Was Athens the real birthplace of democracy?

[Artemidoros]

Pretty much everyone agrees that Athens can rightfully be considered the birthplace of democracy. There is no doubt that the earliest recorded political system that can be described as democratic, is that of Athens after the Kleisthenes reforms of 507 BC.
In my opinion Athens, with its tribally organised society and the financial and political muscle of the elite (aristocrats, merchants and manufacturers), makes an unlikely candidate. The various colonies to the east and west of the Greek peninsula look more likely to me to have experimented with democracy. There is certainly evidence that land and resources were allocated equally to the new colonists, tribal links might have been slightly weakened and nobility would not have counted for much on its own. Unfortunately very little is known about colonial politics in the 6th century BC or earlier. Could it be the Athenians imported the idea of democracy? Any opinions on this?

[galvez]

I will add that Athens is very much the birthplace of democracy. What we have today -- misnamed as "democracy" -- is actually an oligarchy: elected officials supposedly representing the people. In Athens, unlike today, ordinary citizens (excluding women and slaves) were morally obligated to participate in assemblies and to give their voice to affairs.

There were, in fact, several terms meaning "free speech": a widely used concept in ancient Greece. The Athenians were particularly tolerant of diverse interpretations of the polytheistic religion practiced at the time, and had no problem with some who openly rejected the literal interpretation of the legends.

Athens back then was probably in many ways more tolerant than we are today, although people today tend to arrogantly believe that they are necessarily freer than those who lived in the past.

[galvez]

I will also add that democracy really stems from the reforms of Solon (roughly 6th-century B.C.), who made a compromise between the aristocratic class and the peasants. He relieved the peasants of their debts, established government programs, and promoted harmony: basically giving the peasants a greater voice in the affairs, which the aristocratic class objected to. If he hadn't done this there could have been a revolution back then much like the French Revolution of 1789.

Later on came Cleisthenes who picked up where Solon left off. He divided Athens into "lots" and gave every citizen an equal opportunity, based on a lottery, to hold a high office and thus give their voice to Athenian affairs. At one point even Socrates was allowed into such an office: and famously he objected to the collective prosecution of a half-dozen or so admirals for allegedly neglecting other Greeks who had been wounded or downed at sea.

Given that Athens was a very active city of intellectual output, it doesn't surprise me that democracy would be invented from the Athenian people based on their needs -- and the willingness of the leadership to compromise. It came not from the outside, it seems to me, but from the inside: from the pressing needs at the time, when tyranny and injustice were fresh on the minds of the Athenian people.

[Yiannis]

The apogee of Democracy in Athens was right after the battle of Salamis. There the poorer parts of the Athenian society were drafted as rowmen and thus they had the opportunity to fight for their city. This obligation and priviledge was limited only to Hoplites up till then, who could afford the expencive panoply.
The battle of Salamis gave these rights to everyone.

[AWAR]

I hate to be the party pooper, but what about Asiatic raiders' so called 'military democracies' ?

[Dienekes]

AWAR said:

I hate to be the party pooper, but what about Asiatic raiders' so called 'military democracies' ?

Can you elaborate? I never heard that before.

[Artemidoros]

I hate to be the party pooper, but what about Asiatic raiders' so called 'military democracies' ?

I have not heard of that either. I have heard of hunter/gatherer democracies though. I have also heard of other barbarian democracies.

