Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Athens and Democracy
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by eques_99 (U7027104) on Friday, 14th May 2010
I don't understand why Athens is singled out as the birthplace of democracy. Athens may have developed it but several city states in the Western Mediterranean included some form of popular assembly either running or participating in the government, including Sparta and Rome.
Therefore the principle that a state's population should have a say in government was established long before the Athenian reforms of the 500s.
It would be a bit like saying Ferrari invented the car when they produced the Testarossa. -
Message 2
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Saturday, 15th May 2010
Greek democracy as in terms of pupular assemblies,
concerns the institution of ( Trade-)Sea-Leagues,
secondly the Agora Prytanea and Argont system
were the 'democratic' replacement of the King's civilservants ministry,
Like a Parliament instead of a secret Crown council , so democracy may mean ' openness of government'
Surely simultaneously other ( Trade-)Sea-Leagues sprung up in Greece eg the Corynthian Sea-League
But Athens globalized the concept by including their enemy ( in Peacetime) Sparta.
Only when the isles of Milos & Thasos wanted to opt out of the (First-)Athenian Sea-League and stopped paying tribute,
as it's defending purpose was canchelled by the Kings-Peace of Atlacides( 450 bc) and of Nikias( 421 bc.)
Athens showed that it's 'democracy' was onesided
by burning these islands as renegates.( 425 bc.) -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 17th May 2010
Well, at the end is a matter of historical preference - afterall what is known as "Greek history" is just a perversion of the real Greek history commited in the late 18th to early 20th century and in that crime even us modern Greeks participated just fine, hehe!
Athens is cited mostly because it gave the right to meaningful participation in the governance of the city to a wider number of citizens, said to be around 35,000 citizens i.e. men of full rights. Spartans had at their heyday around 8,000 citizens but in their case that was men of full and partial rights as the first born sons held traditionally more rights as the inherited the land for reasons of maintaining the land parts equally sized.
Of course the wider participation at Athens is by no means any justification of democracy. Afterall, for a proper democracy to be established, the society has to be well defined: for example letting slaves (i.e. foreign people of no particular attachment to the city or even quite negatively positioned) is by no means a sign of democracy but the contrary: a sign of failure of democracy and usually is followed by some short of oligarchy. That is the huge fallacy of modern "democracies" in that they are prepared to call citizen an dgive full rights even to people who openly oppose the construction. In Athens, rightly slaves did not vote. Immigrants also, rightly did not vote. Women too rightly did not vote in the sense that they did not participate in war for obvious reasons: a citizen is one that goes on war to protect the whole. Now in Sparta, this distinction was even more pronounced for the simply reason that Spartans were not local Peloponesians (these were actually the Helots) but descendants of Mycenian Macedonians who passed the Olympus and went down to Peloponesus via Doris where they got the name "Dorians". Numerically these, as invaders, were not so many. Thus the fewer numbers of citizens - effectively only those who directly descended from those invaders did get the privilege. There should be nothing weird about that, naturally they strived to maintain their control over the region. Macedonians too with their feudal system had some short of commmon governance with the kings being merely first among equal aristocrats while the citizens (citizens indeed, maybe a kingdom but people were not treated like subjects obviously) could raise their own voice in the military assembly and could even object to the will of the aristocrats and the king himself. It is this assembly that Alexander, conqueror of the known Asia, was ironically obliged to respect and accept its democratic decision.
Roman Republic on the other hand was some short of caste-based democracy more close to the Spartan system than really the Athenian in the sense that those with full rights were the patrician families who claimed to have difference ancestry (i.e. at least partially Greek) than common (local Latin) Romans.
Effectively if we compare the Athenian, the Spartan and the Roman political systems we should rather not concentrate on the end result so much as on their starting point: Athens was a city habitated mostly by local inhabitants claiming autochtony (i.e. to had been always from that place). Spartans consciously declared to be descendants of invaders. Romans consciously declared to be the result of the union of various little towns of the region, mostly latin and some Greek ones (from where - arguably of course - most of the early patricians (till 5th century B.C. of course) claimed to derive), creating something like a caste-based city state.
It was bound that those three different beginnings would end up in different formats of governance. For reasons of increased internal homogeneity Athens ended up in the most democratic one and thus exemplified what we call direct democracy. -
Message 4
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 17th May 2010
It is a matter of historiography stemming from how modern democratic systems have choosen to identify their roots. While it may be true that the politics of most poleis contained elements that would equate to a head of state, a council of elders and a body that constituted a more general assembly the nature of their makeup and the power each was accorded varied depending on the constitutional mores of each community. The Athenian model is notable not because it was the first such example of representative assemblies having significant influence but rather for its radical egalitarian nature. In a sense the political reforms undertaken in the late sixth and fifth century BC broke the power of the traditional aristocratic phrairties that had dominated Athenian politics during the archaic period and through the Peisistratid tyranny and in so doing allowed the ekklesia to act as the sovereign authority over government of the state. In most other polies the assembly was subservient to the position of head of state as well as the council of elders.
The emphasis the Athenian political system laid on citizenship and freedom for the general population's political will over that of any particular class within the community replaced the idea of eunomia or good order that one could argue favoured the entrenchment of political elites in many poleis. Certainly the Spartans, who believed that their own Lycurgan constitution was the best guarantor of eunomia, heavily favoured the maintenance of oligarchies that expressed their power and influence through the council of elders. The new emphasis, dubbed isonomia or equal order, has been a model of inspiration for the more recent forms of progressive government particularly in the wake of the French revolution. Indeed isonomia was the original term used to describe what we would now recognise as democracy.
It would therefore be accurate to say that the idea of liberty, egality and fraternity prevelent in modern democratic ideals derive their inspiration from the Athenian model of government rather than any of the other political constitutions in the Ancient world. That said the actual constitutional organisation of most modern states probably owes more to the influence of Roman republican institutions. -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 18th May 2010
Hi lolbeeble...indeed correct: Thus the modern use of the term "Republic of..." and not of the term "Democracy of...". However in Greek we do not have a term for "Republic" since its direct translation is... "Democracy"... hence indeed the "People's Republic of China" is called in Greek "Laiki Dimokratia tis Kinas".
