by Scott Powell
In the study of Ancient history two city-states, Athens and Rome, rightly command more attention than all the others combined. Indeed, although it has been thousands of years since their civilizations reached their zenith, and their power over the Mediterranean world has long since withered, the story of their civilizations remains relevant--even critically important--to Americans today.
Why? Because the American form of government was constructed using the lessons learned from the record of the Athenian democracy and the Roman republic. Without those lessons America's Founding Fathers could not have made the United States what it is.
Tragically, publicly schooled children are being taught these crucial stories less often and less well, and every generation of Americans is becoming less able to appreciate the unique historical roots of the American government. Without this anchor of historical understanding, it is unlikely that Americans will be able sustain the founding identity of their government in these turbulent times.
Homeschoolers, working from a "classical" model of education, may be able to do better. However, to succeed in presenting the essence of the stories of Athens and Rome to one's children, one must properly grasp what that essence is, and, unfortunately, many popular children's history curricula used by homeschoolers do not sufficiently explain these themes. My aim in this four-part essay is thus to help homeschooling parents grasp these two invaluable stories more clearly for themselves, and thereby to be better equipped to present it to their children.
Since Athenian democracy arose first, let us take a look at its rise, and then both
its triumphs and tragic flaws.
The story of the rise of Athenian democracy rightly begins when Athens was still a monarchy, c. 753 BC. The Athenian aristocracy was dominated by one honored family, the Medontidae, who had earned the acquiescence of its peers to a hereditary kingship. But in or around the year 753, the long-lived dynasty met with its first setback. The aristocrats of Athens, known as the "eupatrids," no longer satisfied with their secondary status, sought limits on the power of the king, and used their collective strength to obtain two concessions from the Medontidae. First, the king would be elected from among all the aristocrats, and he would rule for a period of ten years only, rather than for the duration of his adult life.
The elective "decennial" kingship, however, was merely a stepping stone. By 680 BC, the aristocrats had further reduced the kingship to an annual institution, limited in the scope and application of its executive power by various other officials, generally known as "archons." For instance, in times of war, it was no longer the king who commanded the army, but a special war archon, called the "polemarch."
Gradually, power had passed from the hereditary monarchy to the wider base of the aristocracy. In hindsight, we can see that this was one step of a number of key steps towards democracy, because the widening of the distribution of power continued consistently and in the same manner from there.
Because of innovations introduced into warfare by the Spartans, whereby the coordinated efforts of expert infantrymen became the decisive factor on the battlefield, the stock of the heavily-armed infantry soldier--the "hoplite"--rose in value. This meant that even modestly wealthy landowners--not just aristocrats--could equip themselves to make a decisive contribution on the battlefield. Anyone whose individual contribution to the city-state's war efforts was undeniable could claim a commensurable role in the policy-making that disposed of his efforts. Thus another step towards democracy was taken.
The resulting government, c.650, is known as a timocracy. It is a middle-point between monarchy and democracy, defined as a government of landowners.
The only remaining step in this progression of the widening distribution of power was for the commoners to obtain a measure of power as well. Though emancipated from their perennial indebtedness to the aristocrats by the archon Solon in 594, the commoners remained unable to displace the aristocratically-dominated timocracy without resorting to overthrowing the government altogether. This they finally did in a rebellion led by a "tyrannos" called Peisistratus, c.560 BC. (The Greek word "tyrannos" did not include the negative connotation that the modern word "tyrant" does today. A tyrannos was a monarchical leader whose power stemmed from his popular political platform rather than a hereditary claim.)
Under this popular leader and his sons, the common people (the "demos") of Athens obtained a greater say in Athenian politics than ever before. This is because to stay in power, a tyrannos had to demonstrate respect for the general will. When, after 50 years of such government, the aristocrats exiled by Peisistratus returned in force to expel the tyrannoi, they found that Athenian culture was unwilling to revert to a wholly traditional aristocracy.
Only one aristocratic leader was properly attuned to this shift in the culture, and willing to make use of it. His name is Cleisthenes, and he is rightly known as the "father of Athenian democracy."
Realizing that the Athenian government need to be reformed in a manner that would break the traditional lines dividing aristocrats and commoners politically, he devised a new government apparatus that would allow them both to participate in governance. Cleisthenes created new (electoral) districts called "demes," in which local legislatives councils would operate, and from which members of the legislative assembly and courts for the city-state would present themselves regularly in Athens to participate in lawmaking and jury duty.
It was this system that survived in Athens, despite a number of upheavals, from 508 BC to approximately 322 BC -- a period of nearly 200 years. Never in history had the common people been able to direct the activities of the state themselves and to check the oppressive will of the aristocrats so effectively.
Sadly, what the Athenians failed to grasp, however, was the oppressive potential of democracy itself. The Athenians were thus unable to create a governmental apparatus to fully secure individual rights. Two thousand years later, the fact that America's founders were able to see clearly that the general will is not a proper safeguard for individual rights is due in part to their study of the injustices perpetrated by the Athenian majority on the minority--including the smallest minority of all: the individual.
Next time, we will look at both the best and the worst that the Athenian democracy produced. Then, in part 3 & 4, we will look at the contrasting story of the Roman republic, and why the stories of these ancient governments matters more than ever.
Scott Powell is a historian living in Houston, TX. He is the creator and teacher of HistoryAtOurHouse, a homeschooling curriculum for students from 2nd to 12th grade. He offers Ancient history--with a heavy emphasis on Athens and Rome--as well as European and American history as a part of his curriculum rotation. Learn more through his blog at: www.HistoryAtOurHouse.com.
