Greek Civiliziations?

smiles

Is one here into ancient civilisations, I'm bizarrely interested in ancient greek culture (as well as many others), thank National Geographic magazine and various programmes on Discovery.

Anyone else a fan?

<< Fio >>

DadaKopf

A *FAN*? Seems a bit excessive! Do you go around wearing stolas and stuff?

Well, I did Classical Studies, Art History, Politics and Philosophy at various stages in school/college so I could say I'm really interested in ancient Greece and stuff like that. That said, I spent two days in Athens and couldn't have been bothered vising the Acropolis, or even going into the city but I almost wet myself with excitement when I visited Mycenae. King Atreus says 'hi'.

Johnmb

I'm definitely interested in ancient History, and have visited Greece a few times, especially Athens. I can't believe someone could visit Athens and not go to the Acropolis and the Agora. Mycenae is something to behold though. It requires a bit of imagination when there, but it is an amazing site.

Manach

Always interested in classical studies esp. that of Greece and Rome.
For Greece it's always the fascination about how alike in some respects they were to modern society, Drama, Democracy, Science. Whilst on the other hand, alien, regarding their (ie Athenian) treatment of women and slaves.
Not gone yet to Greece, but when I do, it would be to tour the sites, esp, the battlefields of Marathon and Thermophylie.

Hip

I read "The Republic" by Plato not so long ago. Fascinating book, not how I expected it to be at all and full of great ideas - except for killing babies and the like - I never expected Athenian society would have been so organised with the whole Democracy thing.

Reading "The Iliad" by Homer at the moment. Jaysus, those boys were really up for a row, and that Zeus guy is a real narky b0ll0x.

Been an eye-opening experience reading Greek lit, very smart guys.

Wook

yeah very much into ancient civ's, romans and greeks are impressive !
Most of my interrest comes from reading books though.
my favourite atm.... 'Spartans'.....

smiles

Originally posted by Hip
I read "The Republic" by Plato not so long ago. Fascinating book, not how I expected it to be at all and full of great ideas - except for killing babies and the like - I never expected Athenian society would have been so organised with the whole Democracy thing.

You know that it was an inforced democracy? As in everyone who was a citizen (namely males over 21 who werent slaves) were locked into the voting place and weren't allowed leave until they had voted?

I found that rather hilarious.

The crazy things are the differents between spartan and athenian culture at the same times - i mean women in athens were not seen and not heard, women in sparta ran the bloody place and were encouraged to fight and train as well as boys.

<< Fio >>

Johnmb

While the Athenians were rounded up and locked in to vote, it was just those that were around for the voting, it wasn't illegal not to vote, although they were encouraged to participate. The trouble was that they had a habit of sticking around in the Agora doing some shopping instead of going to vote. As for Spartan women, they ran the home, but had no say in the running of Sparta, except through their husbands whom they didn't see that often.

Éomer of Rohan

The crazy things are the differents between spartan and athenian culture at the same times - i mean women in athens were not seen and not heard, women in sparta ran the bloody place and were encouraged to fight and train as well as boys.

That is crap. I am presently studying a degree in Ancient History - my aim is to make professor by 30 - and I have an A at A Level there. Sure the Second Peloponesian War was caused by a group of women - never read the accounts of said war besides Thucydides?

While the Athenians were rounded up and locked in to vote, it was just those that were around for the voting, it wasn't illegal not to vote, although they were encouraged to participate.

Not quite sure what you are referring to here; the Ekklesia (Assembly) was made up of 6000 people and when they hadn't enough for the quorum, they rounded up nearby people and kept them in until a decision was reached. Seperate from this was the voting of the demes, phyla and tribes where citizens HAD to turn out to vote - there was no exception. Similarly, in the Boule - the Council of Five Hundred, and the Prytaneis - the Council of 50 who had responsibility for day to day affairs and changed every month or 10 times a year, all members had to vote. There was no written law about voting but there really was no choice in the matter - you had to vote. As Pericles says, and this is one of my favourite quotes;

"We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics minds his own business, we say he has no business here at all"

- Pericles Epitaphios as recorded by Thucydides in the "History of the Peloponesian War."

DadaKopf

And wasn't voting age 23 in Athens, not 21?

Athenian democracy, by our standards was not particularly democratic. Its only positive point was its ideal of direct democracy and self-governance, even if it did undermine itself by excluding 75% (rough figure) of the entire Athenian population. Still, I'd have preferred to be an Athenian than a Spartan.

