Athens Under Solon Essay

Without being either the ones who made this law or the first to apply it after it was laid down, we applied it as one in existence...and one that will endure for all time,” (Thuc., V, 105). The Athenians see no injustice in doing simply as their nature impels them to do. In fact, the Athenians see their offer of subjugation to the Melian people as more than reasonable, “What we will demonstrate is that we are here to help our empire and that there is salvation for your city in what we are now about to say, since we hope to rule over you without trouble and let both parties benefit as you are saved,” (Thuc., V, 91). Following their belief in doing what is necessary to strengthen themselves, even at the expense of others, is what brings Athens to Melos.

Solon and his reforms are excellent examples of how Athens developed the road to democracy, and how the benefits of these reforms make Solon superior to Lycurgus as a ruler. Solon, a man of middle ground, was urged forward by the people to rule over them and to settle differences between the rich and the poor. “Solon, on the other hand, could not go to such extremes in his constitution, since he was a man of modest fortune and had been chosen by the people. Yet he made full use of his power, relying on the good will of the

In the time before Solon there was a lot of conflict in Athens. Some between the aristocrats and the peasants. The rich had enslaved a lot of the poor people and most of the other poor people had debt with them. This drove the poor to seek a revolution because it was becoming unbearable. Other conflict that existed was  between the different aristocratic families themselves. Megacles and Cylon’s factions had a blood feud going that was quite serious at the time of Solon. Solon made several different laws to fix these problems. He was able the end the blood feuds for the most part and give both the poor and the rich a benefit from the new system of laws. Thus successfully getting them to work together instead of them

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

The Athenians changed governments many times. They started democracy, they had tyranny, they had aristocracy, they had oligarchy, and they had monarchy. Solon was the one that got rid of the oligarchy. An oligarchy is when a small group of wealthy and high class people rule the government. The Athenians switched around

These self-governed city-states were governed by the natural laws of the universe. The polis also had a psychological pull to the point where it was infested into the art, religion, literature and philosophy (Document 1). In a way similar to India though, everyone identified first and foremost with their polis identity, like the Indians did with their caste system (Document 1). The way to gain power in Greece was not though money, but through family names and heritage, but in 330 BC, Cleisthenes created the basis of his reform for Greece: the demes (Document 2). By doing this he takes out the powerful noble families and gives the lower class the power to decide what happens with their government and therefore became more “deme-ocratic.” He did many things to change the structure of Greece to make it fairer. For example he took the original four tribes of Greece and redistributed them into ten different tribes so now the tribes can have more “civic rights.” Another example of what Cleisthenes did to fix things was that he increased the Council members from 400 to 500. Now each tribe was only sending fifty representatives, instead of the original hundred. Finally, one last example is that Cleisthenes divided Greece up into thirty parts. Ten urban and suburban, ten costal and ten inland and each of these contained its own special number of demes. Now, men were to be identified first by their demes name, which is very similar to India’s recognition of their caste name or level (Document

When evaluating the government of ancient Athens, some might say that it was a democracy, however, it can be better described as an oligarchy: a form of government in which a small group of people has the power and control (Doc. D by Mogens Herman Hansen). A democracy takes all the citizens’ opinions and thoughts into account, unlike an oligarchy that only takes the male citizens’ opinions and thoughts into account. Thus, Athens is more similar to an oligarchy than a democracy. The people of Athens also decide as a whole what the best government for their city-state was, as opposed to a democracy where the people elect representatives to make decisions for them and their city-state. Athens could be seen as not a true democracy because of the lack of basic democratic rules and methods such as what they define democracy as, who is able to vote, and how they vote.

Purposefully, he was constantly ‘beautifying’ Athens. As stated by Plutarch, Pericles “constantly provided public pageants, banquets, and processions in the city, entertaining the people like children with elegant pleasures.” He made sure he kept the public happy. Along with elaborate public displays, Pericles, expanded territories. According to Plutarch, “he dispatched 1,000 settlers to the Chersonese, 500 to Naxos, 250 to Andros, 1,000 to Thrace to make their homes with the Bisaltae, and others to the new colony named Thurii.” This expansion allowed the city to rid itself of ‘idlers’ and ‘agitators’ and “raise the standards of the poorest classes”.