In the study of Ancient history two city-states, Athens and Rome, rightly command more attention than all the others combined. Indeed, although it has been thousands of years since their civilizations reached their zenith, and their power over the Mediterranean world has long since withered, the story of their civilizations remains relevant--even critically important--to Americans today.
Why? Because the American form of government was constructed using the lessons learned from the record of the Athenian democracy and the Roman republic. Without those lessons America's Founding Fathers could not have made the United States what it is.
Tragically, publicly schooled children are being taught these crucial stories less often and less well, and every generation of Americans is becoming less able to appreciate the unique historical roots of the American government. Without this anchor of historical understanding, it is unlikely that Americans will be able sustain the founding identity of their government in these turbulent times.
Homeschoolers, working from a "classical" model of education, may be able to do better. However, to succeed in presenting the essence of the stories of Athens and Rome to one's children, one must properly grasp what that essence is, and, unfortunately, many popular children's history curricula used by homeschoolers do not sufficiently explain these themes. My aim in this four-part essay is thus to help homeschooling parents grasp these two invaluable stories more clearly for themselves, and thereby to be better equipped to present it to their children.
Since Athenian democracy arose first, let us take a look at its rise, and then both
its triumphs and tragic flaws.
The story of the rise of Athenian democracy rightly begins when Athens was still a monarchy, c. 753 BC. The Athenian aristocracy was dominated by one honored family, the Medontidae, who had earned the acquiescence of its peers to a hereditary kingship. But in or around the year 753, the long-lived dynasty met with its first setback. The aristocrats of Athens, known as the "eupatrids," no longer satisfied with their secondary status, sought limits on the power of the king, and used their collective strength to obtain two concessions from the Medontidae. First, the king would be elected from among all the aristocrats, and he would rule for a period of ten years only, rather than for the duration of his adult life.
The elective "decennial" kingship, however, was merely a stepping stone. By 680 BC, the aristocrats had further reduced the kingship to an annual institution, limited in the scope and application of its executive power by various other officials, generally known as "archons." For instance, in times of war, it was no longer the king who commanded the army, but a special war archon, called the "polemarch."
Gradually, power had passed from the hereditary monarchy to the wider base of the aristocracy. In hindsight, we can see that this was one step of a number of key steps towards democracy, because the widening of the distribution of power continued consistently and in the same manner from there.
Because of innovations introduced into warfare by the Spartans, whereby the coordinated efforts of expert infantrymen became the decisive factor on the battlefield, the stock of the heavily-armed infantry soldier--the "hoplite"--rose in value. This meant that even modestly wealthy landowners--not just aristocrats--could equip themselves to make a decisive contribution on the battlefield. Anyone whose individual contribution to the city-state's war efforts was undeniable could claim a commensurable role in the policy-making that disposed of his efforts. Thus another step towards democracy was taken.
The resulting government, c.650, is known as a timocracy. It is a middle-point between monarchy and democracy, defined as a government of landowners.
The only remaining step in this progression of the widening distribution of power was for the commoners to obtain a measure of power as well. Though emancipated from their perennial indebtedness to the aristocrats by the archon Solon in 594, the commoners remained unable to displace the aristocratically-dominated timocracy without resorting to overthrowing the government altogether. This they finally did in a rebellion led by a "tyrannos" called Peisistratus, c.560 BC. (The Greek word "tyrannos" did not include the negative connotation that the modern word "tyrant" does today. A tyrannos was a monarchical leader whose power stemmed from his popular political platform rather than a hereditary claim.)
Under this popular leader and his sons, the common people (the "demos") of Athens obtained a greater say in Athenian politics than ever before. This is because to stay in power, a tyrannos had to demonstrate respect for the general will. When, after 50 years of such government, the aristocrats exiled by Peisistratus returned in force to expel the tyrannoi, they found that Athenian culture was unwilling to revert to a wholly traditional aristocracy.
Only one aristocratic leader was properly attuned to this shift in the culture, and willing to make use of it. His name is Cleisthenes, and he is rightly known as the "father of Athenian democracy."
Realizing that the Athenian government need to be reformed in a manner that would break the traditional lines dividing aristocrats and commoners politically, he devised a new government apparatus that would allow them both to participate in governance. Cleisthenes created new (electoral) districts called "demes," in which local legislatives councils would operate, and from which members of the legislative assembly and courts for the city-state would present themselves regularly in Athens to participate in lawmaking and jury duty.
It was this system that survived in Athens, despite a number of upheavals, from 508 BC to approximately 322 BC -- a period of nearly 200 years. Never in history had the common people been able to direct the activities of the state themselves and to check the oppressive will of the aristocrats so effectively.
Sadly, what the Athenians failed to grasp, however, was the oppressive potential of democracy itself. The Athenians were thus unable to create a governmental apparatus to fully secure individual rights. Two thousand years later, the fact that America's founders were able to see clearly that the general will is not a proper safeguard for individual rights is due in part to their study of the injustices perpetrated by the Athenian majority on the minority--including the smallest minority of all: the individual.
Next time, we will look at both the best and the worst that the Athenian democracy produced. Then, in part 3 & 4, we will look at the contrasting story of the Roman republic, and why the stories of these ancient governments matters more than ever.
Scott Powell is a historian living in Houston, TX. He is the creator and teacher of HistoryAtOurHouse, a homeschooling curriculum for students from 2nd to 12th grade. He offers Ancient history--with a heavy emphasis on Athens and Rome--as well as European and American history as a part of his curriculum rotation. Learn more through his blog at: www.HistoryAtOurHouse.com.