Johnmb

Eomer of Rohan wrote:
That is crap. I am presently studying a degree in Ancient History - my aim is to make professor by 30 - and I have an A at A Level there. Sure the Second Peloponesian War was caused by a group of women - never read the accounts of said war besides Thucydides?

If you want to achieve your goal, you'll have to improve your debating abilities. smiles never mentioned the Peloponesian War, and was clearly refering to the fact that the Spartan women did run the households, and young girls were trained in a similar way to the boys.

As for your claims in response to me, do you have any references to back up any of your claims, or are you just making them up? People were rounded up from the Agora when a quorom wasn't reached, that is all. There are references to people who were there to vote hanging around the stalls buying stuff, that is why they had to be rounded up. Nobody got fined for not going to the Agora.

DadaKopf wrote:
And wasn't voting age 23 in Athens, not 21?

Athenian democracy, by our standards was not particularly democratic. Its only positive point was its ideal of direct democracy and self-governance, even if it did undermine itself by excluding 75% (rough figure) of the entire Athenian population. Still, I'd have preferred to be an Athenian than a Spartan.

Voting age may have been 18. I don't think there is any clear written reference to the voting age, but 30 is the age for holding certain offices. As for Athenian Democracy, it was a lot more democratic than anything around today. While only male citizens could vote, that still made up a much larger percentage of the population than the TD's who make the decisions in Ireland.

Éomer of Rohan

If you want to achieve your goal, you'll have to improve your debating abilities. smiles never mentioned the Peloponesian War, and was clearly refering to the fact that the Spartan women did run the households, and young girls were trained in a similar way to the boys.

That is a personal remark and has been reported to the moderators. As for the rest of it, Smiles said...

i mean women in athens were not seen and not heard

which is rubbish because, to give the best known example, it was Pericles' mistress who many historians have labelled as a Machiavellian monstrosity with an undying hatred of Megara - hence the Megarian decree and the refusal to revoke it even when the Spartans sent embassies to declare that the revocation thereof would stop the rush to war.

As for your claims in response to me, do you have any references to back up any of your claims, or are you just making them up? People were rounded up from the Agora when a quorom wasn't reached, that is all. There are references to people who were there to vote hanging around the stalls buying stuff, that is why they had to be rounded up. Nobody got fined for not going to the Agora

What I replied with was not a 'claim' - it is a fact. In reference, try Aristotle's Politics, any stelai between 511 and 404BC, Plutarch's Kleisthenes, Pericles, Cimon or Alcibiades or any political play by Aristophanes (Acarnians is a good one for this). The Ekklesia was not the be all and end all of Athenian democracy; people attended voluntarily but were coerced if a quorum wasn't reached - that much we agree on. The REST of what I said is not about the Ekklesia - it refers to the other offices in Athenian democracy, were not to vote was simply not an option. I obviously have no internet sources but if you are as interested in Ancient History as you say you are, you are bound to have at least one of the above books.

Manach

my aim is to make professor by 30

- say was that not Enoch Powell's ambition, Prof of Ancient Greek by 30

To defend the Spartans, with whom I've had a sneaking regard for, brutal though they were.
- They did nearly perfect the warrior society (albeit at the cost of social progress.)
- Also they were proto-socialist by holding agricultural land/property in common.
- And they did show their mettle when it mattered, Themophylae.

Regarding, Thebes, still neutral on that city, though I'm reading a book partially about Epaminondas "The Soul of Battlle" by Hanson.

Finally, quick question on Alexnader "the great". Was he a true Greek or not?

Éomer of Rohan

say was that not Enoch Powell's ambition, Prof of Ancient Greek by 30?

*shivers* lol

To defend the Spartans, with whom I've had a sneaking regard for, brutal though they were.
- They did nearly perfect the warrior society (albeit at the cost of social progress.)
- Also they were proto-socialist by holding agricultural land/property in common.
- And they did show their mettle when it mattered, Themophylae.

Yeah, despite the Athenian orientated vision of Ancient History, I have many Spartan sympathies - they had a generally honourable society and were genuinely appalled when Pausanias started trying to do what Athens later did - subjugate the Hellenic league to the Peloponesian League. I honour Leonidas greatly and I think we have agreed on this before - the sacrifice of the three hundred Spartiates was especially selfless given that the Spartans were always terribly afraid of lack of manpower. However, they did subjugate the Helots of Messenia and those helots (and the perioci for that matter) led a seriously repressed existence.

As for Thebes *shivers again* I do not like Thebes and I do not like Epaminondas (great as he was esp at Leuctra, despite dying lol).