Correct the remark on "isonomia" = the law is the same for everyone, i.e. same rights, same obligations. "Democracy" is the regime under which the "Demos", i.e. the collection of "polites", i.e. city-dwellers, i.e. simply the "citizens" decide about the "commons", i.e. the state's issues. Note that Sparta, Athens and Rome would have a defacto different definition of who is citizen and who is not. Spartans considered as citizens only the descendants of those invaders who conquered the city of Sparta and created the kingdom of the Lakaedemona. Athenians being autochtonous considered all people who were not originated from emmigration or imported slavetrade (one has to note that Athenian local debt-originated slaves were freed and then given the citizenship for the simple reason of being local). Romans on the other hand started with the notion of an oligarchy of families ruling a mix of local towns and then progressively incorporating more oligarchies as the Roman state expanded while "old citizens" were getting more rights... all that in a pyramidoid approach to ensure that the ancient families retain the rule. And one has to note that ancient Roman families predating the 5th century managed indeed to retain more or less the rule till 1st-2nd A.D. century. -
Message 6
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 18th May 2010
I caught the tail-end of a Radio 4 programme this morning about democracy. The thrust of the argument was that most Western democracies - and most particularly the US system - were based on the Roman Republic rather than democratic Athens, and might more properly be called federal republics rather than democracies.
Apparently many of the US founding fathers (including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) argued vehemently *against* democracy, regarding it (after Plato) as rule by an ignorant mob. -
Message 7
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 18th May 2010
Listen again here:
-
Message 8
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 18th May 2010
Re: Message 4.
lol,
thank you very much for your interesting statements. And while they were coming from you I learned as always a lot from them.
"liberty, egality and fraternity"
Coincidentally, while seeking like each morning for the teletext on the several TV channels, I came on TVE (the public Spanish channel) at the conference in Madrid of the EU countries with the South-American and Carribean ones, 60 countries in total. I saw first the speech of the president of the EU, then Barroso, then the president of Peru, then the female president of Argentina...on the tribune I saw Morales from Bolivia, Lula from Bresil, the President? of Estonia and so on but not at the first sight the president of Venezuela...
The "impressive" president of Peru made in my eyes an important message. From what I could catch in my poor knowledge of Spanish he emphasized, and repeated it, if I remember it well, four times, the actuality of "liberty, egality and fraternity". I will comment it further in my message to Mike Alexander. But here some preliminary thoughts.
"liberty": each citizen should be able to vote for the candidate he wants and to express criticism to anyone with a public function or to anything public.
"egality": each citizen is equal for the law and for voting, even the most stupid one.
"fraternity": the majority has to consider the rights of the minorities and even to embed them in the community in such a way that they feel at comfort in their marginality.
Kind regards and with great esteem,
Paul.
PS: see also my message to Mike Alexander that I will compose this evening, if time isn't to short... -
Message 9
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 18th May 2010
Re: Message 7.
Mike,
listened to your link and by the way thanks for it. Next week they will send part three it seems. (Not easy to listen to. Nearly each five minutes the radiolink was stopped and I had to reinstall from your URL to start again. But then it started again on the minutes where I left...is it because I listen from Belgium an don't pay my Â鶹ԼÅÄ fee...
? Channel Four too don't let you view their films on internet as I found out the day before yesterday about the Blitz Street...if you enter from instance from Belgium...I had it with American links too...)
Mike I made some quick notes, not prepared to listen again to the 45 minutes.
"direct democracy" I think in a modern complex society, it is not possible anymore and one has to go over to "representative" democracy. and even with all the negative "comments" on it I (in my humble opinion) still think that it reflects the "will" of the "people".
In the Â鶹ԼÅÄ 4 program they spoke also about the US "democracy". In my opinion it is still the best of he world. It is based on the Trias from if I remember it well de Tocqueville and has many checks and balances. We discussed it here in depth some years ago on the former Â鶹ԼÅÄ history messageboards among others with the American Alexander Crawford.
And one of the first necessities for democracy was the free vote of every citizen to represent their parties with the parties' selected representants. In Belgium it was only implemented in 1948 (the womens vote) and it is now lowered to the age of 18.
And yes you have the "mob", which can be, perhaps, more easely influenced by "populists". It is therefore that many "liberal" parties and even Socialist ones later one, emphasized the "education", while they thought (and perhaps with reason?) that people too ill educated would be an easy prey for populists. In Belgium first the Liberals started for the education to compete with the dumb flock of the Roman-Catholic church and later on the Socialists against both the clergy and the liberal "bourgeois" factory bosses. "the clergy will keep them dumb and the liberals will keep them busy"...so no time for the workers to "think" about their fate...
Yes, also in my opinion, education is primordial for a good democracy as long as they aren't indoctrinated with unchallenged "truths" and therefore I plead for compelled voting and compelled "honest" history (I mean giving all the parties the right for interpretation of history as long as they don't deform the "facts" for their own agenda) education to learn the lessons and warnings from history.
As we are at history and left wing history writing, the Communists, as history as shown, have only exchanged their so called "bourgeois dictatorship" by the "people's dictatorship". In my opinion the Socialists were cleverer and more democratic while trying to change the community to their thoughts within the limits of the parlementarian governement chosen by free! (of their opinion)citizens.
As for the right wing dictatorships from which the Nazis are the prime exemple... I have done some research for both this forum and two French ones as how Hitler became dictator on a "legal" way by using the "democratic" system. On some moments in history some representant of a democracy has to stay firm and he has to represent the wishes of the voters. And I am not sure if after the Communist party was forbidden and nearly all Socialists were jailed or hidden, Hitler wouldn't have found another way than to "convince" the Catholic Kaas to join the vote for the two-thirds to make possible that Hitler became dictator. In my opinion and I wonder why it is not more mentioned, the Catholic Kaas had a great responsability in all this. Perhaps is it a good thing that each four years the electorate can decide again what party representatives they want, although I agree as in the case of Kaas it would be too late to avoid the dictatorship...
To end with a more recent example from history: what if in a democratic (although I am not sure if Algeria was "democratic"?) country a muslim majority vote to become a mayor party to implement "sharia"? Although I am not sure if in a real democratic country with educated people, where all religions and lay convictions are equal treated, it will be possible...without some "manipulations"...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 19th May 2010
Addendum to the previous message.
See my second of last paragraph about the Zentrum prelate Kaas.
I reread once the whole discussion on a French messageboard about the rise of Hitler and the two-thirds vote.
In fact to obtain the one third to bar Hitler they needed 215.6 votes. And even with the SPD at full votes 120 (and many were hidden or incarcerated) only 84 were able to vote against)) they needed above the 74 of the Zentrum, the 19 of the BVP (Bayerische Volkspartei) Catholic and sister party of the Zentrum and some 4 seats of the Protestant CDSV and perhaps the liberal DVP with 2 seats could also vote against. And of course if the Communist party, the KPD, wasn't banned by some "trick" the no-votes would of course have been enough. But it was the question if the Zentrum, which was turned more and more right, would have voted together with the KPD? In any case I am nearly sure that the old-right party together with the Nazis would have found another "trick" if there was obstruction from the voters.
