Political Systems

The government systems of ancient Greece varied as the Greeks searched for the answers to such fundamental questions as who should rule and how. Should sovereignty lie in the rule of the law, the constitution, the officials, or the citizens? Not settling on a definitive answer to these questions, the government in the ancient Greek world, therefore, took extraordinarily diverse forms and, across different city-states and over many centuries, political power could rest in the hands of a single individual, an elite or in every male citizen – democracy which was widely regarded as the Greeks' greatest contribution to civilization. Still the ancient Greeks were not able to define a proper criterion for a leader of the nation. This was the reason why even Greece was plundered again and again under its pseudo political systems which were only created to benefit the ruling elite.

It is impossible to write about Greek life, whether in town or in country, without saying something on the subject of politics; for they affect every profession, every trade, and almost every family to a degree unknown in other lands; they form the constant topic of conversation whenever two or three Greek men are gathered together; and one of the first questions which the visitor from Athens was expected to answer, whether in monastery or cottage, was, “How goes the government?” An impartial account of the Greek political system, not only as it exists on paper, but as it really works, is, therefore, an essential prelude to any description of contemporary life in Greece. ¹

Greek politics took shape in the three centuries after 800 B.C. Greek government in this early period and thereafter revolved around the city-state unit - that is, a regional government centered in a major city but embracing the agricultural hinterland as well. These units could be quite tiny or, like Sparta (one of the key city-states), they could embrace a substantial area. Athens, the most famous city-state, was about the size of the state of Rhode Island; by the 5th century B.C. The city-state government came naturally to Greece, partly because of the traditions set in earlier Middle Eastern civilizations where regional states often predominated and partly because a mountainous terrain made larger connections difficult. Many city-states were formed in a valley or bay with a single city organizing the surrounding agricultural enclave. Greek settlements in other areas, however, such as the northern Middle East or southern Italy, also adopted the city-state form even when natural conditions did not require it. By 600 B.C., nearly 300 independent poleis had developed in Greece. While the city-state format promoted frequent wars, as no single unit predominated, it did encourage a political life of unusual intensity. So much was this the case that the Greek word for city-state government - polis - serves as the origin of our word politics. ²

The political institutions of the city were born with the city itself and on the same day with it. Every member of the city carried them within himself for the germ of them was in each man’s belief and religion. ³

The political systems of Greece differed with respect to time and location. Initially, almost all states had ‘monarchy’, which then changed to ‘aristocracy’ and ‘oligarchy’, consequently giving birth to the ‘democracy’ which we know today. The details of these systems are given below:

Monarchy

Monarchy (basileia), rule by a king (a basileus), often with a council of advisers surrounding the king, dates to the Dark Age and earlier. A form of the word basileus is found on Linear B tablets as qa-si-re-u, possibly meaning more specifically an overseer. Evidence for a hereditary kingship exists for some states, such as Corinth, Messenia, Sparta and Sicyon. In the classical period, rule by kingship was only known from myths and in barbarian areas. ⁴

Originally, the king was the religious chief of the city, the high-priest of the public hearth, and that he had added political authority to the priestly, because it appeared natural that the man who represented the religion of the city should at the same time be the president of the assembly, the judge, and the head of the army. By virtue of this principle, it happened that all the powers of the state became united in the hands of the king. ⁵

In legendary times, as we learn from the Iliad, each little city or district had its hereditary king, supposed to be descended from the gods. He was advised by the Council of the Elders and the Assembly, the latter being a mass meeting, where all the citizens gathered to express their views upon political affairs. The power of the kings gradually diminished until most of the cities became republics, or commonwealths. In some cases, the authority was held by a few distinguished and ancient families. If good, it was styled an aristocracy (aristos, best) but if bad, an oligarchy (oligos, few). In a democracy, any citizen could hold office and vote in the assembly. ⁶

In the Heroic age Greece was already divided into a number of independent states, each governed by its own king. The authority of the king was not limited by any laws and his power resembled that of the patriarchs in the Old Testament and for the exercise of it he was responsible only to Jove, and not to his people. It was from the Olympian god that his ancestors had received the supremacy, and he transmitted it, as a divine inheritance, to his son. He had the sole command of his people in war, be administered to them justice in peace, and he offered up on their behalf prayers and sacrifices to the gods. He was the general, judge, and priest of his people. They looked up to him with reverence as of divine descent and divine appointment. ⁷

Although the king was not restrained in the exercise of his power by any positive laws, there were, even in the Heroic age, two bodies that practically limited his authority, and which became in republican Greece the sole depositaries of political power. These were the Boule, or council of chiefs, and the Agora, general assembly of freemen. The king was surrounded by a limited number of nobles or chiefs, to whom the title of Basileus was given, as well as to the monarch himself. Like the king they traced their descent from the gods, and formed his Boule, or Council, to which he announced the resolutions he had already formed and from which he asked advice. ⁸

Athens, like the other Grecian cities, was governed for a time by kings. Cecrops, the first ruler, according to the legends, taught the people of Attica navigation, marriage, and the culture of the Olive. Codrus, the last monarch, fell (1050 B.C.) while resisting the Dorians. ⁹ The Athenians affected the motives of reverence to his memory as an excuse for forbidding to the illustrious martyr the chance of an unworthy successor. But the aristocratic constitution had been morally strengthened by the extinction of the race of Theseus and the jealousy of a foreign line; and the abolition of the monarchy was rather caused by the ambition of the nobles than the popular veneration for the patriotism of Codrus. The name of king was changed into that of archon, (magistrate or governor) the succession was still made hereditary, but the power of the ruler was placed under new limits, and he was obliged to render to the people, or rather to the Eupatrids, an account of his government, whenever they deemed it advisable to demand it. ¹⁰

Aristocracy

Aristocracy referred to a government by a relatively small privileged class or by a minority consisting of those felt to be best qualified to rule. As conceived by the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, aristocracy simply meant the rule of the few best—the morally and intellectually superior—governing in the interest of the entire population. ¹¹