Don't even get me started on the Macedonians *muttering about screwing over the second Athenian Confederacy* but apparently Alexander was Greek, recognised decent from the Argives - but Macedonians generally were not considered Greek.

Johnmb

quote:

---

If you want to achieve your goal, you'll have to improve your debating abilities. smiles never mentioned the Peloponesian War, and was clearly refering to the fact that the Spartan women did run the households, and young girls were trained in a similar way to the boys.

---

That is a personal remark and has been reported to the moderators. As for the rest of it, Smiles said...

It's simply a bit of advice, as valid to anybody else who wants a degree as it is to you. When discussing something, you don't just say it is crap, you give a reason for why you disagree with it (something you didn't do) and you keep on topic (you changed from the role of women in Athenian/Spartan society to the Peloponnesian War). If you take it personally coming from me, then so be it, but I guarantee you that your lecturers will agree with me.

quote:

---

i mean women in athens were not seen and not heard

---

which is rubbish because, to give the best known example, it was Pericles' mistress who many historians have labelled as a Machiavellian monstrosity with an undying hatred of Megara - hence the Megarian decree and the refusal to revoke it even when the Spartans sent embassies to declare that the revocation thereof would stop the rush to war.

Actually it is quite true for Greek women in general during the period when it comes to public decisions. The only power women had was in the home, and there ability to persuade their men to talk for them. In that regard it is my opinion the Athenian women had more power than Spartan women for obvious reasons, hence my disagreement with smiles.

quote:

---

As for your claims in response to me, do you have any references to back up any of your claims, or are you just making them up? People were rounded up from the Agora when a quorom wasn't reached, that is all. There are references to people who were there to vote hanging around the stalls buying stuff, that is why they had to be rounded up. Nobody got fined for not going to the Agora

---

What I replied with was not a 'claim' - it is a fact. In reference, try Aristotle's Politics, any stelai between 511 and 404BC, Plutarch's Kleisthenes, Pericles, Cimon or Alcibiades or any political play by Aristophanes (Acarnians is a good one for this).

Aristotle's Politics is his ideal, not a detailed description of Athenian society. The decrees in honour of Thracian Neapolis (409 and 406), the assessment-decrees of 425 and the appointment of collectors of tribute of 426 are on stelai IIRC, and none mention anything that supports your claims. Plutarch doesn't go into many details of the processes of Athenian democracy, and wrongly refers to Pericles as if he were the ruler of Athens. Aristophanes wrote plays, not descriptions of Athenian democracy. Can you provide any actual, specific references?

The Ekklesia was not the be all and end all of Athenian democracy;

Actually, it was. No other grouping could overrule the Ecclesia, and only they could make the decisions. The other institutions were set up to carry out the will of the Ecclesia.

people attended voluntarily but were coerced if a quorum wasn't reached - that much we agree on. The REST of what I said is not about the Ekklesia - it refers to the other offices in Athenian democracy, were not to vote was simply not an option.

And what would the other institutions be voting on? And where is it said that all members had to vote on those issues?

I obviously have no internet sources but if you are as interested in Ancient History as you say you are, you are bound to have at least one of the above books.

Most can be found via a Yahhoo! search for anybody who doesn't have them to check out.

Éomer of Rohan

Plutarch doesn't go into many details of the processes of Athenian democracy, and wrongly refers to Pericles as if he were the ruler of Athens.

He bloody well WAS the ruler of Athens - democracy in name but rule by one man; sure look at what Thucydides says about him. He consistently occupied the position of Strategos from 444BC to 429BC - something equalled by no other Athenian. On only two occasions (admittedly as far as I know) did the Athenians disagree with Pericles - the invasion of Boeotia and then following the plague. Anyway, Plutarch does deal in some detail with certain aspects of Athenian democracy but as for...

Actually, it was. No other grouping could overrule the Ecclesia, and only they could make the decisions. The other institutions were set up to carry out the will of the Ecclesia.

go and look up the meaning of probouleutic. Control without having control. The Spartan Gerousia were good at that one too.
And the Boule was not set up to carry out the will of the assembly.
And as for the voting, check the records for the voting on the Hellenotamiai and (I think) the stelai for the Kleonymous, Thoudippos and Kleinias decrees.

DadaKopf

posted by Johnmb
Voting age may have been 18. I don't think there is any clear written reference to the voting age, but 30 is the age for holding certain offices. As for Athenian Democracy, it was a lot more democratic than anything around today. While only male citizens could vote, that still made up a much larger percentage of the population than the TD's who make the decisions in Ireland.