I add this, for no misunderstanding about my strong statement about the prelate Kaas from the Zentrum.
Kind regards, Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 20th May 2010
Paul, yes...liberté, égalité, fraternité for all. But there is a catch that in all that:
For whom?
That is a question that western societies (the only ones occupied with such issues by the way), have not dared address. It is though an issue which was the most basic for all those ancient regimes like the Spartan or the Athenian or the Roman as I described above.
But what about modern Europe?
Who is citizen? Everyone born on soil? The locals? The immigrants? To get an extreme example does the "fraternité" applies to Pakistani muslim extremists in UK who openly call for war against the local British society? Will those Pakistanis go sacrifice themselves to defend the Falklands against Argentinians?
Does ""liberté, égalité" applies to Algerian immigrants in France who use that to impose their own version of things according to which the liberté, égalité applies only in their relations with local French and probably only 1-way, while internally they are on the exact opposite, thus using the very same motto "liberté, égalité" to work against both liberty and equality!!!
How about Greece... the latest example: US-born, US-citizen (and lowly civil servant of US banks) Greek PM Jeffrey Papandreou (later renamed Giorgos after learning Greek in his teenager years only to come to Greece in his 30s to get directly a ministerial position in his corrupt criminal fathers' government) aims to give full citizenship to massive numbers (100,000s) of illegal immigrants most of whom are Albanians, a traditional enemy of Greeks (as part of the Ottoman army and later Italian invaders having commited horrible crimes). How about incorporating into the state as citizens with full rights the Albanian people who are openly declaring themselves as enemies of the Greeks and who would vote any single decision which would go against the Greek state, including invasion by Turkey and dismembering of the Greek state???? Do recenly introduced illegal immigrant Albanians in Greece deserve the citizenship and the right to express themselves politically in a state they despise and they openly wish its destruction? Why wouldn't a green card pemritting them all rights apart voting not be good enough? Why do they have to express themselves politically when it is known that they will use it against the state and the local society?
Hot issue? Not at all. I see it ice-cold.
The whole issue of democracy and freedom and all that has been lost in the swallow waters of logic.
There cannot be a democracy if there cannot be a clear definition of who can be a citizen with voting rights and who cannot be a citizen. As one who votes has some saying over the future of the country, shouldn't it be at the judgement of the people who is to get citizenship and who not? Why can arbitrarily a politician give the citizenship to any random recently installed population thus adding to his army of voters a massive new part, rigging directly the elections? In Greece in 2000 more than 100,000 people (let alone their underage children) were illegally made citizenships to vote for PASOK party: the elections of 2000 were won by PASOK with a difference of less than 30,000 votes (i.e. should had been won by ND party with a difference of at least 70,000)... so why should Greek citizens consider the elections democratic and that their voice was heard?
Another issue completely undiscussed: under normal, fair and absolutely democratic conditions, women in most western countries (including mine) and apart Israel (were women serve), should had never been allowed to vote for the simple reason that they do not serve in the defense of the country. The decision to let women vote without serving in the army together with the overall preferential treatment of females by law in most western coutnries (in some of which ther divorced man is obliged to pay for children even if it finally proven that they are not his own!!!!), was highly undemocratic and disolved the very basic notion of equality.
The influx of foreigners and their inclusion is the result of an elitist class from within the local leaderships who will use that influx to control the rising power of the local middle class. You might find the fact that even women were used in the same approach as more strange but unfortunately it is true - the introduction of women in politics came at the point where the 19th century vague of democratisation came to and end and the inverse process, the counter-attack, commenced.
Rome elites introduced Goths. Byzantine elites introduced North Italians. Arab elites introduced Turks. All of them eventually lost, not the elites (the elites survived by adaptation or mutation) but the local middle class. It happens now. And killing the middle class, one kills democratic approach re-affirming the control of the elites.
If anything, the most basic part of a democracy is not mottos like liberty, equality, fraternity but the "who is what". When that definition has not taken place there is absolutely no hope for any democratic procedure to take place. It goes without saying that there are not a lot of democracitic regimes around - Europe is mostly ruled by elitist representative-democracy, i.e. republics or if you want elected-oligarchies. -
Message 12
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Thursday, 20th May 2010
... liberté, égalité, fraternité ... For whom? That is a question that western societies (the only ones occupied with such issues by the way), have not dared address. Such issues are settled by a combination of the Constituion, the Law Courts and/or Referenda.
-
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 20th May 2010
By the way... refering back to Athens... the closest the Athenian middle class found itself to power had been with Themistocles and that for a very brief time. The second closest was with... tyrrant Peisistratus!
People tend to ignore that the quasitotality of the Athenian democratic class of both the aristocrat as well as the democrat parties were coming from the aristocratic/plutocratic class. Pericles traced his ancenstry to the Alkmeonides related to the ancient royal families of the archaic kingdom of Attica. All other leaders like Aristeides, Kimon, Nikias, Alkiviades were noble men no matter what party they chose to join. Lower middle class rhetors like the opposing Demosthenis and Aeshunis did not have any power but were merely front-figure orators representing other more powerful political figures from behind (who, as usual, usually were discussed less in public).
Themistocles was the only major middle class politician to had risen at a time when the Athenian middle class never had it better (eh! it was needed with all these wars and expansion!). 50 years earlier, Peisistratus while himself an aristocrat, he largely represented the middle class and especially the lower middle class against not only the traditionalist land-owning aristocracy but also agains the relatively newly plutocracy mainly stemming of the development of sea commerce (ship owners etc.). Representing small land owners and technicians, the bulk of the Athenian people he rose to power and became a quite populist, maybe, ruler who however set all the prerequisites for the later development of democracy... perhaps in practice more than Solon... quite ironic as he was remembered as an autocratic tyrrant. -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 20th May 2010
""Such issues are settled by a combination of the Constituion, the Law Courts and/or Referenda.""
Well in theory yes, but in practice I hardly know 1 nation whose real view has been heard on such issues. It is the ruling elites that decide on these issues and usually when they change laws and such they do it in secrecy. I have yet to find a political party that had promised easening of laws on citizenship prior to elections.
I have never heard of a referendum either. In my country people have ferociously asked a referendum on that mattter but most major parties had stiffled voices even inside their parties, let alone expressing them out. In the past unlawful citizenships had been given for getting "cheap votes" and whole governments were established on that (e.g. in 2000, occuring again in 2004 but not achieving the goal, then again in 2009 where the sudden rise of votes to the ruling party as well as the overall voters in a rapidly decreasing in terms of population country, could not again be explained...) but none has been condamned and judged because that is the decision of the ruling elites. -
Message 15
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Friday, 21st May 2010
It is the ruling elites that decide on these issues and usually when they change laws and such they do it in secrecy. Looks to me like you do not live in a democracy. I have never heard of a referendum either. It empowers the people by giving expression to their voice or will. That is the essential meaning of the word democracy,i.e. people power.
