The first oligarchic revolution took place in 411 BC. C. and it was known as “The oligarchic coup” or “The four hundred”. This change of government occurred for various reasons, including lack of money and resources due to the failure of the expedition to Sicily (Judg. 6). The revolution began in the fleet stationed at Samos in the summer of 412 BC, where Alcibiades professed that he could win Persian support for the Athenians, but only if they were ruled by an oligarchy rather than a democracy (Oxford Dec. Of the Classical World p. 295). The second oligarchic revolution was known as ‘The Thirty’ or ‘The Thirty Tyrants’ (coined by Diodorus) who took power after the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. Due to the peace terms imposed by Lysander, the thirty were chosen to lead the government and draft new laws, however, their power led to the death of many democratic opponents, including citizens and metics, and a reign of terror that saw the execution of Theramenes, the once leader of the moderate oligarchic party (Oxford Dic. of the Classical World p. 759). The impact of the two oligarchic revolutions on Athenian democracy had varying degrees of effect, but we must also consider the political leanings of our key sources, such as Xenophon, Aristotle, and Thucydides. Thucydides describes Athena’s response to the crisis as “However, with the means he had, he was determined to hold out to the end, and provide lumber and money, and equip a fleet as best he could, to take steps to secure his confederates and above all to Euboea, to reform things in the city on a more economical basis, and to elect a board of elders to act as preliminary advisers on the state of affairs when the occasion arises. democracy, in the panic of the moment they were willing to be as prudent as possible (Judg. 8, 1, 3-4). From this statement it could be inferred that being “prudent” meant going to the oligarchy and that Thucydides considered that being a democracy meant that you were less “prudent “than another form of government, which could be interpreted as Thucydides being pro-oligarchy and therefore his writings are biased in favor of the oligarchs to some extent.

At the beginning of the first oligarchic revolution in 411 BC. Alcibiades led his listeners to believe that a democracy was too unreliable to win Persian support, but an oligarchy would instill more confidence due to a reduced number of people in charge. Pisander, who had been sent to Athens from Samos, convinced the Athenians that an oligarchy was necessary and the Athenian people commissioned him to take ten others and make the necessary arrangements with Alcibiades. In practice, the Persian negotiations did not work out and Alcibiades, who expected to be returned from exile by the oligarchs in Athens, was disappointed. At this point, however, the revolution was underway and prominent Democrats and opposition were slowly disappearing due to death or exile, creating intense fear among the Athenian population. When Pisander returned in May, a meeting was held to reorganize the constitution and five men were chosen to select the council of four hundred with full powers of government (Oxford Dic. Of the Classical World p. 295). Aristotle mentions in his work ‘Politics’ that by selecting a Preliminary Council over the main Council of five thousand, this in itself was a step towards the oligarchy, since the Preliminary Council has authority over the Council and although the Council itself is democratic, the power of the Preliminary Councils is oligarchic (Aristotle. Politics. 1299b).

The four hundred made up of many extremists who alienated the government from a moderate oligarchy and thus the four hundred never called the five thousand selected as agreed. The four hundred failed in the peace negotiations with Sparta and lasted just four months in government before being replaced by the five thousand who had never allowed them to hold power. This was aided by the fleets in Samos who threatened to return home to restore democracy in Athens. The change to five thousand was seen as a step backwards towards democracy, but it remained an oligarchy with power now in the hands of five thousand instead of four hundred. The 5,000 were made up of Athenian citizens, but only those who could afford to bring wealth to the war effort. In all probability, the five thousand were probably composed only of the hoplite class and above (Ryan K. Balot, p. 214). The 5,000 finally called Alcibiades out of exile in the hope that his military leadership would help their cause.

The price of the oligarchic revolutions of the Four Hundred in the Athenians was high. The inability of Athenian citizens to realize the political convictions of their fellow citizens led to a deep fragmentation into what could be described as two cities (Athens and Samos). It engendered intense mistrust among the citizens of Athens, but also in the democratic fleet of Samos. The oligarchs seem to want to appear legitimate in their claim that the oligarchy was the necessary measure for Athens to win the Peloponnesian war, which we can see from how they approached the issue; sending Pisander to speak and then oligarchic propaganda in Athens to the idea of ​​”saving the city” (Thuc, 8.53). However, the mistrust and fear propagated by the oligarchic party are amplified not only because the Athenian citizens would have had a deep anxiety for anything other than democracy, which they saw as their birthright and internal creation, as well as that the Romans after Sulla would have seen a monarchy. An example of the measures taken by Athenians to try to prevent similar events from occurring and to promote democracy would be the construction of monuments displaying democratic ideals and processes; “an inscribed stone recording the decision of restored democracy in 410 to administer an oath to the Athenian people by which they swore to kill anyone who attempted to overthrow democracy” (Oxford Journals). The same article describes the new structures built in the agora to signal the resurgence of democratic government, specifically a new house for the Council of the Five Hundred. The Athenians were clearly willing to spend money on creating a solid foundation for democracy to remain and they wanted to erase the memory of the oligarchic revolution of 411 BC by destroying the physical remnant of what they did in the old council house and building a new one. structure to represent. the fresh start with a design that “fostered transparency and accountability among councilors” (Oxford Journals).