More democratic? Only male citizens over 23 could vote. That meant that no women could vote (that's 50% stricken off the register) and, even though slaves made up a large proportion of the Athenian population, none of them could vote because they weren't citizens. Yeah, very democratic.

In fact, the reason Classical democracy flourished in Athens was because of the massive underclass of slaves - it was the wealth and subsequent leisure enjoyed by male citizens which created the culture in which it was able to flourish.

This was in direct contrast to Sparta.

And, for the record, I'm all for direct democracy - just with a total franchise.

DadaKopf

Finally, quick question on Alexnader "the great". Was he a true Greek or not?

I thought he was a Macedonian, which was different to being Athenian or Spartan or whatever. And, what *is* a true Greek? Do you mean a generic term for those who came from around there or are you saying Alexander was the region's first pan-nationalist?

PS: I only know this stuff up to LC level, not like you nerds.

Johnmb

To Eomer:

No, Pericles was not the ruler of Athens. He was just a good orator. He couldn't make any decisions, he could however talk most of his fellow citizens into agreeing with him. He was even removed from office once, and fined, in 430. The Boule was set up to carry out the will of the Ecclesia. It organised the meetings, and the order in which things would be discussed in order to keep things moving, but it did not decide what was and wasn't discussed. Probouleumata were recommendations, nothing more. They were discussed by the Ecclesia who could adopt, adjust, attach riders, return to the Boule for reframing, or simply reject it.

To DadaKopf:

Where are you getting 23 from? I've heard 18 and 21, but never 23 before. The truth is we don't know for sure because it is not explicitly stated anywhere, unless something new has been found fairly recently. As for which is more democratic, I go with Athens due to the numbers. Of about 350,000 people living in Attica at the time, there were about 35,000 adult male citizens (numbers VERY roughly taken from McGregor's "The Athenians and their Empire"). That is about 10% of the people who could actively make the decisions. Compare that to here where less than 200 people get to make the decisions that effect nearly 4,000,000 (about 0.00005%). While the women couldn't actually vote, it was much easier for them to get their points across to their representatives considering they lived with them. Slaves were another issue, but I'm sure at least some would have good relationships with their owners, and thus be represented.

PHB

I was under the impression he had the generalship, out of i think 10 generals.

He still had to convince him, but i'm fairly sure they just listened to him anyway.


Oh and the whole Athens was more democratic than nowadays is silly.
Whats your definition of democratic?

Mine would be one person one vote?
We have that now, back then males over 23 had it.

DadaKopf

Yo, I checked my book - we're both wrong. According to David Held (best ever political writer ever in the world according to me), it's 20. And that's after him consulting god knows how many books (it's from his book "Models of Democracy"). He does, of course, acknowledge that we know very, very little about the actual ins and outs of daily political life and administration in Athens. We only have critiques railed against it by the likes of Plato (writing about Socrates etc.) and Aristotle but little by the ones who count like Theucydides.

Of course comparing then to now is a bit silly. I'm not saying that at all - but it was a very simple model which, for that reason, we can take a lot of wisdom from when applying political ideals to the present day. It's hard enough arguing about whether states in existence today are more or less democratic than each other!

Éomer of Rohan

The Boule was set up to carry out the will of the Ecclesia.

Wrong. Go and look up probouleutic again. The Prytaneis carried out the will of the Ekklesia.

office once, and fined, in 430

The second time ever that the Athenians disagreed with him; and as I am sure you know, he was restored with full compensation.

It organised the meetings, and the order in which things would be discussed in order to keep things moving, but it did not decide what was and wasn't discussed. Probouleumata were recommendations, nothing more. They were discussed by the Ecclesia who could adopt, adjust, attach riders, return to the Boule for reframing, or simply reject it.

No. The Boule was elected each year and met approximately 80 times a year - much less than the Ekklesia. The functions of the Boule were to prepare the agenda of the Ekklesia for certain policies - policies which the Ekklesia itself could not decide without the probeulemata - the recommendations; there were certain policies that even carried a fine if discussed in the Ekklesia without approval; the use of certain monies in the treasury of the Delian League was one of these. The Boule was the only group that could bring these up.

I thought he was a Macedonian, which was different to being Athenian or Spartan or whatever

Macedon was not a city state, did not experience pthonos and did not go through the same philosophical development that affected the city states of central and Peloponnesian Greece; Macedon, while a Greek influenced power, was not Greek. The accession to the Council of Delphi was more a status thing than an acknowledgement of Greek origin. The 'real' Greeks were the Dorians and the Ionians - Macedon was niether.

