In the history of the city-state of ancient Athens, two major coups took place to replace democracy with an oligarchy; the first took place in 411 BCE after the failed Sicilian Expedition and another in 4043 BCE that Sparta installed after the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. The first instance of evolution from a democracy into an oligarchy resulted from a decision made by the Athenians themselves. However, the second transformation of Athenian democracy was conducted by the Spartan general Lysander. However, curiously, some sources claim that the populous of Athens was not opposed to the change from democracy to oligarchy.
One of the main reasons for the transformation of Athenian democracy to Athenian oligarchy was the aristocratic cultural influences, whose roots permeated throughout Greek culture. These ideas stemmed back to Homer, who often glorified the role of nobles in dictating society and the loyalty that those of a lesser class had to those born noble. An example of this is the shepherd Eumaeus describing his commitment to a disguised Odysseus; despite being enslaved by Odysseus, he still respects the hierarchy present in Athenian society. Although a piece of literature, it can be assumed that a similar sentiment was held in Athenian society, the idea that those born above others should rule while those born below should serve. Furthermore, within Thucydides' writing, it is rather evident that he believed that the democratic institution of Athens had its shortcomings; this, in turn, may have influenced the shift in perception of democracy to be more favorable to an oligarchy.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Another issue that contributed to the fall of democracy in 411 BCE and the rise of an oligarchy is the financial burden put on the people of Athens. Due to the economic damage suffered by Athens during the Peloponnesian War, the number of Athenian citizens that could take on the fiscal burden of the city-state was reduced. The costs to maintain the military had continued to grow exponentially due to the Peloponnesian forces threatening to cut off their food supply. While this happened, the public expenditure had not decreased; instead, it had gone up. In addition to this, many of the allied city-states to Athens had rebelled, causing a dip in tributes that went to Athens, causing further financial strain upon the people of Athens. It's essential to recognize how dire the situation in Athens is; this is evident when Alcibiades said that he could solve this crisis if he were allowed back into Athens after his banishment. Finally, by June of 411 BCE, the Athenian leaders who occupied Samos informed their troops they would no longer provide money to them. Instead, they would have to find other ways to earn money.
Another cause of the oligarchic coup of Athens was because of the change in government. By the time of the Peloponnesian War, all the great leaders of Athens, such as Pericles, had been replaced with those born from a lower class. This caused great tension within the walls of Athens because the well-respected leaders who had once ruled had been replaced with those taken from a lower class, such as Cleon, who was often portrayed negatively by the like of Aristophanes and Thucydides. This is partly because he had employed many informants within the city, which had been accused of being biased against some citizens. Furthermore, he was also very forceful; an example of this is in the Mytilenean debate, where he argued for the extermination of all the male citizens of the city-state. Furthermore, although he made policies that stood to benefit the poor population of Athens, they caused heavy taxes upon the allies of Athens, which may have caused him to gain enemies throughout his tenure in office.
Another cause of the switch from democracy to oligarchy was because of the involvement of Alcibiades; this is because he began to influence the wealthy of Athens; he promised that he could influence the Persian satrap Tissaphernes into funding the Athenians if they vowed to return Alcibiades from banishment and convert their administration to an Oligarchy. Pisander assists Alcibiades bid to execute the coup successfully. Thucydides mentions (History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.53-54) that Pisander calls for the welcoming back of Alcibiades because that is the only way they could secure the funding necessary to prevail in the Peloponnesian war. Because of this, Pisander successfully converted the democracy of Athens into an oligarchy. Although the Athenians did not particularly like the idea of an oligarchy, they accepted it out of fear of losing the Peloponnesian war. The oligarchy was formed because they believed that they could better control the affairs of Athens, including the monetary aspect and military aspects, than the previous administration of democracy. Within the Thucydides writing (History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.65), I believe that Thucydides is trying to put across the fact that the Oligarchy would only rule in times of war to best serve the commonwealth of Athens.