The transition from monarchy to aristocracy was gradual; and though no ancient writer informs us, we may be sure that it was brought about by the council of nobles, who alone benefited by the change. It must accordingly have been this body which, about the middle of the eighth century, reduced the lie tenure of the royal office to a single decade. ¹²

After the last monarch’s death, the Athenian nobles had succeeded by slow degrees in converting the ancient monarchy into an aristocracy in which noble birth was the chief qualification for office. At first a single archon of royal blood was elected for life, but after 752 B.C., the term was fixed for ten years. From 683 B.C., nine archons were elected yearly, and only nobles were eligible. In this way the ‘blue-bloods’ (aristocrats, nobles) usurped the supreme power, which they used to oppress the citizens. The people complained of this arbitrary rule, but their only answer was from the archon Draco, who drew up a code of criminal laws so severe in their penalties that they were said to be ‘written in blood’. ¹³

Draco was the first recorded legislator of Athens in Ancient Greece. He replaced the prevailing system of oral law and blood feud by a written code to be enforced only by a court. Draco was the first democratic legislator, inasmuch as he was requested by the Athenian citizens to be a lawgiver for the city-state, but the citizens were fully unaware that Draco would establish harsh laws. ¹⁴ Draco did or did not attempt to reform the government but he did not put an end to the oppressive practices of the nobles and the wealthy. They took advantage of the harsh laws relating to debt, to deprive the poorer freemen of their lands or to reduce them to slavery; but the poor showed so much inclination for fighting that their oppressors were alarmed. In the year 594 B.C. it was agreed by both the contending classes that Solon should be elected archon and entrusted with power to deal with the existing discontents and to make a new form of government. ¹⁵

Solon was known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece. He ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. ¹⁶ Naturally, he was mild and open in his manners and encouraged conversation upon his institutions and discussion of their merit; professing always willingness to alter whatsoever could be clearly proved capable of amendment. Such was his influence, he procured a promise which was solemnly confirmed by oaths of all people, that they would change nothing of his institutions for ten years. ¹⁷ He cancelled all existing debts, restored liberty those who had been enslaved, altered the law in regard to security for debt, and then attempted to remedy the defects of the political system.

Solon devised a moderate system of popular government of the kind to which Aristotle later named ‘polity’. It was popular, since the mass of the citizens had a controlling power; but it was moderate, because no class had opportunities for governing in its own interest. His new institutions were the popular law-courts, the assembly of citizens, the council of four hundred, and certain regulations which made eligibility to office depended on wealth.

Solon ordered all citizens to come together yearly in assembly for the election of archons. The choice however of the archons was conducted by a process that was not purely elective; each of the four ancient tribes, into which the Athenian families were divided, elected from among the richest class of citizens, ten candidates for the office, and, from the forty thus chosen, nine were taken by drawing lots. As Solon ordered that the laws which he had made should continue in force for a hundred years, we may infer that he intended that the assembly should for the present do little or nothing in the way of law making, but, in case it should be inclined towards unwise innovations, he established as a check upon it his council of four hundred. To make up this council he selected a hundred men from each of the four tribes and, to give it a restraining power, he ordered that no proposal should be brought before the assembly till the council had approved it. His rules for eligibility to office depended on a division of the citizens into four classes according to their wealth. ¹⁸

Attempting to balance political power between rich and poor, Solon ranked male citizens into four classes, according to their income. “five-hundred-measure men” (pentakosiomedimnoi, those with an annual income equivalent to that much agricultural produce), “horsemen” (hippeis, income of three hundred measures), “yoked men” (zeugitai, two hundred measures), and “laborers” (thetes, less than two hundred measures). The higher a man's class, the higher the governmental office for which he was eligible, with the laborer class barred from all posts. Though Solon did reaffirm the right of this class to participate in the assembly (ekklesia). ¹⁹ This classification of his government turned the people towards a complete materialistic approach because every single individual knew that he could get a higher rank into the society, only on the basis of wealth. Godliness, piousness, morality, and virtue did not have any respect; hence one could not hope to be selected as a leader even if he had the best qualities. Might is right was the rule to follow.

The Tyrants

Athens prospered under Solon’s management but moderate measures, as is often the case, pleased neither extreme of society. ²⁰ It was not from the people that the oligarchies received their first and greatest blow. They were generally overthrown by the usurpers, to whom the Greeks gave the name of ‘Tyrants’. The Greek word Tyrant does not correspond in meaning to the same word in the English language. It signifies simply an irresponsible ruler. ²¹

In Greece monarchy was many times restored in the cities, but the new monarchs never claimed the right to be called kings, and were satisfied to be called tyrants. What made the difference in these names was not the more or fewer moral qualities found in the sovereign. It was not the custom to call a good prince ‘king’ and a bad one ‘tyrant’. Religion was what distinguished one from the other. The primitive kings had performed the duties of priests, and had derived their authority from the sacred fire. The tyrants of a later epoch were merely political chiefs, and owed their elevation to force or election. ²²

Tyrants who had not inherited their power, but had founded it themselves, were at all events energetic men, and they generally combined with their energy a correct appreciation of the civilizing tendencies of the age, of the paths which should be followed by commerce, of the advantages to be derived from intercourse with foreign countries, and of the benefits to be gained by the promotion of art and science. Each fresh success which they achieved for their city redounded to their honor as well as to that of the city, and thus created for them a new element of security. Hence the prestige, which occasionally the first, but more often the second of the line, managed to give to his court and at the same time to his city. ²³

Most of these ‘tyrannies’ were, as Aristotle remarks, ‘exceedingly short lived’; the longest, that of Orthagoras and his successors at Sicyon, lasted barely a century. Its survival was due, we are told, to their exceptional moderation. For the ordinary tyrant, especially in the second generation, found it impossible to resist the temptations of power, and often yielded to them in their grossest and most violent forms. ²⁴

