We think that democracy is good and empires bad. But Athens was both an aggressive and oppressive imperial city and the most democratic city in the world. And, in fact, in Athens the more democratic you were the more imperialistic you were. How could that be?

I. From Delian League to Athenian Empire

The Persian threat

The Persian Wars were over. The Greeks had defeated Xerxes' armada at the battle of Salamis in 480; in 479 they had defeated the land invasion force at the battle of Plataea. But the conflict between the Greeks and Persians was not over. The Persians still ruled the Greeks of Ionia. This particularly bothered the Athenians, who considered themselves more closely related to the Ionians than did the largely Dorian peoples of the Peloponnesus. And so the Spartans, who were always watching their backs in case the helots revolted, were willing to let the Athenians take over the leadership of the Greek alliance. Now that alliance had a new goal: freeing the Ionian Greeks from Persian rule.

The Delian League

The Athenians and those Greeks worried about the Persian threat, largely the Greeks of the islands in the Aegean Sea and the cities on the coast of Ionia, formed an alliance that came to be known as the Delian League, because the league's funds were stored on the island of Delos. Other cities, especially Sparta and her allies in the Peloponnesus, did not join. While all cities in the league had a vote in the league council, the Athenians effectively controlled it from the outset. Initially the cities entered the league voluntarily; many had reason to fear the Persians; others had reason to hope aggressive action would lead to conquest, plunder, and revenge for past wrongs committed by the Persians. Most of the cities were to pay tribute to the alliance treasury, which was controlled by Athens; a few of the more powerful poleis were to provide ships for the league navy.

From allies to subjects

Three major steps mark the transformation of a voluntary alliance against the Persians into an involuntary empire led by, and serving the advantage of, Athens.

Reduction of Persian threat

Under Cimon, the League won a number of victories, culminating in the battle of the Eurymedon river in 467, where they decisively defeated a Persian army and fleet. Around 450, most scholars believe, the Delian league had made a peace treaty with the Persians, and freed the Greeks of Ionia. So there was little purpose for the league--except to enrich Athens.

Transfer of the treasury

In 454, citing the danger of piracy or a Persian raid, the Athenians transferred the League treasury to Athens. Their story was a thin cover for a power play: the Athenians wanted the money where they could get at it, and they used it to beautify Athens.

Force to subdue rebellion

The allies had sworn to stay in the League forever, and the Athenians held them to this promise, putting down a number of revolts by force. Now it was crystal clear that the Athenians were in charge of a empire, not merely the leading city in an alliance of equals.

II. Politics at Athens

Imperialism and democracy

Athens' power was based on her navy, which was manned largely by poor citizens (unlike the army, which included only those with enough money to buy their hoplite gear). These poor seamen demanded a greater role in running Athens, and they were given a greater role. The empire also brought in much wealth to Athens, some through tribute from the Delian League, some through plunder from military victories. Some of this wealth went to provide pay for public office-holders, a new practice under the "radical democrats" Ephialtes and Pericles. The poor citizens who served in the Athenian navy thus strongly supported the empire which was providing them with wealth. Thus a very free government at home, paradoxically, supported and was supported by an empire abroad that the Athenians themselves would admit was tyrannical.

The major "factions"

"Democrats"	"Conservatives"
Ephialtes; Pericles	Cimon
Pro-empire	Pro-empire, but a bit less radically
Anti-Spartan	Friendly to Sparta
Radical democrats	More limited democrats

Not all Athenians supported the reforms of Pericles and his friends. Cimon and other more conservative figures were in favor of a more limited empire and more limited democracy; they also hoped to maintain good relations with Sparta, which was becoming increasingly suspicious of Athens' empire. But Pericles and his policies won out.

III. The reforms of Ephialtes and Pericles

Diminish power of the Areopagus council

During the Persian Wars this council, made up of ex-archons, had been very influential. Up until 486 BC the archons had been elected; but from that date they were chosen by lot (though still from an elected short list of the very rich). But Ephialtes' restricted its role to trying murder cases, its most traditional function, making the Athenian Assembly far and away the most important governmental body.

Pay for public office

Under Pericles, all office holders, including the thousands of Athenians who served in the Assembly and the People's Court, were paid. This allowed poor men, who could not otherwise afford to take off work, the opportunity to play a role in politics. Perhaps it was necessary to get enough citizens to attend assembly meetings and man the courts. Athens now had an empire to run, and that took many public officials: only pay could make the positions attractive enough for people to take them.

Citizenship law

Pericles passed a law limiting Athenian citizenship to children to two Athenian parents. This made citizenship appear more valuable to poor citizens, and restricted the aristocratic practice of making marriages with prominent families from other cities. It may have been a reaction to the idea that Athens was becoming too large to function effectively as a city state. Athens' citizen population was normally around 30,000, may have swelled to around 60,000 during the boom years of the mid 5th century.

IV. The radical democracy in action

Basic principles:

Only male citizens (not slaves; women; metics)

Direct

No checks and balances

People power versus stability

On all of these see lecture 10.

Officials

Limited by lot, rotation, collegiality

Most public officials were chosen by a lottery system. Most offices could only be held once (rotation of offices) and many positions were held by boards of officers rather than individuals (collegiality: officials had colleagues with the same power they had). See also lecture 10.

Assembly

Meetings

Meetings began at dawn and normally were over by noon. The Assembly met on a hillside downtown called the Pynx: this was an outdoors meeting, which could be cancelled on account of rain. The quorum for an assembly meeting, that is, the number necessary for official business to take place on certain important matters, was 6000. And it would seem that 6000 was probably close to the regular number of people in attendance; indeed, the hill on which the Assembly met, the Pynx, couldn't hold many more than 6000.

