Checkpoint 2 - Update

Hello,

I've been making good headway into my essay, and I now have a plan to work with. My question is:

To what extent are the criticisms that the Old Oligarch makes of Pariklean democracy valid?

The reading I've done has given me a good grounding for this. My plan is below:

Introduction

Paragraph 1: historical background

• Define democracy - greek definition.
• what makes a citizen? what were their rights?
• Discuss the period that will be looked at (Perikelan era), and how this differs from the entirety of Athenian Democracy.
• Discuss the structure of Athenian democracy, The Ekklesia, the courts, the magistrates, the boule, the strategoi, how the army and navy fit into this, and the finances.
• The Athenian empire. How it ruled, the structure of the alliances (biased to Athens)
• who is the Old Oligarch?
• the original constitution
• Perikles Funeral Oration

Paragraph 2:  Rule of the people

• The rule of the people, over the few. The rich (aristoi) "the good" and the poor (demos) "the bad"
• The ekklesia grants power to the power, along with the diksteria.
• flip-side - they row on the ships, and thus are the source of the Polis' strength.
• The poor are simply trying to increase their power, they are motivated by self-gain.
• The wealthy pay for the bathhouses, the athletic and musical carnivals, which the people benefit from - they earn their right to rule

Paragraph 3: The ignorance of the people

• the people dress like slaves - they are no better than them. Effectively allowing the slaves to rule the city.
• Funeral oration, quotes about democracy.
• the common people don't receive an education, why should they have more right to rule than those who do? Or more right to speak and have their voice heard.
• Old Oligarch makes the point that the people are uneducated, who can they rule?

Paragraph 4: The ekklesia is not held accountable

• The people of the Ekklesia are not held accountable for their actions.
• They would claim responsibility for their successes and blame someone else for their failures.
• The court system allowed them to blame other easily. 
• They would innocents and the rich, or whoever was the strategoi at the time of failure on trial, and shout down the opposing argument.
• flip - side, the sheer number of people stopped bribery.

Paragraph 5: Athens is effectively a tyrant over their allies.

• Athens built a strong trade empire, which they used to dictate over their allies. 
• The polis inflicted harsh trade rules on the empire, benefitting Athens the most.
• They used their fleet to rule over other polis, which they took payment from, depleting their ability to fight back.
• the payment was used to maintain the fleet, making it easier for Athens to control its allies.
• The allies were subject to the Athenian courts - the people were harsh to the allies who were on trial, shouting down the victim and inflicting harsh punishments. 

Conclusion

Evidence of Research 2 (some notes)

Notes on my reading

-        Democracy sprung from Kliesthenes (508/06), continued to develop for two centuries.

-        Athens was a direct, not representative democracy

-        Dictatorship for the proletariat (an important point to raise in response to the old Oligarch, the rich and powerful thought little of democracy).

-        Radical democracy of 462 – Ephialtes.

-        Ekklesia – the assembly.

-        Boule – 500 men.

-        Fifty Prutaneis – it was their duty to call the assembly to order.

-        Chairman of the Prutaneis was the chairman of the Ekklesia. He read out the agenda, and called speakers forward.

-        The boule decided on the matters to be sent to the assembly and in what form they would appear. The Ekklesia then amended the boule’s proposal. They were a prior deliberation council.

-        The Ekklesia initially had meetings of 5000 at busy times. Around 400, compensation for the time lost in the Ekklesia was introduced, this swelled attendance to 13000 on a busy day.

-        The Ekklesia was dominated by rhetores, who had the ability to speak well, and were often called upon to speak. In the 5^th C BCE, the ten strategoi would also be rhetores often. The rhetores generally represented small groups of likeminded people

-        The Boule was selected from the Ekklesia. Bouleutai served one year terms. 50 men from each of the ten tribes. The boule saw that the decisions of the Ekklesia were carried out – almost an administrative body.

-        The Areopagus. It was the governing body of the polis. The chief office of the Athenian state.

-        Its power diminished over time – taken by other branches, notably, the strategoi. It eventually became largely unimportant, but kept some powers, such as ‘guardian on of the laws’

-        Its members were elected. 9 Arkhontes.

-        In 501 the new office of the strategoi was created. 10 members, one from each of the tribes made by kliesthenes.

-        Strategoi were elected and often listened to at the Ekklesia. If they spoke they could be killed however. The strategoi could be re-elected an indefinite amount of times.

-        There was usually between 500-700 public officials at any point in time.

-        The thesmothetai were the six officials who conducted justice over Athens.