"The German tribes had political systems that were virtually democracies or republics. The assemblies of freemen of the tribe were sovreign. Some tribes were ruled by leaders who functioned as kings, but there was a difference even among tribal groups having kings as to the nature of the kingship. First of all the king was in effect the executive officer of the assembly of freemen of the tribe. Some tribes had leaders called grafs who were elected by their assemblies of freemen. A graf could be anyone the assembly wished to elect. The monarchical tribes had kings, who were also elected by the assemblies, but in contrast in the monarchical tribes or states the king had to be selected from certain royal families. Thus the kingship was to a degree hereditary whereas the grafship was not. "

I don't think that is democracy as we know it. Of course any armed group of people would be likely to have some democratic elements in its structure. There are many examples of mercenaries through the ages electing their leaders. The Macedonian army also comes to mind. Alexander the Great consulted his army over important matters. If he was prosecuting somebody the whole army was both audience and jury. I would not go as far as saying Macedonia was a democracy though.
Also I think the term "military democracy" is not suitable. I am not at all sure the terms are compatible. Of course the Anarchists of the Spanish civil war would disagree with me.

[Artemidoros]

The apogee of Democracy in Athens was right after the battle of Salamis. There the poorer parts of the Athenian society were drafted as rowmen and thus they had the opportunity to fight for their city. This obligation and priviledge was limited only to Hoplites up till then, who could afford the expencive panoply.
The battle of Salamis gave these rights to everyone.

What is also very important I think is the fact the Athenians discovered a new rich silver vein in Lavrion in 482 which they used to pay for new ships. Their fleet was state owned. I also think hoplite warfare was a major factor in the birth and development of democracy. Ordinary citizens had no more need for aristocratic heroes in chariots. I can not remember which but it was either the Corinthians or the Argeians who first fought using the hoplite phalanx.

[Artemidoros]

Galvez said

It came not from the outside, it seems to me, but from the inside: from the pressing needs at the time, when tyranny and injustice were fresh on the minds of the Athenian people.

I am not suggesting it was imposed by outsiders. It was the choice of the Athenian people. What I am trying to explore is whether they were given ideas by experiments elsewhere. In my opinion the second wave of colonisation (S. Italy, B. Sea) which coincided with the development of hoplite tactics in warfare may have played a big part. Conditions in Athens were right for domocracy as you have correctly pointed out. There were serious difficulties though (Cleisthenes had to break up the old tribes). At the same time in the colonies democracy could come easier. Look at a modern equivalent: The US after the revolution against Britain. Democracy came almost naturally.

[AWAR]

I read about the Avars. The military leaders used to decide major issues with elections. They elected the Khaghan, decided on alliances, wars etc.

The Avar warriors voted by throwing their whips into 'yes' or 'no' baskets.

I'm not saying this democracy was older or more advanced than Athenean ( that'd be silly ), I only think they're worth a mention.

[Yiannis]

AWAR said:

I read about the Avars. The military leaders used to decide major issues with elections. They elected the Khaghan, decided on alliances, wars etc.
.

Don't know much on the Avars, (apart that they're no longer around) :-)

But in any case, they 're Medieval, not ancient people...

[AWAR]

Yiannis said:

Don't know much on the Avars, (apart that they're no longer around) :-)

But in any case, they 're Medieval, not ancient people...

grr

They were Medieval, but since when has this tradition existed. Maybe the Huns or the Scythians, Cimmerians etc. had this type of 'military democracy'.

[Artemidoros]

Just as I was starting to wonder whether I am a complete nutter I found this very interesting piece.

www.und.ac.za/und/classics/98-01rob.html

Here are a few extracts:

It was clearly not alone in experimenting with constitutional development, even if, because 'Athens was the most famous democracy of the ancient world, it is often assumed that both the concept and the constitution itself originated there'

But when he places a demokratia geographically at a distance from Athens it is likely to be believable, especially when his evidence broadly concurs with that provided by Aristotle. Thus, for example, the description of democracy found at Cyrene

and numerous colonies across the Mediterranean and the Black Sea reflect some form of democratisation in their initial stages. That these colonies did not acquire their participatory form of government from Athens is very clear from the evidence, which seems to point to experiments in democracy in as diverse a state as Argos (pp. 82-88) -- some sloppy proof-reading evident here (pp. 82-83) - - and Chios (pp. 90-101), and very obviously beginning in the archaic period, but reaching a climax towards the end of the sixth century.