Everyone in attendance had the right to speak or propose or amend a decree, but obviously not everyone could. At any given time in Athens there were perhaps 20 movers and shakers who dominated debate in the Assembly, though other would speak from time to time. Speakers were not supposed to be interrupted by hecklers, but sometimes they were. When a vote needed to be taken, it was usually done by a show of hands which was judged by a special committee of citizens. They would themselves take a vote if they couldn't decide which side had it: it was too inconvenient to count votes. And no doubt votes on most issues were non-controversial.

6000 sounds like an unwieldy number of folks. But the Athenians, of course, were all from the same relatively small city (by our standards), and most in attendance would probably have been acquainted with one another. This, and perhaps a certain amount of respect for the leading figures at the Assembly, apparently allowed things to run relatively smoothly most of the time.

Leaders

The closest ancient Greek expression for our term "politician" is "generals and speakers." This refers to the fact that there were basically two ways you could impress people in the Athenian democracy: military success and public speaking. It also seems that coming from a noble family helped: Pericles was a member of the powerful Alcmaeonid family, whose members included Cleisthenes. Then as now riches didn't hurt. Consider our leading presidential candidates, Al Gore, son of a senator, and George Bush, son of a president and grandson of a senator. Or consider the riches of Steve Forbes, which apparently make him one of Bush's most potent rivals on the Republican side.

Personal leadership was all the more important since the ancient Greeks had no political parties. Pericles, for example, might have a personal following; but he was not, say, a Republican who would be expected to follow the party platform and could expect his fellow Republicans to automatically agree with him.

Powers

Technicially speaking the Assembly could vote only on matters brought to it by the Council of 500, the body set up by Cleisthenes (see lecture 10). But the Assembly could accept, reject, or highly amend these proposals.

Under the radical democracy the Assembly's powers were nearly unlimited. This made for a certain instability. During the Peloponnesian War we'll be reading about soon, for example, the Assembly one day voted to have all the male citizens of a rebellious ally put to death--only to vote the other way the next day. There was no "administration," no President of Prime Minister, to enforce a consistent policy. There was also no constitution to protect basic rights. The Assembly could also vote to change the most fundamental parts of the Athenian system of governemnt. This allowed thugs to pass through measures late in the 5th century which temporarliy abolished the Athenian democracy. The Athenians would have reason to change this system later by setting up more checks on what the assembly could and could not do.

Courts

Democratic justice

Athenian courts are odd to us in many ways. Greek law has in fact had relatively little influence on our own system. (Our system has been heavily influenced by Roman law, which was rather different from the Greek, and by the British common law tradition.) We can understand many of the differences if we keep in mind that the Greeks thought that the courts should be just as democratic as the rest of their government.

1501 jurors!

The Athenians put together huge pools of jurors, the larger juries for the more serious crimes. Large juries are good for at least two reasons. First, the large pool assures that the jury will be a reasonable cross-section of the population: they were therefore bound to be democratic. Second.: You can't bribe that many jurors.

No lawyers!

Sounds good, eh? The Athenians wanted to keep justice in the hands of the people, and so rejected any significant role for legal professionals. Everyone, prosecutor, defendant, and judges/jurors were amateurs. The Greeks had no DA; a citizen had to bring charges against someone if there was going to be any proseuction. Usually this would be the person harmed, naturally enough; in the case of murder the family was under a social obligation to prosecute. If you were charged with a crime, you were expected to defend yourself---though you could have some friends speak on your behalf as well, and, if you were wealthy, you could pay someone to write a speech for you to deliver.

Finally, there were no professional judges. Courts have to decide at least three different sorts of issues. The facts; the meaning of the relevant laws; and the sentence. In our system the jury decides the first and, depending on the crime, has some say in the sentence; the judge is supposed to interpret the law for the jurors, and often has a say in the sentence.

The speech is all

The Athenians weren't impressed by physical evidence; without much in the way of forensic science, they had nothing like fingerprints or DNA evidence or blood typing. They were sceptical of written documents, as they worried about forgeries. Witnesses counted for a bit more, but they too could lie. The most important part of the trial, then, were the speeches given by the defendant and the prosecutor. It's a little like skipping everything else and going straight to the closing argument. And it was just as important for you to show that you had a good character as to make the winning arguments. For, remember, the people speaking weren't lawyers but the defendant and the person he had suppossedly committed the crime against. So the jurors were judging the veracity, character, and way of life of the people on trial as much as the simple issue of their guilt. If they liked you, they might well let you off even if they think you probably did it. Especially if they don't like the prosecutor.

Litigiousness?

The Athenians were taking everything to court, for suing each other at the drop of a hat. The same thing is often said of Americans. One reason for the complaint in both cases is probably upper class bias against democratic juries. Businessmen today complaint about outrageous jury awards, sometimes with good reason (the hot coffee at McDonalds) sometimes without (making it impossible to sue an HMO for malpractise.). Just so in ancient Athens aristocrats were ticked off that a jury of poor men could sentence them to a hefy fine.

Politicization?

Athenian trials were often political. In many ways the Clinton impeachment trial would have been regular affair for the Athenians. Very often one political leader charged his opponent with some crime or other, and the resulting debate was more about. The Athenians did not recognize any distinction between the courts and politics: it was all part of their democratic system.