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 21st May 2010
There is one saying in Greece: that the dictators were judged and punished but the dictatorship not. The following governments were the physical continuation of dictatorship in the country and people now wonder if they had been really more free under dictatorship or later...
1975-1978: ND, PM Karamanlis
1978-1981: ND, PM Rallis
1981-1985: PASOK, PM Papandreou
1985-1989: PASOK, PM Papandreou
1989-1990: Ecoumenical government, PM Zolotas
1990-1993: ND, PM Mitsotakis
1993-1996: PASOK, PM Papandreou
1996-2000: PASOK, PM Simitis
2000-2004: PASOK, PM Simitis
2004-2007: ND, PM Karamanlis
2007-2009: ND, PM Karamanlis
2009-....: PASOK, PM Papandreou
12 governments - 1 ecoumenical between elections = 11 governments. But only 5 names:
Karamanlis (uncle, nephew), Papandreou (grandfather till 60s, father, son), Mitsotakis (great-grandfather, grandfather, father, daughter, son-in-law, son...), Simitis (foreign roots...) and Rallis (grandfather, father, son...)
Now you will ask me why do people vote the same and same people. Well people vote not necessarily for the party leader but for their local MP candidates with whom they have parental, professional, friendly or simply most often client relationship. You know how it is: 4 years you complain but when you go to vote, "something" happens and you do the same error again and again.
Note though that it is not so much the country's inability to produce a less corrupt more capable political leader. No. Each time there was one he took the votes. BUT:
Grandfather Papandreou, a minor politician till 1940, rose in prominence in WWII in... Egypt where he stationed with the British. He was installed in Greece by the British in late 1944 and first thing he did was to start the civil war with the communists (who were earlier erased by Metaxas but re-installed in the country with British money during WWII occupation!!!). Note that Metaxas had been murdered by the British in 1940 to permit the dissolution of the neutral government, the replacement by a pro-British dictatorship by a few generals and the occupation of Greece by Nazis as they had planned and were pushing since late 1939 at the outbreak of WWII.
Now another murdered politician was general Papagos. Papagos, even if not a close friend of Metaxas, shared his neutral stance and was always sceptical of the role of British. He was a war hero and his overall stance was highly esteemed by Greek people so they voted him in power in the early 1950s. He is the man behind the debut of the rebuilding of Greece. He can be seen as the Greek de Gaul, 10 years before De Gaul took power in France. In 1955 British pushed Papagos to accept unacceptable things for Cyprus, he refused, "somehow" a crisis erupted in Cyprus (guess how), somehowe Turks bombed themselves the house of Kemal in Greece to accuse Greeks, then took it to the streets as a mob and killed scores of Greeks in Konstantinople destorying completely their shops and burning their houses to finally complete the erase the 250,000 strong Greek community there... and Papagos dies the same month from something that ... "no doctor could say what it was". Too convenient? Well... it could had been worse... Metaxas died from ... amygdalis with... blood toxicity (official medical report from 12 doctors of the best hospital of the country!!!!)!!!! If he was stampeded by an green elephant with pink ears it could had been more credible. So like Metaxas' assasination gave way to Papandreou, Papagos' assasination gave way to... Karamanlis. Both Papandreou and Karamanlis prior to that were relatively unheard politicians coming from lower echelons (i.e. British created a new nomenclature).
This new nomenclature added to the old one ruled Greece in post WWII. No wonder where it ended up.
Note that Papandreou junior, current PM Giorgos is hardly Greek. From a US grandmother and US mother, he hardly boasts 1/4 Greek ancestry. Born in Minessota. Official name: Jeffrey Papandreou. He learnt Greek not from his parents (his mother, known to not like Greece anyway, hardly spoke Greek) home but with a teacher and he started speaking at the age of 12. He studied in Sweden (where his father lived during the dictatorship) and US. Most of his life lived between Sweden and US. He came to Greece when his father rose to power and took directly a ministerial position - just like that, for the welcome...!!! However, even today almost 30 years after his arrival in Greece, he is not fully articulate and like Simitis (also of partial foreign ancestry) are bad orators doing terrible mistakes, but then having the 80% of press under the control of their friends, helps a lot! Anyway...
So you understand that the sheeps are in trouble cos the eagles have eaten their guardian dogs and placed wofls in place. -
Message 17
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Friday, 21st May 2010
Hello eques_99,
The reason that Athens has been singled out as the birthplace of democracy is that Western Civilisation looks upon Greek Civilisation as its precursor. It is only natural that from all the Greek poleis that one was singled out to which Western Civilisation felt to be closest, viz. Athens.
Western Civilisation is quite unique in accepting an earlier civilisation as its precursor. This has to do with the Roman Catholic church' need to explain transubstantiation; the explanation couldn't do without the philosophy of Aristotle and so philosophy was an important course taught at the Western universities in the Middle Ages. Later the enemies of the church, viz. Protestants and scientists, turned philosophy into a weapon against the church, so both sides needed philosophy to make their points stick. This meant that Greek Civilisation had no chance to slip Western mind.
Philosophy was originally a state religion in Sicily. Its founders found that as such it had inconsistencies that they weren't able to solve. So it was decided to do away with the observance of rites and make philosophy a quest for knowledge. As such it was adopted by Socrates as a means to educate the children of the Athenian elite.
Are you aware that we know about Athenian democracy by one of its bitterest enemies, viz. Plato? It didn't do much damage to its reputation, though.
The earliest works of philosophy that can be studied are the works of Plato, who was a citizen of Athens; I think that this has more to do with Western civilisation's fascination for Greek culture than an admiration for the Athenian model of democracy
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 24th May 2010
Hmmm... the fact that Rome was a huge fun of Athens and Sparta and NOT Macedonia, Syracuse, Corinthus or Achaia isn't a bit too much accidental as to the importance we give to Athens? It was far too convenient for Romans to reduce all Greek history to these two allied to it cities. The fact, for example that we have no Macedonian or Corinthian or Epirot writers does not mean that these people did not leave their own stories written - however their states had been totally destroyed by the Romans while Athens thrived in its alliance with Romans.