The tyrant’s (Peisistratos, ruled most of the period between 561-527 B.C.) sons, Hippias and Hipparchus, trod in his steps. But the latter having been assassinated, the brother became moody and cruel. His enemies, led by the Alcmaeonidae, bribed the oracle at Delphi, so that when the lace-daemonians consulted the priestess, they received the reply, “Athens must be freed.” The Spartans accordingly invaded Attica and drove away the tyrant (510 B.C.) Hippias went over to the Persian court, and was henceforth declared the enemy of his native city. ²⁵

Between 500 B.C. and 338 B.C. in many of the Greek cities a system of government was set up under which the whole body of the citizens acting collectively conducted the work of government, or at least all parts of it which can in the nature of things be conducted by a numerous assembly, while in other cities a small body of the richest citizens ruled selfishly for their own advantage and the advantage of their class; and, since any system in which the whole body of citizens directly conduct the work of government or the greater part of the work of government is known as a democracy. ²⁶

The fundamental idea of democracy was, that all citizens, as such, should enjoy equal rights in the administration of the state; and yet a perfect equality existed in very few of the cities. This equality was commonly limited to a participation in the popular assemblies and the courts. A government did not cease to be a democracy, though the poorer class was entirely excluded from all magistracies, and their votes of less weight in the popular assemblies. ²⁷

Cleisthenes was a noble Athenian of the Alcmeonidate family. He is credited with the reforming of the constitution of ancient Athens and setting it on a democratic footing in 508 B.C. With the help from the Alcmeonidate clan and the Spartans, he was responsible for overthrowing Hippias, the son of the Peisistratos. After the collapse of the Peisistratid tyranny, Isagoras and Cleisthenes were in rivalry for power. Isagoras won the upper hand by becoming archon in 507-508 B.C. Cleisthenes responded by gaining support from the unrepresented masses. Isagoras appealed to the Spartan king Cleomenes-I to help him expel Cleisthenes. He did so on the pretext of the Alcmaeonid curse. Consequently, Cleisthenes left Athens as an exile.

Isagoras was unrivalled in power inside the city and attempted to establish an oligarchy, therefore he set about uprooting hundreds of people from their homes under the pretense that they too were cursed and attempted to dissolve the council. However, the council resisted and the Athenian people declared their support in favor of it. Consequently, Cleisthenes was recalled along with the hundreds of exiles and assumed the leadership of Athens.²⁸

Cleisthenes, now the candidate of the people’s party, became archon. All freemen of Attica were admitted to citizenship. In order to break up the four old tribes, and prevent the nobles from raising parties among the people of their clans, or according to local interests, he divided the country into districts, and organized ten new tribes by uniting non adjacent districts. Each tribe sent fifty representatives to the senate, and also chose a strategus or general, the ten generals to command the army in daily turn. Four times a month all Athens met to deliberate and decide upon public questions. ²⁹

The Athenians called their government a democracy (a system created by the limited minds of the people hence it lacked in many ways. The basic flaw of this system was that an intellectual and an illiterate were considered of the same status and no specific criteria for choosing a leader was decided.). Even today, most countries which follow this system are in a very bad shape. Few exceptions do exist, but overall, the situation is bad. This body had absolute power, and was the true sovereign of Athens. It assembled at least three times a month to deliberate and to vote. The assembly was held in the open air on the Pnyx. ³⁰ the citizens sat on stone benches arranged in an amphitheatre the magistrates before them on a platform opened the session with a religious ceremony and a prayer, then a herald proclaimed in a loud voice the business which was to occupy the assembly, and said: “Who wishes to speak?" Every citizen had the right to this privilege; the orators mounted the tribune according to age. When all had spoken, the president put the question; the assembly voted by a show of hands, and then dissolved. ³¹

Although it is Athens which has become associated with the birth of democracy (demokratia) from around 460 B.C., other Greek states did establish a similar political system, notably, Argos, (briefly) Syracuse, Rhodes, and Erythrai. Athens is, however, the state we know most about. ³²

Political System of Sparta

The Spartan system, which was not merely a political constitution but a general way of life, was a standing wonder to the Greeks, admired but not imitated, an inspiration to political theorists. In an unstable world, Sparta’s constitution remained unchanged for centuries, and she had no tyrant before the end of the third century. The power which she had built up during the sixth century was the nucleus of Greek resistance to Persia in 480 B.C., and it was the growth of this power, and the steadfastness displayed by Leonidas and his men at Thermopylae, that impelled Herodotus to make the earliest surviving attempt to describe the Spartan system. Sparta in the end defeated Athens in the great struggle of the Peloponnesian War in the late fifth century, and among the generation which witnessed this defeat were those who drew the moral that Spartan Oligarchy must be right and Athenian democracy a mistake. ³³

The Spartans in prehistoric times lived under a system of government which was called dual heroic kingship. Their political institutions were in most respects the same as those of the other Greeks in the heroic age, but they regularly had two kings reigning at the same time, each being head by descent of one of the two royal houses. After the establishment of the dual heroic kingship, the Spartans introduced further modifications in their system of government. People believed that the wise lawgiver Lycurgus had been the author of these changes, the modified system of government was known as the constitution of Lycurgus. This celebrated constitution was defined in a solemn compact said to have been dictated to Lycurgus by the Delphic priestess and accepted by the Spartans; Plutarch has preserved a document which professed to be the original text; and, though the pretensions of this document to extreme antiquity were probably unfounded, there was no doubt that it gave a truthful account of the government. It ordered Lycurgus to establish a temple of Zeus Syllanius and Athena Syllania, to divide the people into tribes, to establish a senate of elders, thirty in number with the commanders (i.e. the kings), to hold assemblies at fixed times between Babyca and Knakion, and so to propose measures and take decisions on them; and that the commons, the whole of the Spartiate should have the decision and authority."³⁴

Lycurgus’s whole aim was to make Spartans a race of soldiers. Trade and travel were prohibited. No money was allowed except cumbrous iron coins, which no foreigner would take. Most property, such as slaves, horses, dogs, etc. was held in common. Boys were removed from home at the age of seven, and educated by state officers. The men ate at public tables, slept in barracks, and could visit their homes only occasionally. Private life was given up for the good of the state and devoted to military drill.