Do you mean a generic term for those who came from around there or are you saying Alexander was the region's first pan-nationalist?

Alexander was an imperialist, not a pan-nationalist. Pan-nationalism didn't exist; there was unity against Persia for example but the recurrent identity of the different city states reasserts itself throughout Herodotus' History. Alexander, like the Athenians such as Kleon, Alkibiades, Pericles and later Demosthenes, were imperialists bent on the supremacy of their city states (though Alexander ruled a region - closer to a Persian Satrap than a Greek government - even including the Tyrants).

Johnmb

PHB wrote:
I was under the impression he had the generalship, out of i think 10 generals.

He still had to convince him, but i'm fairly sure they just listened to him anyway.

He was a strategoi for most of his carreer. That was the only post that was elected by vote. In and of itself, the post carried as much power as the Ecclesia wanted it to carry. At it's most functional, the Ecclesia would tell a strategoi to do something, and the rest was left up to him, at times however the Ecclesia would also start interferring in how the command was done. Due to who the strategoi were, their advice would usually carry more weight than the average nobodyin major issues, but it was still just advice. Pericles was very popular, but he had no more official power than anybody else. He got his way so often simply because he was usually right as far as the Athenians were concerned. He still needed their backing in the Ecclesia in order to do anything.

quote:

---

The Boule was set up to carry out the will of the Ecclesia.

---

Wrong. Go and look up probouleutic again. The Prytaneis carried out the will of the Ekklesia.

The Prytaneis were the 10 tribes of Athens (decided by geographical location for convenience). Each one supplied 50 members to the Boule. The prytanies served in rotation according to lot (the admin year was divided into ten parts). The prytany ran the Boule for it's term, and provided the chairman for the Boule and the Ecclesia (never the same person twice). The prytanies were just a division of the Boule to keep things moving.

quote:

---

office once, and fined, in 430

---

The second time ever that the Athenians disagreed with him; and as I am sure you know, he was restored with full compensation.

He was neither restored nor compensated. The following year (429) he was re-elected, a different thing altogether.

quote:

---

It organised the meetings, and the order in which things would be discussed in order to keep things moving, but it did not decide what was and wasn't discussed. Probouleumata were recommendations, nothing more. They were discussed by the Ecclesia who could adopt, adjust, attach riders, return to the Boule for reframing, or simply reject it.

---

No. The Boule was elected each year and met approximately 80 times a year - much less than the Ekklesia.

The Ecclesia met formerly on 40 occassions each year, and in emergencies. The Boule, in theory, met daily, although no records of their daily meetings exist, so we don't know if they actually bothered every day.

The functions of the Boule were to prepare the agenda of the Ekklesia for certain policies - policies which the Ekklesia itself could not decide without the probeulemata - the recommendations;

The Ecclesia could deliberate any policy without the probeulemata, the reason for them was to keep things moving. When any other business was discussed, it was usually to tell the Boule to prepare probeulemata regarding certain issues for the next meeting, as to start discussing those issues from scratch in the Ecclesia (minimum of 6,000 people) simply wouldn't be practicable in most situations unless the issue was very straightforward.

there were certain policies that even carried a fine if discussed in the Ekklesia without approval; the use of certain monies in the treasury of the Delian League was one of these. The Boule was the only group that could bring these up.

And can you provide any references to back this up? I doubt it for the simply reason that nothing was out of bounds for the Ecclesia, as that was the ultimate power in Athens during it's democratic period. Although if you can prove me wrong with a specific reference I'll be happy to read it (specific mind, not a "Thucydides said it", I want to know where he said it too).

Éomer of Rohan

The Prytaneis were the 10 tribes of Athens

Of Attica and no they weren't. Prytaneis were the 50 presiding councillors for a tenth part of the year; not the tribes themselves.

The prytany ran the Boule for it's term

No. The Boule ran the Boule; the prytaneis, while comprising a tenth part of the Boule was for day to day administration of Athens itself, living at public expense in the tholos. To properly discuss the functions of the Boule, we can divide into 4 parts;

1) Finance
2) Public Works
3) Foreign Affairs
4) Supervision of Magistrates.

The Ecclesia met formerly on 40 occassions each year, and in emergencies. The Boule, in theory, met daily, although no records of their daily meetings exist, so we don't know if they actually bothered every day

Now you are confusing yourself; the Boule did not meet every day; the Prytaneis met every day; the Ekklesia could meet any time it wanted. The Boule was convened between 40 and 80 times a year. The Prytaneis and the Boule are seperate bodies though the membership of one was derived from the other.