2 events are shocking: we know that 10s if not 100s of contemporary people wrote their stories about Alexander's expendition in Asia, yet non of them has survived. Quite weird, when the full texts of Thoucidides on Peloponesian war have survived (too convenient for Romans? hmmm...). One could say that the Diadochoi, successors to Alexander would not want him to take all the glory and would like to pass on their own stories - problem is that there is absolutely no story of them either, there is no pre-Roman text that survived. Only Roman texts that make reference to older texts. Now that is quite strange as normally people should refer directly to the ancient text not the later versions. What happened obviously is that Romans and their local henchmen had made sure that the real history is not known. Arrian though mentions about Alexander's only failure: that everything he did he did it with success, he only failed in finding a decent historian to write his real story (not any legends about him, just the real story...).
Another story is the Corinthians, that great city in the Isthmus about which we know minimum. Their role in the Persian wars is greatly diminuished while their participation in the battle of Salamina is really ignored despite having offered about the same ships as Athenians. Athenian writers noted them as merely guarding the rear of the island-mainland narrows but then it is doubtful that Persians merely chose to attack from the one side only, just to beat Athenians ignoring the Corinthians! No Corinthian historian saved, thus no version of their story.
Greek history is much more deep and Athens is merely a small part of it, I would say really very small as the Greek civilisation would exist without Athens, it would not exist though without Ionia (Minor Asia, birthplace of archaic Greek culture and philosophy), Great Greece (South Italy, first classical Greek philosophy) or Macedonia (birthplace of Dorians, basis of the spread of Hellenic culture). It just seems that people wanted it to carry the name of a city and Athens was chosen not so much from Greeks but from Romans. As Romans were the direct basis of western civilisation, Athens was viewed as the name to label the Greek civilisation.
But that is far from the realities of the times. -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 24th May 2010
Hi Nik
It is commonly accepted that the dearth of extant contemporary or near-contemporary literary sources related to Alexander can be mainly ascribed to the destruction of the library in Alexandria - not any systematic attempt by Rome to downgrade or obliterate his status in history. In fact the Romans had a gushing admiration for the figure as is evidenced by their many representations of him as a hero and the many allusions they made to emulating him. Cicero, we know, offered good money for copies of such documents but alas we do not know if he ever succeeded in adding them to his extensive collection. It too was lost.
Even that catastrophe might not have been so tragic had Diodorus's "World History", which apparently quoted extensively from near-contemporary sources, survived the sacking of Constantinople in 1453. Much of this work (comprising 40 volumes) only survived in fragments thereafter, but sufficient references by other Byzantine texts also survived for us to reconstruct its structure, if not all of its content. Diodorus was astute in naming his sources so a more complete remaining copy would have been invaluable in helping fill in the gaps concerning which authors and their works had been stored in Alexandria, a main source of information for men such as him in his day. We know that book 17 of his work covered Alexander's life and exploits, and that Diodorus used Cleitarchus (a contemporary) as his primary source. That the book survived intact until the 15th century shows at least some committment on Rome/Byzantium's part to preserving it, and from that we can deduce they placed real value on it, not least as a surviving philological link with Alexander. Accusing them of intentionally destroying such philological links is therefore not completely in accord with the evidence.
Your accusation concerning Athens/Rome and Corinth might make more sense, especially given how difficult Corinth proved to be in the face of Roman attempts to control it and the surrounding region, and previously in its often antagonistic and bellicose behaviour towards its Greek neighbours. But while this may have resulted in a popular disregard for Corinthian heritage in propagandistic terms, again there is no evidence of any concerted effort to remove it from the philological record and indeed Julius Caesar drew heavily on that record rhetorically when establishing his "New Corinth" a hundred years after the defeat of the Aechean League. This suggests that documents relating to its history had survived Mummius's sack of the city, but since they do not seem to have survived to the present day then we can assume that they too fell victim to the various calamities and assaults on the Alexandrian repository in the period which were the often violent result of Roman insensitivity, christian ignorance and islamic conquest.
Your general point that we give prominence to Athens (and Sparta) as a result of Roman disregard for the other city states presupposes a Roman micro-management of the historical record in its day and a general identification with Athenian and Spartan tradition which precluded acknowledgement of other Greek influences. There is no evidence for any of this, at least not until Rome allied itself with christian theology, and none whatsoever that Corinth, Macedonia, Syracuse or Aechea were ever specifically targeted for such treatment. A more reasonable analysis would be that the "talking up" of Athens coincided more with Renaissance resurgence of interest in the period and the drawing of inferences at that time from the philological remnants then to hand. -
Message 20
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 24th May 2010
Might not be the explanation as simple as Athens being a major center of education in Roman times? Besides Alexandria and Rhodes -- admittedly the latter didn't retain its importance to our days.
Wealthy Roman youths were sent to Athens to polish their rhetorical skills, acquire a bit of philosophy and learn polite Greek. What they acquired in addition was the Athenian view of their own city as the center of the world and the fountain of all its wisdom. Even if teachers knew better, it was not in their interest to spread another version of history.
Back home, the Athenian influence continued in the own work of these students. -
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 25th May 2010
Nordmann thanx for the very interesting feedback. Indeed my phrase was not exact "Romans and local henchmen made sure that no records of other cities..."... actually I did not mean to imply historic record micro-management by Romans. I said this more in the sense of a) catastrophes b) copying more the popular histories than the unpopular ones... at the end the book that has the most chances to survive will be the most copied one. Indeed, as Athens remained a cultural center well into the Middle Ages up to the 6th century A.D. and the anti-paganist measures of Justinianus, the Athenian version of history had more chances to survive.
What I mainly tried to pose is that what we think of that era is mostly according to our own understanding. What was going on then was a whole different story.
Mutatis, the main Greek cities that were reknowned in Roman times were Athens, Rhodes, Pergamon and Ephesus... unsurprisingly since these were the major allies who actually brought Romans in the east (first with Pergamians and Rhodians who provided their powerful navies, something Romans needed desperatetely). Being rich and often enjoying tax-free priviledges (as for long these cities were not viewed as conquests but as allies of the Roman Empire) these had money to spend and maintain their fame also as cultural centers. Athens of course was the major one and it is there that the Roman nobility studied. However in a French documentary it was saying that Athens was for university studies but for earlier studies Roman nobility was send in Massalia because they considered that the Massaliotes, a very conservative and traditionalist city, had retained a more pure accent and way of speaking Greek than Athenians or other Greeks in their peninsula. Do not know about that. Massaliotes seemed to had remained also a Greek cultural center (though not for higher studies) well into the late Roman times and even past the Gothic raids only to be later absorbed by the Franks (finally becoming latin speaking - though of course they must had been for long bilingual). Note that Massaliotes were a colony of Phocea in Minor Asia an ancient colony of Phocians (Dorians) but also there living Ionians too. I guess Romans were more familiar with Dorian. -
Message 22
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Tuesday, 25th May 2010
Re: message 18.