The two kings were retained, but their power was limited by a senate of twenty-eight men over sixty years old, and an assembly of all citizens. ³⁵ These men were recruited from the highest social class, the aristocratic Spartiates. Rather like medieval knights, the Spartiates were a class of military professionals who lived most of their lives in communal barracks. Rarely seeing their wives and children, their lands were farmed by slaves, leaving them free to pursue to the arts of war. Beneath this highest class was a middle class, called the Perioeci. Made up of a farmers and artisans who were the descendants of those peoples whom the Spartans had first conquered, the Perioeci paid taxes and could serve in the army, but had no real political rights. At the bottom were the helots: a slave class descended from those peoples who had resisted subjugation by Sparta. Because the helots were constantly rebelling, the Spartans attempted to control them by forming a secret society that annually murdered any helot suspected of encouraging subversion. ³⁶ Five ephors (overseers) were chosen annually by the assembly, and these were the real rulers. No popular discussion was allowed, nor could a private citizen speak in the assembly without special leave from a magistrate. ³⁷

On its face, the Spartan system of government looked great but in reality, even this system was cruel and unjust in the social perspective. From the Spartan point of view, it seems that the people were basically robots who had no emotions and they had to obey the orders at any cost whether or not it invaded their personal space. On the contrary, the political system proposed by Prophet Muhammad under the divine guidance was so comprehensive that the historians stated that it provided the basic rights to the people, took care of their social and economic needs and also provided freedom to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Oligarchy

Oligarchy or the “rule of the few” developed from the old aristocracies, with wealth not birth as the deciding factor. Particularly when tyrannies were overthrown, political power was still with a minority of wealthy people. Although many full citizens were present in an oligarchy, they still did not have full political rights (such as voting). The oligarchic system was a common form of constitution, although it could differ from state to state. The political power of the oligarchs was usually vested in a council, such as the Areopagus. The number of oligarchs could be limited to a fixed total. In 411 B.C., the Four Hundred was an extremist revolutionary oligarchic council established to rule Athens and overthrow the democrats. When the council of the Four Hundred was overthrown, an oligarchic council of Five Thousand was instituted (the franchise being extended to 5,000 citizens). ³⁸

The Thirty Tyrants is a term first used by Polycrates in a speech praising Thrasybulus to describe the brief 8-month oligarchy which governed Athens after the Peloponnesian War also called simply ‘the Thirty.’ The Thirty’s rule became marked with such brutal and repressive actions that ‘oligarchy’ emerged from it so discredited Athenians refused to consider ‘rule by the few’ a respectable alternative to democracy for three generations. ³⁹

After the capture of Athens Lysander surrendered that city to the discretion of thirty men. These were appointed especially for the purpose of drawing up new laws and a new constitution but instead they forcibly assumed the government, known as that of “the Thirty,” appointing as many new magistrates and officers as they pleased, and also a new senate composed of persons of assured oligarchical character and of their warmest adherents. ⁴⁰ The Thirty Tyrants maintained power for thirteen months. Though brief, their reign resulted in the killing of 5% of the Athenian population, the confiscation of citizens' property, and the exile of other democratic supporters. ⁴¹ They became known as the "Thirty Tyrants" because of their cruel and oppressive tactics. The two leading members were Critias and Theramenes who were the cruelest out of all.

Under the protection of a Spartan garrison, the Thirty arrested and executed hundreds of Athenians for their democratic politics, and hundreds more regardless of class or politics. Additionally, they confiscated the property of their victims, more specifically that of the foreign resident population, the Metics. The constitution of the Thirty was so unpopular that these oligarchs were forced to drive the lower and middle class of Athens out of the city, limiting the citizen population to a privileged class of 3,000 Athenians who retained a share in the government. The rule of the Thirty was overthrown following a brief civil war between the expelled Athenians led by the general, Thrasybulus, and the Thirty with support from the Three Thousand and the garrison. After losses on both sides, the Spartan king, Pausanias, seeking to prevent another lengthy conflict with Athens, intervened and arbitrated a settlement with Thrasybulus and the exiles, allowing for the restoration of democracy in Athens. ⁴²

The Thirty at first avoided crafting a definite constitution. They sought instead to establish an interim functioning government, eliminate opponents and reform the laws they thought were “problematic”.

The Thirty re-established the Boule (Council of 500) and (re-) appointed other magistrates such as the 9 Archons (Leaders), the Eleven (Prison Magistrates), the Strategoi (Military Commanders), as well as the Board of Ten Treasurers of Athena and the Other Gods among other miscellaneous appurtenances of the democracy. The Thirty, however, also created “The Ten,” 10 men supervised by the Thirty to rule Piraeus. The Thirty also hired 300 Mastigophoroi (whip-bearing attendants) to act as a kind of police force.

The Thirty presided over a trial in the Boule against the previous strategoi, taxiarchs (brigadiers), and miscellaneous others, who had opposed peace with Sparta. Though The Thirty condemned many of these men to death, they did not confiscate their property. Soon after this trial, The Thirty declared they must purge “the polis of unjust men and the rest of the citizens inclined against virtue and injustice”. They executed sycophants, thieves, bribers, and other “undesirables” after more trials before the Boule. The Athenians generally accepted these initial actions as necessary.