In 403 a. C., the Tyranny of the Thirty was imposed on Athens by Sparta after the loss of Athens in Aegospotami and the siege of the city by Lisandro (Xen. Hell. 2.2. 7-16). This oligarchy lasted a year before the city returned once again to democratic rule. The Tyranny of the Thirty was a much more dramatic episode in the history of classical Greece than the Revolution of the Four Hundred. The Thirty were led by the oligarchic extremist Critias and the moderate Theramenes (though Lysias contested this in his “Against Eratosthenes” speech, which thought of Theramenes as an extremist unlike Xenophon), who appointed sympathetic members to join the dance. The oligarchs then set out on a bloody path to get rid of any prominent democratic opponents and their supporters under the instructions of Critias. Theramenes did not entirely agree with the slaughter of innocent men, according to Xenophon in his History of our time, and proposed the idea of ​​incorporating more citizens into his government. Critias responded by having him executed. The body count approached 1,500 and many others fled Athens (Oxford Dic. Of the Classical World p. 759). This oligarchic revolution, unlike the previous one, did not have the consent of the citizens and was forced rather than accepted. When the Athenians took up arms against Critias in Athens, Critias brought Spartan troops to fight, stationing them on the Acropolis and thus further alienating the Athenian citizens (Oxford Dic. Of the Classical World p. 759). The direct impact of the Tyranny of the Thirty was far greater in terms of how it affected people immediately. The Athenians had lost a war, an oligarchic rule was imposed on them after the terrible scare and turmoil of the previous oligarchic revolution and now they had to face the humiliation and ultimate defeat of having Spartan troops in their city to support the government that they did not. . I approve. The carnage was much more prolific during the Tyranny of the Thirty, so the Athenian emotion must have been extremely terrifying, angry, and disgraced.

The two oligarchic revolutions had a serious impact on Athens and the Athenian people, but the first revolution of the Four Hundred would have made a stronger impression. This is because the Athenian people accepted the Revolution of the Four Hundred as necessary to win the Peloponnesian War. The Second Revolution of the Thirty was the result of losing that war. The hope that came with the first revolution forced the Athenians to test the oligarchy, which they did with freedom. His decision to do this would have had a far greater psychological impact on the Athenian citizens than the second revolution that was to be expected after losing the war. The Athenian people introduced rites and rituals, buildings and monuments that would be seen in everyday life to impress the importance of democracy and its ideology and remind them of the bad decision they had made in the first revolution. Symbolic inscriptions on monuments became more common and the oath of Athenian citizens was of utmost importance, as it was the Athenians themselves who had voted for the oligarchy in the first revolution. The Democrats skillfully used their cultural resources to advance their vision of the way Athens should be governed. Public rituals were an enabler for democratic ideals to be articulated to Athenian citizens and a way to reinforce Athenians’ commitment to democracy. They now had irrefutable empirical evidence that wealth was no guarantee of trustworthiness in the ruling class and should not matter for power in creating an oligarchy.

After the war in 403 BC. C., when Athens regained control of its own government, the Athenians had the obligation to take an oath of reconciliation in which each citizen publicly demonstrated his consent to the democratic government and forgot the mistakes of the past, that is, the oligarchic revolutions. We derive the word ‘amnesty’ from ancient Greek ‘amnesty’ which translates as “not remember” and played a key role in the advance of the Greeks from 403 BC. Although there was a significant impact on Athenian democracy from the second revolution, the impact of the first decreed that an oligarchy would never again take control of Athens by the will of the people.

Bibliography

Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens, Penguin Classics, 1984

Balot, Ryan K, Green and Injustice in Classical Athens, Princeton University Press (October 15, 2001)

Oxford Journals, (http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/117/4/1274.full?sid=a2353136-746a-41c6-ae2c-ca1e091db088)

Roberts, John, Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World, Oxford University Press, 2007

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Penguin Classics, 1972

Xenophon, Hellenica (Kindle Addition), Amazon Media

Xenophon, History of My Time, Penguin Classics, 1979