe and exacting' and sets out the large sums of money that other members of the league had to pay to Athens which left them unable to rebel. Whilst democracy was benefitting the citizens of Athens, other states were severely restricted by Athens hegemony making their democratic system almost seem hypocritical. 3. The democracy of Athens can be seen as naturally imperialistic because the fundamental prerequisite of an imperial state is the ideology of superiority which Athens repeatedly demonstrated. Throughout history states have created empires because they believe that they are superior, whether it be for their political system or for ethnic superiority, and because of this it seems natural or even necessary to dominate other states or peoples. Athens had created a new system of governance in their democracy which they would put forward more and more as the ultimate political system. With this mind set it can be seen as very natural that they would not only want to spread the reach of democracy but that they would also feel that they had a right to do so. One need only consider the world today in which the west continuoulsy intervenes in the middle east to try and promote democracy to understand this.0 likes
-
2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens? I think the Persian wars superficially strengthened the democracy while undermining its basic ideals. Central to this argument is the Delian League. Obviously the creation of a treasury at Athen's disposal, and eventually tributes to the city itself, benefitted the city financially and allowed it to become the influential city it is known as today. This fame even perhaps spread knowledge and the popularity of democracy as a political system, leading to many other cities taking on a form of democracy for their government. Yet, despite empowering the city, the rise of Athens as a result of the Persian wars was negative for its fundamental ideals. At the heart of Athenian democracy was isonomia, all equal before the law. Subjugating other nations was a a step towards contradicting this ideal. As Perikles' enemies said, according to Plutarch "The Greeks must consider this an unendurable insult... When they see that we forcibly exact contributions and use the money to beautify the city". However, perhaps they only considered these ideals in relation to themselves, and not other cities, as they did not include women, slaves and foreigners in their own politics. Or they simply ignored the contradiction, such as Perikles: "It doesn't matter how we use the money, provided the war is fought for them". Maybe these ideals were not deeply ingrained in the first place, and the hierarchical system in Athens was more important than her facade of isonomia. As the Athenian Thucydides puts it, "It has always been a law of human society that the weak are governed by the strong". This makes me think of a quote from Animal Farm; to change it to fit this example, it seems the attitude in Athens was: All are equal before the law, but some are more equal than others. Indeed, all men were equal before the law, but all men were not equal. Thus, perhaps, the Delian League can be justified, but I think this comes dangerously close to the opposite of athenian ideals, as Perikles' opponents attempted to show.0 likes
-
In this post <> Thomas Sinden wrote: > 1. To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to > Athens? > There were some obvious long-term benefits that stemmed as a result of > the Greek sucess in the Persian Wars, particularly for Athens. Having such > an influential role in the Battles, Athens saw fit to reap the rewards from > other poleis'. The biggest question here is defining 'long-term' though; in > the immediate short term, the city itself was left devastated, economically > and physically. If we are just to consider these factors then,*Athens didn't > benefit in the short term*, so the only benefits Athens could have had were > long-term, if any. Although Athens were able to solidfy themselves as the > central power in Attica, if not the whole of Greece, eventually though, they > succumbed to Sparta in the Pelloponesian Wars, not too long after the > conclusion of the Persian invasion. Therefore, I don't believe that Athens > had any particularly major long-term benefits, rather some minor, mid-term > benefits. > > 2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at > Athens? > If you subscribe to the theory that Athens' democracy was full-fledged in > the early 5th century, then the Persian Wars certainly demonstrated the > structural weaknesses of democracy, and how easy it was to fall back onto > the older, more familiar, aristocratic systems. In particular, the figure of > Themistocles showed how the Athenian citizen body needed an individual to > rely on; obviously in war situations, then strong military generals are > required, but from Herodotus, we are given the impression that Themistocles > was 'running the show' behind the scenes, even when another was 'officially' > in charge.*In this sense then, Themistocles does not come across as an ideal > democratic character, and this is the 'face of Athens' during this period of > time.* > > 3. Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic? > At the moment, I don't know enough about this area, but Athens' democracy > may not have been very pure anyway, combining aspects of an oligarchic and > democratic system to form a scheme that works for the state. If you consider > someone like Cleisthenes, he came from an Aristocratic family, and although > he introduced 'democratic' concepts, his personal interests would've been > selfish, i.e. in the interests of the rich. However, this does not > necessaily imply Imperialism. If we also consider the ever-fluctuating > political systems of Athens over this period, it's hardly surprising that > democracy eventually led to an Athenian Empire, but whether it was innately > linked into the creation of Athens' democracy is harder to answer, and as I > said, I'm not particularly sure. > > Not sure I agree with everything here Tom, mainly with regard to your second reply. The Athenians recognised that talent and ability should influence access to the position