Athens however had different ideas. In the late 450’s Athens issued a decree to Erythrai that they must abide by. The decree stated that ‘the people of Erythrai should bring corn to the great Panathenaia worth not less than three minas.’ This is effectively declaring that Athens expected Erythrai to give offerings to a festival that was not part of their culture and would not benefit them. The inscription went on to explain that Erythrai was to elect a counsel (known as a Boulé) with the aide of a ‘garrison commander’ who appears to have judicial responsibilities. The council was also to declare that Zeus, Apollo and Demeter should call ‘down destruction on themselves if they break their oath.’ Interestingly the inscription also reads that ‘The council is to swear as follows: I will give the best and most just counsel I can for the people of Erythrai and of Athens and of the allies, and I will not revolt from the People of Athens nor from the allies of the Athenians.’ Here it is clear that Athens is imposing an Athenian government policy on Erythrai. Erythrai is declaring that they are to remain loyal to the allies, even though the need for allegiance is no more, ever since the peace of Kallias. Athens however wants the alliances formed to remain intact, showing the beginnings of an empire, as tributes are still to be paid. These acts cannot be considered as tyrannical as the Athenian government policy imposed upon Erythrai was deemed an improvement.
In the early 440’s another decree was issued to Miletos. It explains that fines are to be issued to any person who disobeys the magistrates and that ‘If anyone deserves a greater fine he is to be summoned to Athens and brought to court there and whatever he seems to deserve is to be imposed.’ This decree is showing how Athens was to take charge of serious criminal cases, thereby taking power from the constituent courts in Miletos. This signalled the beginning of Athens taking more control in domestic affairs. Evidence for this act being seen as an act of tyranny is not forthcoming, and some scholars argue that this action took pressure off local governments, although harsher punishments were regularly given to so called ‘criminals’.
At roughly this time, the Karpathos decree was also issued. This decree stipulated that ‘If anyone wrongs either the Eteokarpathian state or takes away or razes the stele, he is to owe fifty talents to the state.’ The inscription further reads ‘The case is to be tried before the Thesmothetai in Athens.’ Quite clearly we can see Athens taking control of legal cases again, ensuring that anyone who goes against their will (razing the stele) will incur their wrath. This inscription also reads that Karpathos had been under the rule of a garrison and that ‘the soldiers who now occupy it are to depart from the akropolis’ It appears that Karpathos had lost her autonomy, however the reasons for how and why Karpathos had lost her autonomy are not revealed. It is most probable that Athens issued a garrison there to prevent revolts until the decree was made.
In the mid 440’s BC yet another decree was issued, this time to the Khalkidians. They had to decree that they ‘Will not revolt from the people of Athens’ and that they will ‘Obey the Athenian people’. In this statement there seems to be no mention of the allies or the league. It is also noteworthy to mention that a state can only revolt if they are subject to another state. Therefore it is relatively safe to conclude that by this time, Athens was building an empire based upon the states in the Delian league. Later on in the inscription it is declared that Khalkis was to erect the oath on a stone steel at the acropolis ‘At the expense of the Khalkidians’ Not only are the Khalkidians being made to obey the decree but they are also being made to pay for the decree being set in stone, a highly unfair act. Despite the unfair events, it cannot be seen that Athens is acting as a tyrant simply because they are showing their superiority, and are letting people know of it. Any self respecting state would do the same thing.
Also in the 440’s was the Kolophon Decree. This decree followed along the same lines as the Khalkis decree stating that they too had to pay for the oath to be made in stone, and placed on the acropolis. What follows though seems very strange and very dominating. The inscription states that they would not ‘revolt against the Athenian people either by word or deed’ and that they each were to ‘love the Athenian people’. They also had to swear that they will ‘not desert and will not subvert democracy at Kolophon.’ This decree is literally demonstrating the dominance of Athens. Kolophon must have been afraid of Athens to agree to this decree. Athens appears to be treating them like children, making such demands as the whole of Kolophon loving the Athenian people. As humorous and belittling as this is, there is still no evidence for Athens acting as a tyrant. These actions merely reaffirm Athens dominance over her empire. No harm has been done to Kolophon, although obviously a dent in pride has been struck.
In 446 BC Athens and Sparta declared a 30 year peace. This signalled the end of the first Peloponnesian war. Athens used this time of peace to further strengthen her empire. In 440 BC, Samos was arguing with Miletus over the question of Priene. Athens sailed to Samos and forged a democracy there. They also took fifty boys and 50 men as hostages. Samos rebelled however and allied themselves with Pissuthnes, the Persian governor of Sardis. Athens sailed to Samos with sixty triremes although only forty four were used (Thucydides, Chapter 116). Athens won and Thucydides tells us that the Samians made an attempt to fight at sea but ‘were forced to surrender after a nine month’s siege: they pulled down their walls, gave hostages, handed over their fleet, and agreed to pay reparations in instalments at regular intervals.’
Here is it easy to see that Athens is becoming increasingly more aggressive with rebellious states. However Samos’s punishment would have been considerably less if they had not rebelled in the first place. It was extremely harsh to destroy the Samian defences as this would leave them open to attacks in the future. It was only after the second revolt that Athens issued harsh punishments; therefore the argument for Athens acting as a tyrant cannot apply.