In ancient Greece there were two major polises which allowed the Greek culture to achieve greatness during the 400-500 B.C.E. era. These two polises were Athens and Sparta; both city states differed in many ways before the start of the Persian War. There were low rugged mountains that separated these two city states so communication and travel were difficult. The government of these two city states can be seen as a primary difference between the two. Draco, Solon, Pisistratus, and Cleithenes were four leaders that greatly influenced the political development of Athens. Athens and Sparta differed primarily in their political, social, and economical aspects. But there were other difference that Athens and Sparta share which I will examine in this essay.

Sometime during the period of 594/3 to 570 B.C., the citizens of Athens gave one of their foremost statesmen, Solon, the task of creating new laws for them because of troubles that had been plaguing them. There are several theories as to when Solon's work was completed. The date of Solon's legislation has always been in question and a date that everyone agrees with has never been proposed. There is evidence for several different dates. The first is 594/3, the year in which Solon was the Eponymous archon in Athens. This argument has several claims to its defense but also many arguments against it. Another major date proposed is not so much a specific date as it is a span of time in which he may have started and/or

In a relatively resource-poor region, a society rose from the access of foreign sources of raw materials and markets abroad. This society came to be known as one of the largest nations in Eurasia. The rise and fall of this great nation has to do with war-fare and the conflict between city-states. Their division led to the widespread of language and culture. This is the great story of Ancient Greece and how individualism changed the view Greece had on certain issues. (Bulliet 99) From 1000 B.C.E to 30 B.C.E, Ancient Greece’s view on individualism changed the political system Greece had, over time changed the way individuals thought and made important Intellectual changes, and gradually changed the Economic system such as bartering.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

Solon is the second person to reform the laws of Athens. He began revising laws in the 590s BC and “allowed all men in Athens to take part in the assembly that governed the city and to serve on the juries that heard trials” (SOURCE 1). Along with participation in the assembly, Solon “forbade the practice of debt slavery and set up a fund to buy back Athenian slaves who had been sold abroad” (SOURCE 2). Solon “based eligibility for political office on property qualifications, not birth,” permitting those not born of high social status to have the opportunity to hold an office (SOURCE 2). Through all of these events, society still did not accept the laws and because of this, more problems arose. During the troubles and chaos, a man by the name of Peisistratus “took advantage of the renewed conflict to seize power” (SOURCE 1). Peisistratus is a tyrant among the Athenians, however, is a popular person. This is because he “proceeded to institute Solon’s reforms” (SOURCE 2). The men of Athens who participated in the democracy were to “vote in all elections, serve in office if elected, serve on juries, and serve in the military during the war” (SOURCE 1). Cleisthenes, another law reformer, “divided Athens into 10 tribes based on where people lived” and “made these new tribes…the basis for elections” (SOURCE 1). The tribes had to send

The laws for Athens began with Solon, but perhaps the most influential leader for democracy in Athens was Cleisthenes. In 510 Cleisthenes had managed to get the sons of Peisistratus kicked out of Athens with Spartan help (Demand 157). But now the old internal divisions, which had plagued Athens since Solon's time, reasserted themselves. Herodotus says in his history of Greece that Cleisthenes decided to turn to the people (Herodotus 302). Perhaps he did so solely out of practical political reasons: he needed a powerful force on his side now that the Spartans had turned against him. Although, his major motivation may have been to produce a government that would unify Athenians by all, rich and poor alike. Unity, perhaps, rather democracy, was his immediate goal. But it was democracy that he would prove to be the means to the unification of the people of Athens.

In this paper, I intend to explore the conflicts that arose between those of the aristocratic society, and those who composed the vast number of peasants before, as well as after the life and times of Solon, and the effect and solutions that Solon’s rule had concerning these conflicts. Such major conflicts between peasants and aristocrats include, [but are not limited to] land and slavery (Trumbach). Though, these laws will be explored further later on in this essay. The ruler, Solon imposed a number of laws in order to rectify the problems that were arising between aristocrats and peasants, as well as to mold Athenian society in a much more citizen-oriented way of living (Trumbach). Such laws included relieving the prior debts that