The Thirty rescinded various grants of citizenship to foreigners and revoked several proxenies (ambassadorships, lit. "Compacts of friendship"). They also erased the laws of Ephialtes and Archestratus, and thus by consequence expanded the power of the Areopagus (High Court of Appeal). The Thirty then began to edit the Laws of Solon inscribed and posted next to the Royal Stoa. They also reoriented the Pnyx (the Ekklesia Meeting Place) so as to limit the maximum size of those gatherings. Finally, they had ‘the Eleven’ report directly to them instead of the courts. ⁴³

Although most ancient testimony emphasizes how lawlessness, greed and licentiousness caused the Thirty to embark on a reign of terror, our sources also stress how the Thirty became more and more violent as opposition intensified. These explanations were not mutually exclusive, and there was certainly a significant degree of truth to both of them. The oligarchs personally benefited from the atrocities that they committed, and in the process, they caused more opposition that they had to confront. Still, these explanations are unsatisfactory because they imply that the violence could have been avoided if only the oligarchs and their supporters had not been morally bankrupt, or if the regime had not sparked so much opposition. Violence was a necessary and integral part of their rule that was inevitable once the Thirty plotted to overthrow the democracy and replace it with a narrow oligarchy. The Thirty could only build up their regime by tearing down the democracy. ⁴⁴

Money had become necessary for the preservation of their power, which, being founded on usurpation, and tyrannically administered, could only be maintained by the influence of corruption, and the mercenary aid of foreign troops. The life of man, therefore, they regarded as a matter of little moment; the amassing of wealth was the principal object of their desire; to gratify which, ten strangers were at once devoted to destruction. The Thirty justified these abominable acts of cruelty by the authority of a servile senate, which they still allowed to subsist as the instrument and accomplice of their tyranny. It could not be expected, however, that in a city accustomed to the utmost liberty of opinion and freedom of debate, a body of five hundred, or even of thirty men, should continue to agree in the same odious and oppressive measures. The first seeds of discord, or rather the first symptoms of repentance, appeared in the speeches and behavior of the bold and active Theramenes, who, though the principal author of the usurpation, was already disposed by the humanity of his nature, or by the singular inconstancy of his temper, to destroy the work of his own hands. His strenuous endeavors were used to save the innocent and unhappy victims whom his furious colleagues daily devoted to destruction; under his protection the citizens assembled, and expressed their resentment or despair; and it was justly apprehended that the government of the Thirty might be dissolved by the same means. ⁴⁵

Critias, now, with the consistency of the doctrinal, came to the conclusion that Theramenes was the real obstacle to the attainment of the best form of constitution, and must therefore be got rid of at once. The Council was summoned and young armed men were kept ready in case of need. Critias accused Theramenes of having betrayed his colleagues in this instance as he had formerly done when member of the Four Hundred and in the case of the generals at Arginusae, and demanded the punishment of death. Theramenes defended himself, saying that it was not he who injured his party, but those who persecuted the innocent. Still, he was put to death by members of his own party. After the death of Theramenes the Athenian reign of terror pursued its course. ⁴⁶

Athenians in the polis now wanted to depose the Thirty. In the winter of 403 B.C., Thrasybulus with a band of democratic exiles seized Phyle, a fortress on the Boeotian border. In May, 403 B.C., the democrats successfully captured the Piraeus, Athens’ major port, and Critias fell in the fighting. The Thirty were then replaced by a board of ten rulers and withdrew to Eleusis. The Ten continued the war against the democratic exiles until Sparta, under pressure from its allies, restored the Athenian democracy. Several years later, the Athenians marched out against the remnant of the Thirty living in Eleusis and killed them. ⁴⁷

The restored democracy arrived at a careful balance between retribution and forgiveness. Formally, all but the top officials in the former regime were given amnesty, but in practice private citizens could indirectly sanction even low-level oligarchic sympathizers by raising their collaboration as character evidence in unrelated lawsuits. The Athenians also balanced remembering and forgetting: discussion of the civil war in the courts memorialized the atrocities committed during the tyranny but also whitewashed the widespread collaboration by ordinary citizens, depicting the majority of the populace as members of the democratic resistance. ⁴⁸

The restored democracy nonetheless confiscated the property of the Thirty, the Eleven, and the Ten as well as the property of the oligarchy’s more prominent supporters. As a result of the Thirty’s actions during their rule, the Athenians abandoned even entertaining the idea of “oligarchic rule” for the next forty years. ⁴⁹

The Rise of the Macedon

A complete contrast to the Athenians, with the confines of the Greek world was presented by the Macedonians. We count them as Greeks in the wider sense of the word. Macedon, this outlying Greek kingdom in the north of Thessaly is situated inland from the Thermaic Gulf, on the northwest Aegean coast. In modern reference, the name Macedon usually refers to the political entity, as opposed to the general territory called Macedonia. Macedon’s heartland was the wide Thermaic plain, west of the Modern Greek city of Thessaloniki, where the rivers Haliacmon and Axius flowed close together to the sea. The widely separated upper valleys of these rivers supplied two more regions of political and economic importance. Elsewhere the country was mountainous and forested. Its name came from an ancient Greek word meaning highlanders.