of strategoi, which is why the position was never opened up to the lot but kept within the sphere of voting. Themistocles was not a ‘lone’ individual in this regard; Pericles was allowed to dictate foreign policy towards the end of the 5th century B.C precisely because of his leadership qualities (Dover, K.J. 1960, ‘ΔΕΚΑΤΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΣ’ in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 80, pp. 61-77). In reality it is always best to have solid leadership when carrying out military campaigns, rather than a wavering demos who, like in 406 B.C. would vote to kill the victorious generals of Arginusae, and then later regret the decision. This is not a ‘failing’ of democracy; how many of us could plan a successful invasion of Iraq? With regard to the first point, there were indeed some obvious short-term benefits to Athens’ victory. Athens gained access to Xerxes’ booty (mentioned in Herodotus, who makes a lot of it) and the victory would allow the city to propagate its own propaganda for having saved Hellas. This would form the spring board for her Delian league and later blatant imperialism. Obviously these factors were, as you say, mitigated by the city’s ruin. My own opinion on point three is that no state can be ‘naturally’ described as anything; political constitutions change on a daily basis due to either a consciousness of the people or the leaders who wield power. Athenian democracy may have been imperialistic in the mid-late 5th century B.C; was it in the 4th, the 6th? If not then we would have to reject any ‘naturalistic’ and inevitable model of connecting Athens with imperialism.0 likes
-
1. To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to Athens? I would argue that the Persian wars also brought some short term benefits to Athens, obviously the city was ruined after the wars but it wasn't long before Kimon began rebuilding. Very shortly after the wars Athens had rebuilt their walls and massively improved their water supply among other things. Athenian Imperialism benefited shortly after the wars with the setting up of the Delian league and recognition of Athenian dominance and naval power. 2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens? I dont think the wars did undermine democracy in Athens, it certainly would have done had the Persians been successful, but if anything these wars strengthened democracy. 3. Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic? Yes to some extent, the fact that only true Athenian citizens could participate shows their natural imperialistic side. The Delian league which was meant to be democratic amongst the greek city states ultimately was under the thumb of the Athenians. They wanted to show their dominance and hence even their democracy was imperialistic because they flaunted it and believed they were right and everyone else was wrong.0 likes
-
*1. To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to Athens?* The Persian Wars definitely brought long-term benefits to Athens with the main reason being the setting up of the Delian League. This allowed them to get lots of money with other cities forced to pay tribute to Athens. Despite the fact that the city was left devastated in the short-term, the long-term benefits made the wars worthwhile. However, were the benefits 'only' for Athens? It would appear that Persia gained nothing from the Persian Wars; politically it was no longer on the scene and had lost its money and army. However, our sources are of course Athenian and therefore are extremely Athenocentric and biased.0 likes
-
3. Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic? Yes, a substantial amount of money is needed to fund democracy in order to maintain a society in which every man has the same privileges to give every man the same luxuries, such as going to the theatre. Therefore their democracy relied on tributes from other poleis to support it so subjecting other cities, in other words, imperialism can been seen as a by-product of democracy. There are other examples throughout history of democracies who have resorted to imperialism in order to expand their treasury such as 20th century Britain so it seems that imperialism is a fairly natural action for democracies to take.0 likes
-
1) The Persian wars did bring long term benefits to Athens, it gave the Athenians the opportunity to assert their dominance in Greece, their quest for revenge in the Oath of Plataea also helped them in the long term as other cities began to follow Athens eventually resulting in their expanding empire which helped fund democracy. 2) The Persian wars did not undermine democracy in Athens, the triump at Marathon would have solidified belief in that the Athenians and their democracy were superior to everyone else. Moreover the Battle of Salamis was a great triumph for those who were poor and showed that every citizen had power and say. 3) Athens' democracy was not imperialistic within Athens itself, it was in relation to the 'other' when Athens was imperialistic. For example its empire can be seen as imperialistic but it enhanced the lives of the citizens of Athens through tribute. Moreover both mother and father had to be Athenian in order to gain citizenship so this again is imperialist when outside of Athenian life but democratic within its own city walls.0 likes
-
1. To what extent did the Persian wars only bring long-term benefits to Athens? The wars brought some significant damage to the city and certainly a lot of Athenians died in fight, so ibviosuly there were some short-term losses alongside long-term benefits. 2. What role did the Persian wars play in undermining the democracy at Athens? That's an interesting question, since most often people emphasise the positive role of Persian Wars for e development of Athenian democracy. Critical situations show a need for a strong leader, which must have created a tension with the democratic principles. 3. Was Athens’ democracy naturally imperialistic? It appears that yea, it was. It is a theme often appearing in the Athenina drama to depict demos as a tyrannical power or Athens as a democratic tyrant city, e.g. in Aristophanes' Knights or Euripides' Suppiant Women.0 likes