Hello Nik,
It appears that the Athenians were the smarter Greek.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 23
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 25th May 2010
Nick, I really do not see what your assertions about the reactionary fears over the watering down of the Greek ethno-nationalist ideal by giving citizenship to the children of immigrants with five years residency has to do with Ancient Athenian politics. Your suggestion that it is a conspiracy to attract their votes seems somewhat far fetched given the fact that most of those gaining citizenship are ineligible to vote at present because they are underage. Even less relevant is the enrollment of northern Epiriots who would have been considered eligible for Greek citizenship many years ago under the right of return were it not for the fear that it would be detrimental to the population left in Albania. As for your assertions about female suffrage, women do serve in front line capacity in many countries but as it stands most modern states define their electorate using a more sophisticated model than that put forward by Tyrtaios. By your reckoning any society that employs a professional rather than conscript army should disenfranchise the vast majority of their population.
The importance attached to who can and cannot claim citizenship is often in proportion to the benefits accrued by belonging to the citizen body. Where there is little benefit then there is often little concern about the enrollment of new members. The growth in overt delineation of who could and could not be included in the citizen body as well as the recurring controversy over potentially fraudulent citizenship claims, evidenced by the Periclean laws of 451/0BC and the fourth century Athenian Politics, began in the the mid fifth century BC. It appears to be directly related to the growth of Athenian civic patronage and the increase in its political influence due to its standing in the Greek speaking world. Purity of the citizen body was of little relevance to the Solonic or Kleisthenic reforms when the rights, rituals and representation citizens were entitled to were being formulated. The latter may well have resulted in the enfranchisement all free males, adding them to the various administrative demes on the basis of residency. Potentially this could have included many foreign born individuals and thus could be seen as a continuation of the Solonic philoxenia with its allowance for foreigners to acquire citizenship. Certainly there is no evidence for the class of freeborn resident foreigners, the metics, during the late sixth century BC.
Reducing such issues to a matter of perpetuation of the elite's status is perhaps a little simplistic if only because there is often very little in the way of class consciousness among those perceived as part of this group. To start with the post tyranny political elite of Athens was far from a united entity given the tension between the returning exiles and those who had remained under the Peisistratid rule. Nor did Kleisthenes and the Alkmeonidae really benefit from the introduction of democracy. Kleisthenes was barely remembered a century after the reforms and people looked to the assasins of Hippias as defenders of the democratic ideal.
Though many of the more prominent politicians of the democratic regime were reported to derive from well born backgrounds, although it is arguable that this was merely a simplistic reading of the development of the radical democracy by the author of the Athenian politics who wanted to attribute the smooth functioning of the regime to the inherent superiority of this class, the net effect of the reform progress was not so much to strengthen the elite's grip on power but rather to extend the lifestyle of the aristocracy to the Hoplite classes and later the poorest in society. In that sense one could argue that the toleration of foreigners in Athens during the fifth and fourth century allowed even the poorest of the citizen body to engage in the leisure activities as well as preparation and involvement in state festivities that had traditionally been the preserve of the aristocracy. This includes the epheboi given that the aristocratic way of war seems to have persisted in Athens long after it had been superseded by Hoplite tactics across much of the Greek speaking world.
This desire to perpetuate and participate in the lifestyle of the archaic aristocracy by all freeborn males within Athens would perhaps explain why they continued to value their citizenship long after the city's political influence and with it the power the assembly could wield had declined. It is not until the late second century that the rules governing participation in citizenship rites such as the epheboi were relaxed to allow foreign born free males to participate and thus be admitted to the Athenian citizen body. In doing so Athens was following the lead of that other aristocratic playground, Delphi. -
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 26th May 2010
Lolbeeble, on such issues we are dealing with the very basics of society here, thus accusing me with phrases like """...reactionary fears over the watering down of the Greek ethno-nationalist ideal by giving citizenship to the children of immigrants with five years residency has to do with Ancient Athenian politics."""
... is really not veru constructive.
Such fears exist all over Europe, and in countries which normally have little to fear (let alone a country continuously threatened with war) they are not reactionary and they are 100% founded and nothing to do with "ethno-nationalist" cheap accusations some "circles" with which now you seem to abide, like to throw (who funnily would change residence if learnt that "such people" have moved in within a radious of 20km from their house!).
What I said was very clear. A society before speaking about its governance has first of all to define who is in and who is out. Why on earth can't I be a citizen of South Africa or Israel or Argentina since the day I place my feet on there? Can I really ask for a citizenship in India when I deep down have a genuine hatred for Hindus (i.e. the vast majority of the country) and support the annexation of Kashir to Pakistan? Would staying 10 or 20 years in India entitle me for citizenship?
Leave the former and answer the latter Lolbeeble before speaking about flowers and batterflies.
What I propose is the main problematic of all discussions on governance:
What is the the society to be governed. Why Spartan "equals" are not a short of democracy when themselves consider their society as being only the descendants of those Dorian invaders only? And why Athenians are a democracy at the same time they rule autocratically over other regions who do not have the right to vote but have the right only to pay taxes.
As for the military one should pinpoint that the presence of a professional only army without the presence of a conscript/citizen army on the sides is simply a sign of lack of democracy. There is absolutely no argument on that history teaches exactly that. No matter the regime, citizens had a greater saying ONLY when they participated actively in the defense of the country. It is no rockjet science.
Now in countries with conscript army, it should be taken for granted that anyone who actively sacricifes a huge amount of his time to the military he should have the right to vote. One who does not, should not have the right to vote or at least NOT the same rights, but to be fair he should be welcomed to offer his service and gain these rights. Under the same light one who pays the % of taxes that is placed on his earnings should vote, one who does not or avoids doing so should lose these rights.
That is democracy. It is not all batterflies and flowers and people dancing in the streets. Real democracies are day and night with what people imagine which is nothign else than elected oligarchies representing a small number of specific well known local elites who actually work for an even smaller number of well known international elites, elected oligarchies who offer a relatively libertarian regime to their citizens who are treated rather as sheep and cattle. A citizen in modern democratic societies is the equivalent - at best - of a "perioikos" in Sparta and a "metoikos" in Athens (i.e. the free-men non-citizens with absolutely no saying in the political life of the states). And that is at best. In modern democracies people are passive, they decide on nothing. In real democracies they actively decide on things affecting themselves, their society, their way of living.
I.e. to get back to your original "accusation" and the real world and the case of Greece, in a democratic society it is not up to any leader to decide on his own and make a law defining who is in and who is out. This definition can only be made by the society of citizens. Unless of course we speak about tyranical fascist regimes which is the case for little Greece's governance of course (a governance which historically evolved in the last 60 years based on successive political assasinations of leaders like Metaxas & Papagos by British followed by US-backed dictatorships etc.) Avoid arguing with the last point above. I have already spoken on other forums and found none that could develop any valid argument so don't try to counter argue with the storyline of Greek governance in the last 60 years.
