Question 1 | Question 2 | Question 3 | Question 4 | Question 5 | Question 6 | Question 7 | Question 8 | Question 9 | Question 10

Question 2

Hi Bettany, I found tonight's opening programme fascinating, particularly the fact that the face of ancient Athenian government seemed to change on a monthly basis. A question that sprung immediately to mind: is there any evidence to indicate that this constant state of flux led to inconsistent government. That is, are there any examples of decisions made one month being immediately reversed by subsequent assemblies?

(From Ian, Cheltenham)

Bettany Hughes: Ian, thanks for your question. I'm sorry it has taken me a little time to respond, I've been off lecturing in Switzerland where the cantons have one of the oldest contiguous systems of democracy…fascinating.

Your question is very pertinent. Changeability within the Athenian democratic system was apparent, and was cited by democracy's critics (eg Plato) as one of the reasons that democratic government could never endure for any sustained period.

There is one particularly good example of the fluctuating nature of decision-making in the Athenian assembly that I thought might interest you. In 428BC the city of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos rubbed the Athenians up the wrong way. Mytilene had attempted to secede from Athenian control, and although in conference with Athens, the rebels secretly sent for help from Athens' enemies, Sparta. The Athenian Assembly (led by a fairly bullish character called Cleon) voted to exterminate its critics, despite a more cautious, humane approach promoted by one man, Diodotus. (This episode is described brilliantly by Thucydides in his 'History of the Peloponnesian War' Book 3) That night, the Athenians slept on their decision and woke up realising how brutal it had been. After a hasty meeting a second trireme was sent out, with the rowers being fed barley cakes and fortified wine to make them beat the waves even faster in an attempt to overtake the messenger and reverse the decision. The second trireme arrived just in time and a massacre was avoided (although the ringleaders were still executed without trial). The example shows how in a space of 48 hours the Assembly could make a U-turn on decisions.

Famously it has been said that it's easier to persuade many thousands of men to act than it is one man – and again this was levied as a criticism of the Assembly by eg Socrates. Socrates stood alone when the Athenian Assembly voted (fired, doubtless by heat-of-the-moment emotion) to execute a number of generals (unconstitutionally) en masse whom they felt had acted dishonourably at the battle of Arginusae in 406BC. The presence of 6000 men together under a hot Greek sun, the power of rhetoric and persuasion, the fever of popular feeling must all have conspired, at times, to encourage the Assembly to an ill-judged decision. I think this is an anxiety that Euripides deals with when he describes Greeks during the Trojan Wars coming to a collective decision to sacrifice a young girl.

Being a democracy doesn't necessarily mean that you make 'good, sound' decisions. Popular feeling can force a bad call. All that said, the Athenians invented such precise systems of checks and balances it seems to have been quite rare for the leader of the Assembly (selected by lot, with an administrative rather than a policy-making role) to dictate policy…the feeling and opinion of the demos was still paramount. A good question of yours. So glad you like the shows, thanks for your interest.

< Previous question | Next question > | See all questions