Aristotle (The Athenian Constitution, 29) comments that democracy was only in place so long the Peloponnesian war was being fought in favor of Athens; however, as the forces of the Peloponnesians began to advance and swiftly beat Athens's forces, the idea of an oligarchy began to look more favorably. Aristotle's account seems to agree with Thucydides' accounts that part of the cause of the oligarchy was a pact between the king of Persia and the wealthy in Athens that if the government was restructured in Athens, the Persians would give funding to Athens to help the war effort, at least according to Alcibiades. Part of the reason for the forming of the Athenian oligarchy, according to Aristotle (The Athenian Constitution, 32.3) in 411 BCE, was to go to Sparta and form a peace treaty. However, this peace treaty fell through.
In 4043 BCE, there was another coup, and another oligarchy was installed in Athens, the Thirty Tyrants; this administration was considerably more violent than that of the previous administration. After the defeat of the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War, a Pro-Spartan administration was put into place by Lysander, a Spartan general. The main reason for the installation of the Thirty Tyrants is because within the peace treaty terms that the Spartan general Lysander had drawn up was a clause that stated a group of 30 Athenians was to rule Athens, a sort of puppet government for the Spartans. They were tasked to write new laws that followed the ancestral constitution that said the reforms by Solon and other lawmakers negatively affected the poorer classes and were inherently discriminatory, so they wrote new reforms to those reforms.
In a way, the Thirty Tyrants was a continuation of the oligarchy, the Council of 400, that was present before the rise of the Thirty Tyrants. Some of the oligarchs that were present in the previous Council of 400 had fled to various other city-states after the fall of that administration, with the peace treaty that was drawn up by the Spartans allowing these oligarchs to come back from self-imposed exile to Athens. Some of these oligarchs resurfaced and helped institute the oligarchy that was the Thirty Tyrants. Lysias (Lysias, 13.20) mentions that many of the Athenians that served on the council during the surrender of Athens were oligarchic sympathizers; this hints at the idea that the restructuring of the government of Athens was not done completely legally in keeping with the reforms put into place by previous lawmakers.
One piece of evidence that hinted at the machination of the Spartans to install a pro-spartan leadership is that Lysander, a Spartan general, stayed in Athens until the change in government occurred. According to Stem (The Thirty at Athens in the summer of 404, 2003, pp.22), it would have been in Lysanders best interest to reshape the Athenian government while he was present in Athens. I agree with Stem's assessment here; with the Spartan's decisive victory, the next step would be obviously to institute an administration that was favorable to your cause.
Xenophon also notes that the Spartans had a vested interest in maintaining the reign of the Thirty Tyrants. However, the Thirty Tyrants only went to appeal to the Spartans when they began to compromise on the principles of the constitutional oligarchy. One piece of evidence that shows that the constitutional oligarchy was pro-spartan and, more importantly, installed by the spartan leadership was that they chose to eliminate those who were opposed to the leadership of the Spartans and those who opposed the surrender of Athens to the Spartans. They declared that they had to purge the city-state of unjust men and other citizens who were against virtue and injustice (Lysias, 12.5). This was no more apparent when they presided over the trials against the previous strategoi and taxiarchs who had opposed the peace with Sparta.
Another piece of evidence that supports the claim that the Thirty Tyrants were put in charge due to being Pro-Spartan was because they began to model laws that were put in place by Solon to model Athens on the Spartan style of government. They attempted to imitate the Council of Elders, The Equals, and the free non-citizens that were present in the Spartan society. To draw parallels, the Thirty Tyrants would effectively act as though they were the Council of Elders for Athenian society. However, to counter the claim that the Spartans instituted the Thirty Tyrants the fact that.