Macedon was inhabited by various peoples of Dorian-Greek, Illyrian, and Thracian descent, who spoke a Greek dialect and worshipped Greek gods. Prior to the mid-400s B.C. Macedon was a mere backwater, beleaguered by hostile Illyrians to the west and Thracians to the east, and significant mainly as an exporter of timber and silver to the main Greek world. ⁵⁰

In 359 B.C. Philip II became king of Macedonia, which had been weakened by dynastic struggles. Macedonia subsequently became the dominant power in the Greek world. ⁵¹ After becoming the King, he set himself first to extend and organize his own realm and to remodel his army. Phillip made his infantry fight in a closely packed mass, the Macedonian phalanx, and he trained his mounted gentlemen, the knights of companions, to fight in formation and hence invented cavalry. ⁵² He completely reorganized Macedonia’s army. He increased its size from 10,000 to 24,000 and enlarged the cavalry from 600 to 3,500. This was no longer an army of citizen-warriors but one of professional soldiers. He created a corps of engineers to develop siege weaponry, namely towers and catapults. To give each man a sense of unity and solidarity, he provided uniforms and required an oath of allegiance to the king: each soldier would no longer be loyal to a particular town or province but faithful only to the king.⁵³

In 357 B.C., the second year of his reign, Philip captured the north Aegean city of Amphipolis, a former Athenian colony located near the Gold and Silver-mining region of Mt. Pangaeus. The Athenians declared war, but hostilities trailed off amid Athenian reluctance to commit land troops so far from home (a recurring factor that worked to Philip’s advantage during the next two decades). Meanwhile the Pangaeus mines provided Philip with an enormous yearly sum of 1,000 Talents. Another foreign policy success of 357 B.C. was Philip’s marriage to Olympias, a young noblewoman from the northwestern Greek region called Epirus. For 20 years Olympias was the foremost of Philip’s multiple wives. (Eventually he had seven.) Although the royal marriage proved unhappy, it produced a son and a daughter; the boy, born in 356 B.C., was Alexander.

By involving himself in the Third Sacred War against the central Greek state of Phocis (35–346 B.C.), Philip began to influence affairs in Greece. Soon he dominated the leadership of Thessaly and made an alliance with formidable Thebes. Amid these events, Philip lost an eye when he was hit by an arrow during his siege of the rebellious Macedonian city of Methone (354 B.C.) In 349 B.C., Philip moved to devour the Greek cities of the north Aegean region known as Chalcidice. He besieged the Chalcidic capital, Olynthos, whose inhabitants appealed for help to Athens. The Athenians again declared war on Philip, but again declined to send troops, despite the fiery oratory of the Athenian statesman Demosthenes. Captured by Philip, Olynthos was leveled to the ground.

The year 346 B.C. saw Philip preparing to conquer mainland Greece. As was typical of his style, he first made peace with Athens. When the Third Sacred War finally ended in Phocis’s defeat, Philip marched his Macedonians unchallenged through Thermopylae and into Phocis. At meetings of the influential Amphictyonic League, at Delphi, Philip was admitted in place of the Phocian delegates and was personally awarded the two votes previously controlled by the Phocian people.

Meanwhile his Greek enemies organized against him, with funding from the alarmed Persian king, Artaxerxes III. Supported by the Athenian navy, the northeastern Greek colonies of Byzantium and Perinthus held out against Philip’s siege (340 B.C.). Then his erstwhile Greek ally Thebes turned against him, ejecting his garrison from Thermopylae (338 B.C.). Philip invaded central Greece in the spring of 338 B.C., bypassing the Theban garrison at Thermopylae, he marched through Phocis toward Thebes. In response, Athens and Thebes, although traditional enemies, patched together a hasty alliance and faced Philip’s advancing army at the Battle of Chairnoeia, northwest of Thebes. The battle was a complete Macedonian victory, and Thebes and Athens surrendered. Philip treated Athens leniently but Thebes harshly, staging executions and selling war prisoners as slaves. After 20 years of scheming, he had conquered Greece in one campaign.

Almost immediately, Philip began preparations for an invasion of Persian-held Asia Minor, for which his trusted general Parmenion secured a crossing of the Hellespont (337 B.C.). But in 336 B.C., Philip was assassinated at the old Macedonian royal city of Aegai (modern Vergina), on the morning of his daughter’s wedding. The killer, an aggrieved Macedonian noble, probably acted at the instigation of Olympias (whom Philip had recently divorced) and the 20-year-old Alexander. Philip’s new number-one wife had recently borne Philip a son, and no doubt Olympias feared this threat to Alexander’s succession to the throne. The young wife and child were later murdered on Olympias’s orders. Alexander, acclaimed as king, took up Philip’s invasion plan and crossed to Asia Minor in 334 B.C. ⁵⁴

Roman Conquest

If the constitutions of the individual Grecian states were defective, the constitution of the whole Grecian system was still more so. Though geographically united, they cannot be said to have formed one political system. A lasting union was never established between the Grecian states. ⁵⁵

The civil wars between the rich and the poor continued for nearly three centuries (430-150 B.C.). Many citizens were massacred, and a greater number exiled. These exiles wandered about in poverty. Knowing no trade but that of a soldier, they entered as mercenaries into the armies of Sparta, Athens, the Great King, the Persian satraps—in short, of anybody who would hire them. There were 50,000 Greeks in the service of Darius against Alexander.

It was seldom that such men returned to their own country. Thus, the cities lost their people. At the same time families became smaller, many men preferring not to marry or raise children, others having but one or two. A time came when there were no longer enough citizens in the towns to resist a conqueror. ⁵⁶

The discontent in Greece increased, since neither had the Aetolian League obtained the alliance of Thessaly, Growing Power of Rome nor the Achaean that of Sparta. In the latter state a communistic military monarchy asserted itself. The interference of Antiochus II., king of Syria, in 192 B.C., who was called in by the Aetolians, was quickly averted by Rome; the Aetolian League consequently sank into absolute insignificance. In the meantime, the Achaean League had attained the zenith of its expansion. But it was apparent that the external unity of the federal state could not overcome the diversity of its component constitutions. Such confusion reigned in Sparta that order could not be restored either by the Aetolian League or by the arbitration of Rome. ⁵⁷

The most discerning of the Greeks commenced to see the danger during the second war of Rome with Carthage. The Greek cities at this time grouped themselves in two leagues hostile to each other. The Aetolians and Archaeans had their direction. They commanded the armies and determined on peace and war, just as Athens and Sparta once did. Each league supported in the Greek states one of the two political parties, the Aetolian League (Democratic political parties) and the Achaean League (the oligarchical). Neither of the two leagues was strong enough to unite all the Greek states. The Romans then appeared on the scene. Phillip, the King of Macedon (197 B.C.), and later Antiochus, the King of Syria (193-169 B.C.) declared war on them. Both were defeated, Rome destroyed their armies and made them surrender their fleets.

