Analysis Of Athenian Democracy

To students just embarking on the study of Greek history and historians alike, It might seem absurd to pose the question of whether the great city of Athens was the leading promoter of democracy in the rest of the Greek city-states during the 4th and 5th centuries. After all, the majority of personal accounts of Greece in that period allege that the Athenian empire was the first to advocate for the establishment of democracy. However, we find little to no concrete confirmation of this widely held belief when looking back at history and seeking out for a specific case where Athens encouraged. Therefore, it is essential we further analyze some of the several sources that claim that Athens actually democracy consistently and seek evidence of city-states …show more content…
Athens supported the oligarchy in the times of stasis in Miletus and made little to no effort to persuade its leaders to transform into a democracy. A decree of 434 B.C with an Athenian-style prescript implies that it became a democracy in that year, but there is no evidence that Athens promoted this change. They made this transition with no input from Athens whatsoever. The fact that Athens tolerated several of the most tyrannical non-democratic regimes is more than sufficient to doubt its supposed devotion to promote democracy as a default system of government. Athens should have intervened and overthrown at least some of these dynasties, but was instead conformed with the fact that those cities were not causing them any trouble. On the contrary, Athens kept them as their allies and guardians from 420 to 440. This exposes the selfishness of the Athenian leaders and their indifference towards the advancement of democracy in a large scale in the Greek nation. Even Athens itself often claimed that it tried to intervene where she could, but it did not always do so. For example, it never attempted to foster change in the renewed stasis at Colophon-Notion. Instead, it allowed the corrupt anti-Persian party to impose its rule there. Diototos once said that Athens stood still in times she could act because she was aware that interest in her empire did not necessarily imply any desire for …show more content…
The total cost of such proceedings would have exceeded the long-term profits of promoting democracy. It only made sense not to disturb major states that it relied on for resources, such as Samos, Lesbos and Chios. The case of Thasos confirms this theory; Athens intervened here because it guaranteed them control of a great amount of these resources. This also gained them support from other cities. If Athens had been as committed to promoting democracy as many scholars claim, then it would have sacrificed these relations for the sake of the people’s