Keep my basic line of thought: that before talking about democracy or any other form of governance, one has to take into account what is the society itself. In my analysis for the states of Lakedemona (Sparta), Attica (Athens), Macedonia (Pella) and Latio (Rome), this was exact. The different definitions of societal structures impacted directly the way of governance, yet under a more absolute comparison the democratic deficit or surplus was more streamlined. -
Message 25
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 9th June 2010
But Nick, you are a paranoid reactionary and scare mongering rhetoric taken from the LAOS manifesto or the construction of conspiracies surrounding the natural deaths of a couple of old men has nothing to do with the perception of Athens as the progenitor of modern democratic systems. The Greek constitution only allows for a referendum to be organised with the consent of a majority in parliament and despite there being some who broadly disagree with the change to the citizenship laws from across the political spectrum they do not make up a majority so to all intents and purposes it is not going to happen. Little fuss was made over previous amendments to the citizenship law that were proposed and implemented by politicians and not ratified by a referendum such as article 19 enacted in 1955 that did much to create the current perception of the ethno-nationalist basis of modern Greek citizenship by narrowing its scope through the systematic disenfranchisement of different resident groups. The amended law proposes ten years parental residency and at least three years basic Greek education that in itself represents some level of commitment to the state so it can hardly be considered as enrolling anyone just off the boat. Would you prefer it if the terms were that they could not have citizenship until they had lost their dog tooth?
Your assertions that citizenship automatically corresponds to those entitled to participate in the government of the state and deliverance of justice derives from Aristotle's definition in the Politics. Rather than being the preeminent consideration for a lawgiver, the defining of those allowed to govern and how law is administered is only part of a wider process in the codification of particular customs, either in the wake of abuses of the system or in the absence or collapse of established modes of practice. The ancient polities you have used to differentiate between monarchical, oligarchical and democratic systems all used a derivation of the word equals, heteros, to describe the groups you assign citizenship to, be they the fraities of Athens, the sysistia of Sparta or the Companions of the Macedonian King. It is Athens widening of the term to encompass the whole of the freeborn population on the basis of nothing more than common descent that meritocratic democracies would like to hark back to. Compare that with the other enlightenment proposals for enfranchisement based upon property qualifications.
However one can see that the development of the Athenian constitution saw a transformation of how the group entitled to participate in the government and the judiciary was defined. Citizenship in this light is an evolving phenomena. The Solonic law code that so many in Athens liked to hark back to as the state's foundation charter used a property qualification, the pentokosomediomoi or 500 bushel men, that no doubt replaced a narrow franchise based on descent from or close relationship to key families, the eupatridai, which was presumably favoured by the lawgiver Drakon. This in turn was superceded by the Kleisthenic reforms that went back to descent based criteria but expanded the scope of the franchise to include descendents of all free born males registered in Attica at the end of the sixth century BC. To disguise the origins of particular families and further reduce the influence of the old aristocracy and their associates, existing surnames were abolished and replaced by identification through the name of one's father and the deme he was registered at. The exercise of hegemony by this group is a separate matter to the government of the state itself, although it is notable that the colonies established by Athens on the territory of members of the Delian league made sure that they retained their right to representation in the assemblies and courts of Athens.
Mentioning Athenian philoxenia was to counter the assumption that the polis had always restricted citizenship to the local population. The belief in Athenian descent from an indigenous population does not seem to be restricted to the immediate chora of Attica but to the whole of pre-Dorian Greece and stands in contrast to the Dorian communities with their tales of migration from the north. Certainly the Athenian aristocracy appear to have claimed descent from a wide range of heroes from across the Â鶹ԼÅÄric world, partly reflecting tales of Attica's role as a refuge from the incoming Dorians. Such legends appear to have been emphasised as part of Athens Imperial ambitions in the fifth century BC. One might also note that the property based franchise of Solon did not therefore outlaw those of foreign descent being granted the ability to hold positions in the government of the state or participate in the administering of justice so long as they could demonstrate sufficient wealth.
It would be unreasonable to assume that modern states should attempt the kind of direct participation employed by ancient states. As the assemblies and courts required attendance in person the distances involved in most modern nation states make such a move unfeasible. Furthermore the kind of mass participation you highlight as true democracy required significant investment in spare time in order to cover the everyday running of the polis and not just the matters that aroused popular pressure. This was a factor that seems to have been resented by many Athenians given the evidence of the red rope laws and the need to introduce pay for jury service. Such a system was only possible because of the fairly simplistic economic activity of Athenian citizenry as trade and other activities that might remove large portions of the demos from being available for the assemblies were left in the hands of foreign metics or carried out by slaves. Modern division of labour and the criticism of modern employees as wage slaves as well as the use of representative rather than direct democracy does not really correspond to the Lakedaimonian perioikoi, not least because there was no form of upward social mobility whereby they could become the Spartiates unlike modern semblances of meritocracy.
An exception to this division between labour and the governmening class was military service which had the potential to remove large portions of the demos from the state and so distort the makeup of the electorate, consider the coup of 411BC when as large proportion of the Athenian citizenry was away on campaign. Conscription does not necessarily provide any guarantee of the maintenance of a healthy democratic system. All it does is allow for a large military to be hastily assembled or maintained no matter what the political outlook of the state given the authoritarian nature of many states that have employed conscription in the modern era. As well as being removed directly from the civilian sphere conscripts also have little in the way of influence over military matters because they occupy rank and file positions that are detached from and have little influence over the officer class. Of more importance is the relationship between the military leadership and civic government that in a truly democratic system should see the former take their orders from the latter. When the military leadership has lost confidence in or refuses to be subservient to their civic counterparts they have often attempted to seize control of the reigns of state. All conscription generally does is give them a surplus of manpower with which to achieve their ends. Otherwise conscription can be used to perpetuate the existing system and even quash democratic and civic initiatives, either with direct violence and intimidation or the use of their labour in place of that of civilians. Stop me if this sounds like the rule of the Generals. -
Message 26
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 9th June 2010
Doh, I mean Colonels.
-
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 10th June 2010
Yes it sounds like the rule of the Generals but by no means you should think that their (implicitly US brought) rule was any more dictatorial than what preceded and what followed. Metaxas and Papagos were murdered and I suggest you go back read their medical files. In the case of Metaxas it is so blatant that you will be comical trying to refuse it (when British doctors enterred in and killed him), but the medical record is there as a blatant proof o the sad reality, while in the case of Papagos there is simply no medical record - thus officially he died from "something unknown". As far as I know Greece is not a country that unknown viruses or illnesses hit out of the jungle. In the 1950s there is no single death of even the poorest man that ever died of something "uknown", let alone a prime minister in action.