And can you provide any references to back this up? I doubt it for the simply reason that nothing was out of bounds for the Ecclesia, as that was the ultimate power in Athens during it's democratic period.

I could not find the original reference in Thucydides that I remembered but look up a paper Simon Hornblower wrote on the finances of the Archidamian part of the war; it is only a few pages long so you should be able to scan through it and find it.

Johnmb

quote:

---

The Prytaneis were the 10 tribes of Athens

---

Of Attica and no they weren't. Prytaneis were the 50 presiding councillors for a tenth part of the year; not the tribes themselves.

The prytany you belonged to depended on the tribe you belonged to.

quote:

---

The prytany ran the Boule for it's term

---

No. The Boule ran the Boule; the prytaneis, while comprising a tenth part of the Boule was for day to day administration of Athens itself, living at public expense in the tholos. To properly discuss the functions of the Boule, we can divide into 4 parts;

1) Finance
2) Public Works
3) Foreign Affairs
4) Supervision of Magistrates.

To quote from McGregor's "The Athenians and their Empire":
"The apparent awkwardness of so large a body [i.e. the Boule] was reduced by its adroit division into ten tribal units (prytanies), each one comprising members drawn from the major parts of Attica (interior, coast, city)....As the Boule acted as the clearing house and prepared the agenda for the Ecclesia, so the prytany served and represented the Boule.....One third of the body passed the night in the Agora..."

quote:

---

The Ecclesia met formerly on 40 occassions each year, and in emergencies. The Boule, in theory, met daily, although no records of their daily meetings exist, so we don't know if they actually bothered every day

---

Now you are confusing yourself; the Boule did not meet every day; the Prytaneis met every day; the Ekklesia could meet any time it wanted. The Boule was convened between 40 and 80 times a year. The Prytaneis and the Boule are seperate bodies though the membership of one was derived from the other.

Again, to quote from McGregor (it's right in front of me, and it's required reading for Greek and Roman Civilisation in UCD):
"The agenda to be placed before the Ecclesia were fully discussed by the Boule, which, in theory at any rate, met daily. This is why the Boule is described as probouleutic: it deliberated in advance. The formulation of probouleumata has already been noted. The system allowed free debate in the Ecclesia but did not make it necessary for motions to be put into words in that large arena."

quote:

---

And can you provide any references to back this up? I doubt it for the simply reason that nothing was out of bounds for the Ecclesia, as that was the ultimate power in Athens during it's democratic period.

---

I could not find the original reference in Thucydides that I remembered but look up a paper Simon Hornblower wrote on the finances of the Archidamian part of the war; it is only a few pages long so you should be able to scan through it and find it.

So in other words, you can't provide a reference. Can you even give the title of Simon's paper? He has wrote a lot on Thucydides, but I can't find a reference to a paper he wrote dealing with Archidamia (at least, not in the title).

Éomer of Rohan

The prytany you belonged to depended on the tribe you belonged to

....which wasn't what you said; you said the 'Prytaneis were the tribes'; demes made trittyes, trittyes made tribes, of which there were ten - 50 members of each made up the Boule of 500, each 50 taking turns to run the day to day business of Athens over a tenth part of the year.

Yo, I checked my book - we're both wrong. According to David Held (best ever political writer ever in the world according to me), it's 20. And that's after him consulting god knows how many books (it's from his book "Models of Democracy").

Having checked through my own sources, it was actually 18 - males enrolled themselves in the Pinakon Ekklesiastikon - for which you should check; Dem. 44.35; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 42.1.

Regarding the Powers of the Boule

I found a reference to what I was discussing earlier; the forbidding of the use of certain moneys without probouleumata - not the one I meant but this should suffice; try Demosthenes 59.4 to 59.5 - makes a reference to it and I have notes that Christopher Blackwell makes this connection in a paper he wrote entitled "Athenian Democracy; A Brief Overview" though regrettably I have not got the article.

So in other words, you can't provide a reference. Can you even give the title of Simon's paper? He has wrote a lot on Thucydides, but I can't find a reference to a paper he wrote dealing with Archidamia (at least, not in the title).

Like I have said, all I am dealing with is memory and my own notes - and I didn't take down the name of that paper - hopefully the reference above will be of use. And what, pray tell, is Archidamia?

