Solon's Reforms Of Athens

citizens and their confidence in him,” (Plutarch, 22.16). Since the people chose Solon to rule, he stood a middle ground, and made decisions based on what was best for the people,

The most distinctive feature of Greek political culture lay in the extent of popular participation in political life that occurred within the city-states. This participation was based on the unique ideas of “citizenship,” of free people running the affairs of state, and of equality for all citizens before the law. Political participation in Greek city-states was much wider than in Persia, but it varied considerably between city-states and over time. Early in Greek history, only the wealthy and wellborn had the rights of full citizenship, but middle- and lower-class men gradually obtained these rights in some city-states.

Swiss-French writer Benjamin Constant and ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle offer conflicting viewpoints concerning the merits and possibilities of ancient Greek democracy. Aristotle’s political theory attempts to justify his city-state’s political structure by providing a model of the common good, or Chief Aim, his end goal for Athenian democracy. He believed Athenians could reach the Chief Aim as a society by individually learning to be virtuous and then instilling laws and morals based on these ideals. In his lecture, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Constant highlights that the individual liberties protected in a modern representative democracy are much more important than the political liberties that one was given in antiquity. Constant illustrates that while some ideas of ancient Greek democracy are precious, Aristotle’s political theory is not an obtainable reality and it was beneficial that modern democracies transitioned to a system that protects individual liberty.

When it came to politics, these two polises could not be more different. Starting with Solon, Athens took a more democratic approach in its government. The Athenian form of electing government was considered a limited democracy. It was limited because it didn’t apply universally to all its citizens. Only the free men of sufficient property were allowed to participate in the decision making; this excluded the poor and women. The Athenian system of government was also a government that allowed slavery to exist. While this system was limited, it was radical that it was the first of its kind because it allowed some of its citizens the opportunity to participate in its government; it was a departure from the common notion of the

Ancient Athens allowed all of its people to vote and participate in the community.(Doc A) If there is a man of low class or low wealth wanting to vote or be a part of the community, they would not say no to that person. (Doc A) For example, if there was a man in Ancient Athens who was of low class I society and wealth, he would be able to still vote on laws or be part of his community and his financial problems would not

Between the years 431 and 404 B.C.E. Greece was involved in a war between two powers, Athens and Sparta; as a consequence, Greek city-states adjusted to wartime stresses. I want to use one Greek polis, Athens, to show how the Peloponnesian War caused the polis to change, particularly with regards to citizenship and the greater concept of paideia. This period is absolutely important to us today, since the changing Athens provided a milieu in which democracy was tested. In his oration for Athenians killed in the first battles of the Peloponnesian War, Pericles presented a statement about Athenian democracy.

The strengths and weaknesses of the Athenian government in the mid-6th century BCE were part of what would allow Peisistratus to rise to power. A major weakness of the preexisting government was its dysfunction it was in a “continual state of internal disorder.” This disorder was seen by some as a result of “the abolition of debts, because they therefore reduced poverty” which would take essentially remove one of the lowest classes of the social structure (serfs that were debtors). This essentially eliminated a

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to address the topic ‘Athens under the Peisistratid Tyranny’ to you all at the Ancient History Teachers’ Association of Australia today. The Peisistratid Tyranny includes the succession of three tyrant in Ancient Greece; Peisistratus, Hippias and Hipparchus from 561-510 BCE. Peisistratus ruled Ancient Athens as a tyrant several times, in 561, 559-556 and 546 BCE until his death in 528 BCE. His tyranny, as well as tyranny as a concept and form of political control, have been viewed in a negative way, being seen as oppressive, dictatorial leaders who abuse their citizens. However, the growth in Ancient Athens, both socially and economically, during his reign contradict the common views of tyranny.

He strengthened the democracy Greece had by “increasing the number of paid public officials and by paying jurors” (Beck et. al. 7). By doing this poorer citizens were able to participate in the government. Eventually, as more citizens began to participate, Athens evolved into a direct democracy. This is when “citizens rule and make laws directly rather than through representatives” (Beck et.

Abstract In this paper, we are going to discuss the Greece Polis, talking about democracy and Dictatorship, we will compare Sparta and Athens comparing and answer the following questions: How did people in Athens and Sparta obtain the right to participate in public life and make decisions affecting the community? Who held public office?

Democracy was a revolutionary idea that moved the shaping of the law into the hands of many rather than a select few, or, in some cases, one tyrant or monarch. Politeia, which refers to both the literal city-states of Ancient Greece and the metaphorical and philosophical idea of citizens’ rights as expressed by Plato and other philosophers of the time, takes that idea of “power to the people” to a higher, more sacred level. Political participation was woven into the daily life of an Athenian citizen: emphasis was placed on the common good rather than the individual in a “radical egalitarianism, not in circumstances, but in responsibility”-- responsibility for the people (at least the people who were eligible) to shape the law around maintaining Athens’ values of valor, intellectualism, and patriotism. Civic engagement was an important expression of one’s identity and devotion to Greek society, and this paper will explore how that sacred dedication to civic engagement could have been a primary motivation in building--and creating the visuals of-- the Parthenon.

He tried to urge citizens to voice their opinions and contribute support like we do in today’s form of democracy (page 62 line 8). An alternative way Solon tried to encourage people to partake in the bettering of Athens was by turning Athens into a city of manufacturing. Prior to Solon, the people were poor and unproductive so he passed a law dictating that a son does not have to support his father unless he has been taught a trade (page 64 paragraph 2). This law invigorated fathers to show their sons how to assemble things such as metal, pottery etc. Solon correspondingly allowed/encouraged foreigners who knew trades to come to Athens to try to add to the welfare of the city (page 65 line 4). Solon granted citizenship to foreigners who emigrated

The last Olympic swimmer just touched the wall and the race has ended. Cameras are replaying every single movement from the race and a winner has been clearly decided. Just as these Olympic swimmers will gain a medal for placing, ancient Athens had numerous accomplishments of its own. Athens “prosperity … was due in large part to its stable and effective government” (SOURCE 1). When analyzing the history of ancient Athens, is easy to see how the accomplishments of a democracy, Greek philosophy, and Greek literature all shape Athens.

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.

The first section of this piece will attempt to explore the conflicts that occurred between the aristocrats and the peasants in Solon’s Athens on the basis of land and slavery, and the solutions that Solon posed in the form of laws, as well as the effects that they had on the citizens of the time. There were city of Athens was divided into three parts; there was the Hill, the Plain, and the Shore (Plutarch: Solon, 54). Each division contained it’s own people with different political views. The Hill supported an extreme democracy, whereas the Plain supported an extreme oligarchy, and the Shore wanted a government that wasn’t quite an oligarchy, and wasn’t quite a democracy. The Shore wanted a government that was modeled after, and was a mix of both democracy and oligarchy (Plutarch: Solon 54). The presence of this third party made it very difficult for either extreme party to rise above the other (Plutarch: Solon 54). The land quality of the peasants was very poor and it was located in the barren part of the city, however the rich owned vast amounts of good quality land (Trumbach). It was very common to find peasants in debt to the aristocrats because of their bad quality land. Many times, commoners would cultivate on the land owned by the aristocrats, and pay them one-sixth of the produce that was harvested (Plutarch: Solon, 54). It was also apparent that peasants would use themselves as collateral, and were often seized as debt slaves by their