Part 7 - The appearance and construction of Democracy - childhood to maturity in Greece

As discussed in The appearance and construction of Democracy - childhood to maturity in Greece, Part 3, Democracy in Greece played a part in the successful performance of Athens in the Persian wars which ended in 468.  The result of the wars was an Athenian empire.  But, as is often the case (or always?) with empires, there is never enough - power and wealth want more power and wealth. Power and wealth walk hand in hand becoming imbued with hubris and arrogance along the way. In addition, it seems clear that the motive for empire included something else that arguably had never been seen before.  Rather than war based on the decision of the elite or an absolute ruler, the common people (demos) were a considerable, probably necessary force:  “An energized demos, with its control of political affairs steadily increasing, was embarked on a drive for dominance within the Greek world, and a position of security against the other two big powers in the region, Sparta with it Peloponnesian allies, and Persia.” (Mitchell) 

After the Persian Wars, and with Pericles coming to power in 461, the imperialistic Athenian democracy mainly consolidated the power it had developed through the Delian League and the next major wars were to begin just three years later, beginning with the first Peloponnesian War. 

The first Peloponnesian War (459 - 446) began through a common aspect of our species and corresponding State structures - the unintended consequence.  Throughout history, this is a remarkably common occurrence that is likely due to the complex and contradicting mix of motivations and desires that underlie many of our species’ decisions.  First, some background. As outlined in The appearance and construction of Democracy - childhood to maturity in Greece, Part 4, the Areopagus (ex-Archons and meant to be the guardians of the law and the constitution), was weakened considerably through the reforms Ephialtes who was opposed by Cimon, the Archon, and from an aristocratic family.  Immediately before the proposed changes by Ephialtes, Cimon, a pro-Spartan, embarked on a major expedition to assist the Spartans put down a revolt of the helots (state-owned serfs).  The Spartan rejected the help, a very embarrassing event. Cimon was ostracized for his anti-democratic stance as well as the rejection by Sparta.  This was the end of pro-Spartan views in Athens.  As a result, Athens formed alliances with Argos and Thessaly, old Spartan foes.  Then, Megara broke with Corinth, an ally of Sparta. Athens responded quickly to an appeal for help from Megara which led to war with Corinth and Sparta. So, we can see that if Sparta had accepted the help from Cimon, which would have been in their interest, the alliances Athens formed might not have taken place and the First Peloponnesian War might have been avoided.  During the early period of the war, Athens was very successful, winning numerous land and naval victories and conquering most of central Greece and exercising naval dominance over coastal areas of the Peloponnesian peninsula and the Gulf of Corinth.  

However, Athen’s growing ambition ran into trouble when it decided to support a revolt in Egypt against Persia.  A large expedition ended in disaster, bringing Athen’s warlike stance to a  halt.  Eventually, peace was secured both Sparta and Persia.  However, Athens then experienced a series of defeats, losing control over central Greece. Note that Sparta was on the Peloponnesian peninsula, not central Greece.  At this point, Athens realized that maintaining an empire on land and the sea was not sustainable. Pericles, now at the height of his power, took a more realistic view.  Athens would concede control of the mainland to Sparta and focus on its maritime empire throughout the Aegean sea and its associated territories.  So, in 446 a Thirty years peace was agreed to by all parties.   

Despite this chastening, the imperial drive of Athens continued but with a focus on the further strengthening of the Navy and control over the maritime empire. Pericles, remember, a true champion of democracy and providing more power to the people, “saw empire as the ultimate basis of Athenian power, the means of securing the resources that would sustain the war machine that would give Athens mastery of the seas and military supremacy. It would also keep the many strategically important and powerful states in the Aegean from a possibility of lions with the enemies of Athens.”(Mitchell).  Athens had become a hegemonic power unapologetically intending to impose its will.  The original purpose of the Delian League to defend against Persia was transformed into defending Athens against any of its enemies. At least 160 member city/states paid tribute to Athens with the amount set by Athens. Athens used  a portion of this tribute, meant for defense against enemies, to embark on a large program of public building in Athens.  League member were also required to adopt Athenian coinage & weights and measures along with bring judicial cases to Athens for hearings. These changes and the arrogance of Athens in general led to resistance and outright revolts that Athens spared no expense to put down.  

In addition to military might, Athens employed political methods.  “the Athenians do not hesitate, where expedient, to impose what in modern terms would be called a regime change and set up puppet democratic governments sworn to loyalty to Athens. In general they shrewdly used a policy of divide and conquer by favoring the lower classes in reigning in the wealthy oligarchic elements. They also tried to soften the image of the oppressor and leave it to the courts in Athens to decide the outcome of disputes with allies, and they boasted that unlike other imperial Powers they substituted the rule of law for the rule of force.”  Of course, unfortunately, we can see these same approaches in more recent empires, including the Roman, British, and American empires.

While it is difficult to say if it materially affected Athens imperial trajectory, it is conceivable that the open and widespread discussion of issues that was one cornerstone of Athenian Democracy, may have reduced the drive for hegemony to some degree. “Athenian Imperial policies and the morality of imperial rule by Greeks over Greeks became a subject of extensive debate not only among Greeks general but within Athens itself. Power and it's role and legitimate uses in human relationships became prominent themes in the broader discourse on ethics and politics”(Mitchell)  Nonetheless, Athens concluded that empire was strategically necessary to the security of the State based on the belief that their only option was to rule or be ruled. It may not have meant much to those under the control of the empire but the open debate that occurred had never been seen before and would re-emerge along with Democracy itself many centuries later. The next post will continue the discussion of the character of Athenian imperialism in the context of the continuing development of Democracy.