Johnmb

Regarding the Powers of the Boule

I found a reference to what I was discussing earlier; the forbidding of the use of certain moneys without probouleumata - not the one I meant but this should suffice; try Demosthenes 59.4 to 59.5 - makes a reference to it and I have notes that Christopher Blackwell makes this connection in a paper he wrote entitled "Athenian Democracy; A Brief Overview" though regrettably I have not got the article.

I think you are misunderstanding the content of what is being discussed in those Demosthenes speeches. The law as it stood said that all extra revenue should be spent on the military during war time, yet the Boule put how to spend the extra revenue on the agenda for the Ecclesia. The speeches in no way say that the Ecclesia could not normally discuss how to spend the money without the Boule's permission, just that normally the existing law would be automatically applied. The Ecclesia, not the Boule, made that law BTW. Here are the sections you refered to:
"[4] You were at that time on the point of sending your entire force to Euboea and Olynthus,1 and Apollodorus, being one of its members, brought forward in the senate a bill, and carried it as a preliminary decree2 to the assembly, proposing that the people should decide whether the funds remaining over from the state's expenditure should be used for military purposes or for public spectacles. For the laws prescribed that, when there was war, the funds remaining over from state expenditures should be devoted to military purposes, and Apollodorus believed that the people ought to have power to do what they pleased with their own; and he had sworn that, as member of the senate, he would act for the best interests of the Athenian people, as you all bore witness at that crisis. [5] For when the division took place there was not a man whose vote opposed the use of these funds for military purposes; and even now, if the matter is anywhere spoken of, it is acknowledged by all that Apollodorus gave the best advice, and was unjustly treated. It is, therefore, upon the one who by his arguments deceived the jurors that your wrath should fall, not upon those who were deceived."

quote:

---

So in other words, you can't provide a reference. Can you even give the title of Simon's paper? He has wrote a lot on Thucydides, but I can't find a reference to a paper he wrote dealing with Archidamia (at least, not in the title).

---

Like I have said, all I am dealing with is memory and my own notes - and I didn't take down the name of that paper - hopefully the reference above will be of use. And what, pray tell, is Archidamia?

An "n" is missing and you get stuck?

Éomer of Rohan

I think you are misunderstanding the content of what is being discussed in those Demosthenes speeches. The law as it stood said that all extra revenue should be spent on the military during war time, yet the Boule put how to spend the extra revenue on the agenda for the Ecclesia. The speeches in no way say that the Ecclesia could not normally discuss how to spend the money without the Boule's permission, just that normally the existing law would be automatically applied

Not really; like I said, I was skimming everything; I couldn't remember the original instance which I can up with therefore I was looking for another one rather than having to read through the first two books of Thucydides which is where I remember the example to be.

An "n" is missing and you get stuck?

You were missing 'the' and 'war' too

Johnmb

It was just a quick search using the author's name and a keyword from the title. The closest I have yet come up with is:
Ritual, finance, politics : Athenian democratic accounts presented to David. - Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1994. - 0198149921

Does this ring a bell? If so, I'll check it out on Tuesday.

smiles

Okay.... this is now the reason why I think people take things too seriously.

<< Fio >>

Johnmb

Hey, it's an interesting topic.:p

If you are interested in Athens and Sparta in a less detailed way you should get "Athens and Sparta" by S.C. Todd out of your local library. It is a great introduction, and is very brief (83 pages). If you found something interesting there is a good "Further Reading" section at the end of the book, so you can get as much, or as little, detail as you like. If you choose to buy it, be warned, it is about €20 for a tiny book!

Éomer of Rohan

probably the best book I could recommend for an introduction to ALL of Ancient Greece would be Pamela Bradley's "Ancient Greece - Using evidence" which was required reading for A Level. It provides an introduction to the sources and a broad overview of the age of tyranny down to 323BC.

And by god don't talk to me about the price of our books - through the frickin roof; but I still refuse to buy second hand - there is something special about a brand new ancient history book. Cheapest place to get them is generally online.

Johnmb

I was doing a little research into the role of the Boule and the Ecclesia, and in Mogens Hansen's "The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology" he seems to make the same error as Éomer (i.e. making the claim that the Ecclesia cannot debate anything that hasn't passed through the Boule). He gives Aristotle's "Constitution of Athens" 45.4 as his reference. That relevant section says:
"In these matters, then, the Boule does not have the final decision, but it holds a preliminary discussion on everything that is to come before the people, nor can the people vote on anything that has not been previously discussed by them and put on the agenda by the Prytanies. Anyone who violates this law is liable to a prosecution for an illegal proposal."
The important part is the first three words: "In these matters,...". The matters being discussed in that section of the constitution are the Boules's power to prosecute/investigate the magistrates, and the right of appeal to the dikasterion. Aristotle is basically saying that a citizen cannot challange a magistrate before the dikasterion by by-passing the Boule. In part 43.6, while discussing the Boule and it's relationship with the Ecclesia, he says:
"On occasions they [Ecclesia] also consider matters without a preliminary vote."