Perseus, the new king of Macedon, was conquered, made prisoner, and his kingdom overthrown. The Greeks made no effort to unite for the common defense; rich and poor persisted in their strife, and each hated the other more than the foreigner. The Democratic Party allied itself with Macedon, the oligarchical party called in the Romans while the Theban democrats were fighting in the army of Philip, the Theban oligarchs opened the town to the Roman general. At Rhodes, all were condemned to death who had acted or spoken against Rome. Even among the Achaeans, Callicrates, a partisan of the Romans, prepared a list of a thousand Citizens whom he accused of having been favorable to Perseus; these suspects were sent to Rome where they were held twenty years without Trial. The Romans were not at first introduced as enemies. In 197 B.C. the consul Flamininus, after conquering the king of Macedon, betook himself to the Isthmus of Corinth and before the Greeks assembled to celebrate the games, proclaimed that “all the Greek peoples were free.” The crowd in transports of joy approached Flamininus to thank him; they wished to salute their liberator, see his form, touch his hand; crowns and garlands were cast upon him. The Romans seeing themselves in control soon wished to command. The rich freely recognized their sovereignty; Rome served them by shattering the party of the poor. This endured for forty years. At last in 147 B.C., Rome being engaged with Carthage, the Democratic Party gained the mastery in Greece and declared war on the Romans. Corinth had been the centre of the resistance; the Romans entered it, massacred the men, and sold the women and children as slaves. The city full of masterpieces of art was pillaged and burnt; pictures of the great painters were thrown into the dust, Roman soldiers lying on them and playing at dice. ⁵⁸

Regardless of their advancements in education, politics, military and other professions, still the Greeks had to succumb in front of the Romans. They were not defeated by the army, but rather by the lack of unity among themselves, and the cruelties and atrocities, which the rulers had inflicted on the peasant class, which made them disloyal. Hence, they chose to fight as mercenaries against the Greek rulers and deserted their cities. The people look for a leader who works for them, not for his own interests. That’s why you see the continuous change in government systems (from monarchy till democracy) and regimes in Greek history. If the elite had not been busy looking after their own luxuries and interests only, and had paid little attention towards the peasants, and other stakeholders, it is possible that the outcome could have been different. As Arnold Heeren, in his book Politics of Greece states:

  “So certain is it that a nation is never deserted by destiny, so long as it does not desert itself.”⁵⁹