The two administrations of oligarchy were, for the most part, radically different. Although the Council of 400 was an oligarchy, they ran the city-state fairly well while they were in power. They weren't particularly cruel or bloodthirsty. While a deeply flawed system, they still managed to maintain order, so much so that most of the Athenian population, although disapproving of the oligarchy, supported the administration as they saw it as the only way to prevail in the Peloponnesian War. As Thucydides claims (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.92), the Council of 400 did not last due to the fact they could not effectively conduct war, as well as the democrats did. In comparison to this, the Thirty Tyrants fell because of their violent ways, so much so that there was a civil war that broke out to overthrow the government, which eventually succeeded.
Alternatively, the rule of the Thirty Tyrants was instigated by the Athenian defeat in the Peloponnesian War; because of this defeat, the Spartans helped institute the rule of the Thirty Tyrants. Unlike the Council of 400, which was instituted somewhat democratically, the Thirty Tyrants gained power through the Spartan leadership and by allying themselves with the Spartans. This is mostly seen when they go to the Spartans when altering the laws of constitutional oligarchy; this is further seen when they executed all those who were opposed to peace with Sparta; this further proves their bias towards Sparta. Furthermore, it is important to note that although an oligarchy, it was evident that the Oligarchy which was the Council of 400 was put in place to avoid another financial crisis and to gain the funds of the Persians. Alternatively, the Thirty Tyrants gained power through the peace treaty that was signed.
Interestingly, one similarity is that both administrations gained power because of their horrific defeat at the hands of the Spartans; the original Council of 400 gained power through the defeat of the Athenian military during the Sicilian Expedition. At the same time, the Thirty Tyrants gained power through the Athenian military's defeat at the end of the Peloponnesian War and the signing of the peace treaty with Sparta. Another similarity between both oligarchies is that both attempted peace treaties with the Peloponnesian leadership; however, the Thirty Tyrants succeeded whereas the Council of 400 failed. Albeit the peace treaty was heavily biased in favor of the Spartans
The only occasion where the prospective of an oligarchy was attractive was with the original oligarchy of the Council of 400; one of the benefits of the oligarchy was that the Athenians would receive funds from the Persians to alleviate their food shortages and their economic crisis, which was caused by the Sicilian Expedition. Furthermore, some traditionalists favored oligarchy over democracy; as Raaflaub (Raaflaub, 1983, pp.519) points out, some viewed democracy as being ruled by the poor, uneducated, incapable, and irresponsible. I agree with the point made by Raaflaub; classism and the effect of such an institutional hierarchy were present, leading to an unfavorable view of democracy. On the other hand, the Thirty Tyrants had no particular benefits; the only benefit is that the introduction of the Tyrants came to an end to the Peloponnesian war. However, even that came with a Spartan victory.
In conclusion, there are numerous reasons for the installation of the Council of 400 in 411 BCE, ranging from the idea that the Athenian commonwealth could be better served if the wealthy minority were to rule the Athenian city-state. The other major reason for the oligarchic coup to occur in 411 BCE was that the Persians promised that they would help fund the Athenians if they were to overthrow their previous democracy and install such an administration. However, I believe the major reason for the coup was, outside the promised funds, because the Athenian population became dissatisfied with the previous administration; they saw how heavy-handed the later lawmakers were, for example, Cleon and his draconian idea of exterminating the male population of Mytilene. However, the most important reason for the rise of the Thirty Tyrants is that they signed the peace treaty with Sparta, choosing themselves as the new leaders of the Athenian city-state.
Bibliography
- Stem, R., 2003. The Thirty at Athens in the Summer of 404. Phoenix (Toronto), 57(12), pp.18-34.
- Raaflaub, K.A., 1983. Democracy, Oligarchy, and the Concept of the 'Free Citizen' in Late Fifth-Century Athens. Political theory, 11(4), pp.517-544.
- Thucydides, 2020. History of the Peloponnesian War, Newburyport: Open Road Integrated Media, Inc.
- Aristotle, 2020. The Athenian Constitution, New York: Start Publishing LLC.
- Lamb, W.R.M., 1930. Lysias, Cambridge, Mass.:: Harvard University Press; Heinemann.
Stuck on your essay?