In part 43.3 he also confirms that the Boule meet every day (except holidays), and that the Ecclesia normally only meets four times per Prytany (i.e. 40 times per year).

Have you found any references to back up your belief that voting was mandatory in any of the institutions that were being discussed?

Éomer of Rohan

I haven't been looking to tell you the truth but at least now I have some substantiation to the claims, like that which you turned up. It wasn't that I made a mistake!

Johnmb

What I turned up was a quote that showed that the dikasterion couldn't try a magistrate until after the Boule had tried him. Both you and Hansen made a mistake by applying that rule to the Ecclesia which clearly didn't need the Boule to discuss everything first according to the same source.

rcunning03

i was wondering if you guys could clarify something for me a few months ago i was watching discovery channel about sex and ancient civilisations and according to greek legend a greek god created the world by *ahem* entertaining himself and when people got together they viewed it as pleasing their gods and had no inihibitions

did i get this wrong or was i dreaming or something

thanks

(p.s. i make no claims about my knowledge of greek society so if this is complete rubbish go easy on me)

josh40

Democracy in present day Greece is still enforced. It is a responsibility as well as a right and anybody who doesn't vote is breaking the law.It is still democratic in name only in many respects, especially where the rights of foreigners are concerned.

My kids go to Greek schools and learn all this in their history classes. The books are very vague on many issues, especially on voting ages.

How much of this is really true ?Just because someone wrote something does not necessarily mean that is what he truly believed. The danger in studying history generally and especially Ancient history is that we accept too much and we look at things through our " present" day eyes.

Éomer of Rohan

My kids go to Greek schools and learn all this in their history classes. The books are very vague on many issues, especially on voting ages

I already said this; if you are interested in debate on Ancient Greece, at least read the rest of the thread first.:

Having checked through my own sources, it was actually 18 - males enrolled themselves in the Pinakon Ekklesiastikon - for which you should check; Dem. 44.35; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 42.1.

How much of this is really true ?Just because someone wrote something does not necessarily mean that is what he truly believed. The danger in studying history generally and especially Ancient history is that we accept too much and we look at things through our " present" day eyes.

No offence but that's bollocks. As ancient historians, we, especially nowadays, accept nothing; proof of this is the discrediting of Xenophon and Diodorus within the last century, whereas beforehand, they were regarded as gospel. Also, while you criticise looking through modern day eyes at Ancient history, you fail to realise two things - one) we don't unless we are drawing parallels and two) drawing parallels which require looking through modern eyes is very useful in understanding possible political motives; our society is a direct descendant of Greek and Roman politics, with religious bigotry and moralistic crap (thrown in) - but ultimately you ignore that the point of academic debate, which in many cases can get intense, is to ensure that neither of the faults you have listed occur.

As for asking "how much of this actually happened" - don't be ridiculous - one source making things up, possibly two, even three but when twenty and thirty sources corroborate one another and archaeologic and epigraphical evidence also supports what we believe to be the case, then the likelihood of historians being mistaken is unlikely.

josh40

Do you know what happens if you put ten historians into a room to discuss an historical topic, they come back with eleven different interpretations?

There is no such thing as an unbiased interpretation of history. Granted there are certain tools available to a history student, to help him to evaluate sources but nothing is foolproof.

There are no facts in history (no matter how many historians come up wit the same view), there are simply different interpretations.

Your arrogance is astounding!

Éomer of Rohan

Do you know what happens if you put ten historians into a room to discuss an historical topic, they come back with eleven different interpretations?

No, they come back with eleven possible interpretations, one or two of which will be mooted as the most likely.

There is no such thing as an unbiased interpretation of history. Granted there are certain tools available to a history student, to help him to evaluate sources but nothing is foolproof

Quantum physics means our definition of reality is not fullproof but how many people do you hear walking around questioning the truth that something actually happened to them not five minutes ago? People are taught what the weight of the world is in Physics but no one has ever measured it have they? That something is not fullproof does not mean it is not fact.

There are no facts in history (no matter how many historians come up wit the same view), there are simply different interpretations.

The battle of hastings occurred in 1066. Fact. Get over it.

Your arrogance is astounding

So is your penchant for observing ridiculous ideas about history.