• ¹ John M. Hall (1908), Greek Life, An Account of Past and Contemporary Conditions and Practices, Bay View Reading Club, Detroit, Michigan, USA, Pg. 120.
• ² Robert Guisepi (1998), A History of Ancient Greece: http://history-world.org/greece%20legacy.htm : Retrieved: 31-03-2017
• ³ Fustel de Coulanges (1877), The Ancient City, Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greek and Rome (Translated by Williard Small), Lee and Shepard, Boston, USA, Pg. 231.
• ⁴ Lesley Adkins & Roy A. Adkins (2005), Handbook to the Life in Ancient Greece, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 30.
• ⁵ Fustel de Coulanges (1877), The Ancient City, Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greek and Rome (Translated by Williard Small), Lee and Shepard, Boston, USA, Pg. 314.
• ⁶ Joel Dorman Steele (1883), Brief History of Greece; Readings from Prominent Greek Historians, A. S. Barnes & Company, New York, USA, Pg. 5.
• ⁷ William Smith (1854), History of Greece, From the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (Revised by George W. Greene), Harper & Brothers, New York, USA, Pg. 25.
• ⁸ Ibid, Pg. 26.
• ⁹ Joel Dorman Steele (1883), Brief history of Greece; Readings from Prominent Greek Historians, A. S. Barnes & Company, New York, USA, Pg. 9.
• ¹⁰ Lord Lytton (1874), Athens, Its Rise and Fall, George Routledge and Sons, London, U.K, Pg. 94-95.
• ¹¹ Encyclopedia Britannica (Online Version): https://www.britannica.com/topic/aristocracy : Retrieved: 31-03-2017
• ¹² George Willis Botford (1926), Hellenic History, The Macmillan Company, New York, USA, Pg. 104.
• ¹³ John M. Hall (1908), Life, An Account of Past and Contemporary Conditions and Practices, Pub: Bay View Reading Club, Detroit, Michigan, USA, Pg. 27.
• ¹⁴ Michael Gagarin (2010), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., Vol. 3, Pg. 448.
• ¹⁵ Basil Edward Hammond (1895), The Political Institutions of Ancient Greeks, C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press, London, U.K., Pg. 59-61.
• ¹⁶ Encyclopedia Britannica (Online Version): https://www.britannica.com/biography/Solon: Retrieved: 31-03-2017
• ¹⁷ William Mitford (1795), The History of Greece, T. Wright London, U.K., Vol. 1, Pg.268
• ¹⁸ Basil Edward Hammond (1895), The Political Institutions of Ancient Greeks, C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press, London, U.K, Pg. 59-61.
• ¹⁹ Thomas R. Martin, An Overview of Classical Greek History from Mycenae to Alexander: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ textdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0009%3Achapter%3D6%3Asection%3D25 : Retrieved: 31-03-2017
• ²⁰ Thomas R. Martin, An Overview of Classical Greek History from Mycenae to Alexander:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ : Retrieved: 31-03-2017
• ²¹ William Smith (1854), History of Greece, From the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (Revised by George W. Greene), Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, USA, Pg. 81.
• ²² Fustel de Coulanges (1877), The Ancient City, Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greek and Rome (Translated by Williard Small), Lee and Shepard, Boston, USA, Pg. 239.
• ²³ Adolf Holm (1894), The History of Greece from its Commencement to the Close of the Independence of the Greek Nation, Macmillan and Co., New York, USA, Vol. 1, Pg. 262-263.
• ²⁴ Alfred E. Zimmern (1911), The Greek Commonwealth, Politics and Economics in Fifth Century Athens, Oxford Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K, Pg. 122-123.
• ²⁵ Joel Dorman Steele (1883), Brief history of Greece; Readings from Prominent Greek Historians, A. S. Barnes & Company, New York, USA, Pg. 11-12.
• ²⁶ Basil Edward Hammond (1895), The Political Institutions of Ancient Greeks, C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press, London, U.K., Pg. 24-25.
• ²⁷ George Bancroft (1824), Reflections on the Politics of Ancient Greece, Cummings Hilliard & Co., Boston, USA, Pg. 164.
• ²⁸ Athens Info Guide: http://www.athensinfoguide.com/history/t2-1historical.htm : Retrieved: 31-03-2017
• ²⁹ Joel Dorman Steele (1883), Brief History of Greece; Readings from Prominent Greek Historians, A. S. Barnes & Company, New York, USA, Pg. 12.
• ³⁰ Pnyx is a famous hill in central Athens, located in the capital of Greece. The hill is considered one of the oldest sites to the introduction of democracy because it is found from 507 B.C in Greece where the people of Athens got together to make the decisions for their government. The Pnyx is located less than 1kilometer (0.62 mi) west of the Acropolis and 1.6 km south-west of the centre of Athens, Syntagma Square.
• ³¹ Charles Seignobos (1906), History of Ancient Civilization (Translated by Arthur Herbert Wilde), Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, USA, Pg. 142-143.
• ³² Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): http://www.ancient.eu/Greek_Government/ : Retrieved: 27-03-2017
• ³³ A. Andrewes (1956), The Greek Tyrants, Hutchinson’s University Library, London, U.K, Pg. 66.
• ³⁴ Basil Edward Hammond (1895), The Political Institutions of Ancient Greeks, C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press, London, U.K, Pg. 44-45.
• ³⁵ Joel Dorman Steele (1883), Brief History of Greece; Readings from Prominent Greek Historians, A. S. Barnes & Company, New York, USA, Pg. 8.
• ³⁶ Sparta: Government and classes: http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/8b_p1.html : Retrieved: 27-03-2017
• ³⁷ Joel Dorman Steele (1883), Brief history of Greece; Readings from Prominent Greek Historians, A. S. Barnes & Company, New York, USA, Pg. 8.
• ³⁸ Lesley Adkins & Roy A. Adkins (2005), Handbook to the Life in Ancient Greece, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 31.
• ³⁹ Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): http://www.ancient.eu/The_Thirty_Tyrants/ : Retrieved: 31-03-2017
• ⁴⁰ T.T Timmayenis (1882), History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Present, D. Appleton and Company, New York, USA, Vol. 1, Pg. 390.
• ⁴¹ Andrew Wolpert (2002), Remembering Defeat: Civil War and Civic Memory in Ancient Athens, The John Hopkins University Press, Maryland, USA, Pg. 22.
• ⁴² Lucas D. LeCaire (2013), Tyranny and Terror: The Failure of Athenian Democracy and the Reign of Thirty Tyrants, EWU Masters Thesis Collection, Paper 179, Eastern Washington University, Washington, USA, Pg. 24.
• ⁴³ Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): http://www.ancient.eu/The_Thirty_Tyrants/ : Retrieved: 01-04-2017
• ⁴⁴ Sian Lewis (2006), Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, U.K, Pg. 213-214.
• ⁴⁵ John Gillies (1827), The History of Ancient Greece: Its Colonies and Conquests, Jones & Co., London, U.K, Vol. 2, Pg. 244.
• ⁴⁶ Adolf Holm (1909), The History of Greece from its Commencement to the Close of the Independent Greek Nation, Macmillan and Co., Limited, London, U.K, Vol. 2, Pg. 529-530.
• ⁴⁷ Thirty Tyrants: http://www.worldhistory.biz/ancient-history/60194-thirty-tyrants.html : Retrieved: 01-04-2017
• ⁴⁸ Lanni, Adriaan. (2010), Transitional Justice in Ancient Athens: A Case Study. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, No. 2, Philadephia, USA, Vol. 32, Pg. 552-553.
• ⁴⁹ Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): http://www.ancient.eu/The_Thirty_Tyrants/ : Retrieved: 01-04-2017
• ⁵⁰ David Sacks (2005), Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World (Revised by Lisa R. Brody), Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 218.
• ⁵¹ Lesley Adkins & Roy A. Adkins (2005), Handbook to the Life in Ancient Greece, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 11-12.
• ⁵² H. G. Wells (1922), A Short History of the World, Penguin Books, London, U.K, Pg. 99-102.
• ⁵³ Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): http://www.ancient.eu/Philip_II_of_Macedon/ : Retrieved: 01-04-2017
• ⁵⁴ David Sacks (2005), Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World (Revised by Lisa R. Brody), Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 282-283.
• ⁵⁵ Arnold H. L. Heeren (1824), Politics of Ancient Greece (Translated by George Bancroft), Cummings Hilliard & Co., Boston, USA, Pg. 344.
• ⁵⁶ Charles Seignobos (1906), History of Ancient Civilization (Translated by Arthur Herbert Wilde), Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, USA, Pg. 192.
• ⁵⁷ Arthur Mee, J. A. Hammerton & A. D. Innes, Hamsworth (1908), The History of the World, Carmelite House, London, U.K, Pg. 2587.
• ⁵⁸ Charles Seignobos (1906), History of Ancient Civilization (Translated by Arthur Herbert Wilde), Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, Pg. 193-195.
• ⁵⁹ Arnold H. L. Heeren (1824), Politics of Ancient Greece (Translated by George Bancroft), Cummings Hilliard & Co., Boston, USA, Pg. 350.