Stop using Gebbelist methods (you know 10 times more than me on the overall on most issues and have really much more to say than restrain yourself in that empty wooden language), so stop trying to position me politically with the bad old political notions that I have rejected since decades. You try to link me with LAOS while I have never voted them and while I read their party-line, and it is a remarkable one (nothing like you imagine extra-right wing, in fact they are rather socialists on the financial plan, patriotic on the external affairs, they are for an open society that accepts immigration but with strict control of who and how (funnily that has even gained them some old-school immigrants mainly Armenians, christian Syrians, Philipinnos and even a few orthodox Albanians, who have binded their fates more with the Greeks than with the more recent immigrants), all they ask is more concentration on the real interests of the Greek people which are not becoming a US colony or New-York, London, Paris, Greece is where it is and it has other needs and other risks). I do not vote for them despite sharing some ideas since I regard them basically as yet another part of the "system", they are funded to present a populist alternative that consumes the reaction of the people to all the criminal political, financial, cultureal, civilisational acts that are comitted against them, their kids and their future, in the same sense that communists had been the best friend of capitalists (without communists, capitalism would have a considerably smaller radious of action today).
I tried to talk generally above, you keep returning to the specific realities of Greece and it is not where I end up, I speak more broadly here.
Anyway, you added though some extremely interesting notes and that is why I like to read and comment your posts. -
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 10th June 2010
Now, you made a very elaborate analysis of the Athenian evolution but you somehow revolved around the issue avoiding to touch the heart: the reality is that Athenians had defined very clearly of who was Athenian citizen and who was not. Yes, it did not imply only Athenians from the chora but all of Attica. And it is clear that the ancient tribes (later replaced by re-constructed "tribes") is a hint of what you say about Attica being a refuge place during the Dorian raids, thus containing Ionian-related population from a greater region (but all that predating some 500 years of course). But there is absolutely no proof that everyone living there took the citizenship. A Scythian slave would remain a scythian slave, as simple as that. The only case I can imagine is of Athenian men marrying a nice beautiful ex-slave woman and giving birth to kids taking the citizenship or childless Athenian couples taking the first random kid they would find in the forest next to the temple (typical place to leave unwanted kids), yet a too blond or too black kid would not have much of hope to arrive to citizenship. Remember Demosthenis? Poor little liar had a Scythian slave grandmother (his mother was thus Greekoscythian, a huge part of his complex and possibly an explanation why he had some kind of "difficulty" in speech as a young boy... difficulty? or a slight but audible accent?) and Aeshunis was using it as a main argument saying to Athenians that "We cannot sit down and listen someone that is not even of our kind and who should not be our equal"). And all that at a time when Pericles had already enlarged the scope including children from couples of Athenian men and immigrant (but obviously Greek) women.
Do not get me wrong. I do not overephasise on ancestry as much as you think. But the above are hard facts that cannot be washed out by any modern propaganda. The fact that the Athenian democracy was all-inclusive did not mean that it was for every soul that circulate in the city. Really far from that.
I will again repeat and underline that the most basic thing that any society has to do is to define itself. And in that it is the people that must do it, not the leaders. Leaders can define any other thing including financial thingies, external affairs even war (no matter if unfair & undemocratic) but what is the society and what is not, who is in and who is not, it is something much more basic and it should be up to the people. Either we like democracy or not, we can't have it partial. -
Message 29
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Nick, sorry for the delay, watching the football. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the overall legislation that defined citizenship and ignoring the assertions of shared identity through the communal repetition of rituals. Whatever the case it appears just how one defined who and how someone was listed as a citizen in each deme was not standardised until the the decree of Demophilos in 346/5 BC in the light of abuses and anomalies between each deme. Far from being the first consideration of the lawgiver it appears to have been something of an afterthought with the early democracy being prepared to leave the issue of citizenship in the hands of the deme. In that sense it is not the citizen body as a whole that decided who belonged but the customs of each community within Attica. Even when it camne to debating the matter of how this was defined the terms of reference were shaped by the Prytany who decided what the boule and ecclesia would vote upon.
As an aside Pericles did not extend the franchise so that all issue from liasons between Athenian men and non Athenian women would be entitled to inherit property. You have taken a special case and turned it into a general rule of law. Pericles had to ask for special dispensation in order to allow his illegitimate son to be recognised as his legitimate heir and thus preserve his family's estates after the death of the son's borne by his wife in the plagues. There is no suggestion that this was a common occurrence.
You also appear to have misunderstood the comments made about the expansion of political representation under the early democracy. Nowhere did I state that all residents were given citizenship under the early democracy as I explicitly highlighted that those who were newly enfranchised at the end of the sixth century were free so mentioning Scythian slaves is something of a non secateur. Also it would appear to be slightly presumptious to assume that ancient Greek communities were overwhelmingly dark haired and therefore children that were outside this norm would have been considered unfit and liable to exposure. Certainly nothing in the Illiad would suggest that fair hair was seen as out of the ordinary. -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 16th July 2010
I apologise for not having interpreted your sayings in the correct sense in the first place and many thanks for the important correction on Pericle's move to satisfy his own interests. I was aware that in a city like Athens, the right of citizenship was defined by the each of the "demoi" but and could only be suscicious of how abritrary that could be (i.e. cases of orphans finding their place in childless citizen couples etc.).
On how black of blond haired were the Greeks or how they resembled, we have quite precise descriptions on it: they were ranging from black to dark brown hair with the real blond hair or the kind of Caucasian blond being clearly an odd characteristic that would distinguish a foreigner. In Â鶹ԼÅÄric poems only selected heros like Achiles are mentioned as blond (while Oddyseus is mentioned in Iliad as blond, in Oddysey as dark haires) and this of course does not mean blond-blond: the word "blond" is not a particular colour - A Greek called blond in Greece, in Scandinavia would be considered rather dark-brown Scandinavian-like blond is called white-blond. Such colours (and Scythians like other northern tribes had often open colours) where certainly a guarantee for the kid not to take the citizenship no matter how much its (most probably very Mediterranean looking parents) would claim that it was Zeus that made it like this! Imagine poor Demosthenis had to suffer the terrible accusations for having 1 Scythian grandmother - but then it served him right for calling Philip a barbarian and Aeshunis a traitor. Don't forget Athens or no Athens, we still talk about a small society. Village people! Hehe...
Really thanx for the feedback.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.