In the Kleinias decree, which some classical scholars attribute to the early 420’s BC, Athens tightens her grip on her subject states further by issuing personal identification tokens for each of the states. These tokens were to travel with the annual tribute when it was delivered to Athens. The inscription reads that Athens will make ‘identification tokens for the cities to prevent those who bring the tribute from committing offences: the city is to write on a tablet the amount of the tribute which it is sending and then seal it with the identification token before it sends it to Athens.’ Athens is trying to ensure that every last talent and Drachma is delivered to them, therefore tightening the noose around enemies of Athens or potentially rebellious states. Although this act is very selfish, and seems money grabbing, Athens is simply trying to protect her assets, in this case, the tribute being delivered to them, as it would be easy for the person delivering the tribute to steal some of the money. For this reason Athens cannot be considered a tyrant, as protection of assets is not a tyrannical act.
In other circumstances however, Athens insisted on replacing parts of a city or states culture with their own. As I have previously mentioned, Athens replaced a states government with one similar to Athens’ one, such as in Erythrai. Another instance of this is replacing a city or states coinage with that of Athens’. In Lactor one, inscription 198, we are told that ‘If anyone strikes silver coinage in the cities and does not use Athenian coins or weights or measures, but foreign coins and measures and weights, I will administer punishments and penalties.’ Slowly it is appearing that Athens is aspiring to change a states culture into that of Athens. These acts further rob a state of its autonomy, as a state or cities currency is one of the chief factors that make a state independent. From this act it appears that Athens is acting tyrannical, as we would consider the replacement of our native country as tyrannical today. However Athens cannot be considered a tyrant in general for one tyrannical act, as human nature depicts that everyone has faults, and this act of evil may have been a one off.
In the year 430 BC, in light of all the events that occurred previously over the years, many of which I have mentioned previously in this essay, Pericles the Athenian general spoke of his policies. He spoke in great depth about the state of the Athenian Empire, and what it meant at the present and in the future. He said ‘The whole world before our eyes can be divided into two parts, the land and the sea …Of the whole of one of these parts you are in control – not only of the area at present in your power but elsewhere too, if you want to go further.’ Here Pericles is acknowledging the power at his hands, in the form of the empire, and most prominently the Athenian navy. Later on Pericles speaks of the current political standing of the empire when he says ‘Your Empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go.’ Pericles is one of the most respected men in Greece, let alone Athens, and for him to declare the Athenian Empire a tyranny is striking. As he is the general of the Athenian army, he has witnessed many political acts, and must have seen tyrannical acts. However, on the basis of the evidence I have presented so far, the Athenian Empire cannot wholly be considered a tyranny, as many acts have benefited the subject states.
In 428/427 BC, The Athenian Empire took steps to quash a rebellion happening on the island of Lesbos. To prevent this, an army from Mytiylene marched upon the Athenian camp in full force. Athens did not take too kindly to this and as a punishment Cleon issued the harsh punishment of a trireme being sent to Mytiylene to slaughter every male on the island. Cleon himself was known for his quick temper and the extremity of his punishments. He himself said this about the Athenian Empire in 427 BC: ‘what you do not realise is that your empire is a tyranny exercised over subjects who do not like it and who are always plotting against you… your leadership depends upon superior strength and not on the goodwill of theirs.’ Here Cleon makes it clear that Athens Empire has become a tyranny gradually relying upon the strength of their army. Cleon however cannot be taken too seriously, as previously mentioned; he was known to be extreme. Diodotus, a fair speaking Athenian politician spoke to the Athenian assembly and urged them to reconsider the punishment. The Athenians had a change of heart, and ordered that only one thousand males should be put to death. They sent another trireme to overtake the previous one, and issue the change of punishment. Luckily, the second Trireme overtook the first trireme and the lesser punishment was issued. Although this second punishment was fairer, it was still harsh. Singularly this event cannot classify the Athenian Empire as a tyrant.
The Mytiylene revolt stands out as the main reason why many people, scholars and historians alike, consider the Athenian Empire to be a tyranny. However I believe that the case for tyranny is one that expands over many years. I believe the Athenian Empire was a tyranny because it robbed many states of their autonomy, replaced their legal systems with Athenian systems, and changed their currency. This obviously made some states disloyal, and they revolted. The tyranny involved is a situation of what I believe to be ‘Hypocritical governing ’. Athenian democracy stood for freedom of speech, however when Athens took action against a state trying to speak out, they did so with sheer devastation, often leaving the state vulnerable to attack, or with less population. For this reason Athens went against everything it stood for, and showed herself to be a hypocrite and a tyrant.
References
I used the following books while researching this topic:
-
Thucydides – History of the Peloponnesian war.
-
Pamela Bradley – Ancient Greece using evidence
-
Lactor 1 – The Athenian Empire (inscriptions)
I also used the following websites to gain specific knowledge on certain events mentioned.
- http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Greekchron.html
- http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics/lectures/history/ClassicalAge/timeline.shtm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_empire
- http://www.xqr64.dial.pipex.com/history.htm
- http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~murray/classes/cg/pentekonta-exc.htm
- http://www.bigissueground.com/history/ash-athenianempire.shtml
Thucydides – History of the Peloponnesian war. Book one. Chapter 96.
Thucydides – History of the Peloponnesian war. Book one. Chapter 117
Thucydides – History of the Peloponnesian war. Book three. Chapter 62
Thucydides – History of the Peloponnesian war. Book three. Chapter 63
Thucydides – History of the Peloponnesian war. Book three. Chapter 37