-        The demos loved exercising power through the courts

-        In the 5^th BCE, there was between 201 and 2501 jurors, who were selected from a roll of 6000. In the 4^th BCE, it was by anyone who volunteered. The jurors acted as both judge and jury.

-        Individuals brought the case before the jury and it was divided between private and public matters.

-        Graphe paranomon was the cases heard regarding unconstitutional laws being introduced. Resulted in fines and suspension of laws.

-        The cases were outlined by the two sides. There was no procedure and often the witnesses were shouted down. Slaves could only give evidence if tortured, due to their deceptive nature.

-        The stages of trial were: discussion in front of witness, discussion with a board of arbitrators, then to the agora, where the archon heard your case and decide if it was actionable. The preliminary hearing would be public arbitration, where the evidence was presented. If no agreement could be reached, the evidence would be brought before the courts.

-        If the punishment is not prescribed, then the jurors voted on punishment.

-        The punishment was often difficult to enforce. Inability to pay a fine meant land could be taken, if it wasn’t, the case was brought again before the courts, sometimes numerous times until a more severe punishment was given, such as loss of citizens’ rights or death.

-        Incomes came from fines, taxes on metics, market dues, and rents from mines.

-        Money also came from tributes from enemies.

-        The cost of the system increased once the jurors started earning pay. Most of the money went into administration costs.

-        Liturgies were taxes on people who owned a certain amount of land. There was also war levies.

-        A special board of grain inspectors supervised grain imports from surrounding areas.

-        Athens’ urban population required grain to survive, which had to be imported. Trade based.

-        It was illegal for any Athenian to ship grain to any port other than Athens.

Evidence of Research

Checkpoint 2

Hello All,

After speaking with Mr Stewart and gathering some extensive reading for my research, I have made a good start into my special study on the question,

To what extent are the criticisms that the Old Oligarch makes of Pariklean democracy valid?

However, My reading hasn't taken me far in terms the finished essay. It has mostly been about Athenian democracy, which will make the bulk of my essay, but I haven't done any research into old oligarch, besides reading the old Oligarch itself. Therefore, it makes it difficult for me to plan the entire essay at this point. 

I will be including an extensive background section on greek democracy, and it origins which will cover in depth some of the following:

• discussion of the original constitution
• the definition of a citizen and the rights they held in the democratic process.
• discussion of the features of Periclean democracy: The assembly, The archons, The army and the navy, The dikasteria (law courts), elected offcials, and how the system was funded.

The section relating directly to the Old Oligarch will include some of the following,

• Speculation about who wrote the Old Olgirach, and any bias or predisposition the source might have.
• the key points of the Old Oligarch notably, how the poor and uneducated are unfit and unable to rule, but the democracy is well-designed to achieve its goals. The key point of the text questions whether democracy is the best way to govern.

The essay will also include a background on pericles, and the important features of the democracy in his time. 

For now I will have to continue and expand my reading.

Thanks.

Further Refinment of the topic

Hello,

After doing some preliminary reading and having a discussion with Mr Stewart, I have developed a working question:

To what extent are the criticisms that the Old Olgarck makes of Pariklean democracy valid?

This gives me room to work around the structure of democracy in ancient greece, while narrowing the scope of my question to focus on a single document. The to what extent part of the question will allow me draw a conclusion, as well as point out the positive and negative side of the question.
I have not developed any other questions as I think the scope of this question is good and has sparked my curiosity.
I would love to hear any feed back or ideas that you have!

Special Study Topic

Hello,

For my special study I have chosen to look into Greek History (topic 5) and hopefully focus on something to do with the Ancient Greek societal power structure.

This topic would involve me looking into the social hierarchy of the people - which groups or individuals lorded over others and why. I would also like to look into specific individuals who where particularly influential, I have looked at a list of Greek rulers, and would have to select names from their, but Alexander the great interests me.

Really, what I'm thinking I would like to look into is the development of early democracies across the Greece. I could incorporate discussions bout the conditions in Greece which allowed society to develop in the way it did. This would involve looking into the relative stability of the region, and the steady supply of necessities, this would in turn lead me to do research on geography, natural land features and neighboring civilizations and so on.

I am uncertain whether this falls into the boundaries of the task. I am aware we have only been focusing on certain periods of Greek History, and this might be outside of the guidelines. I am also aware that what I have written has not really narrowed the topic much at all, but I am having alot of difficulty finding a particular topic area of interest. I think I need to get greater clarification on the scope of the topic before moving any further forward.

I'm planning on discussing my particular topic in greater depth with Mr Stewart who will hopefully have some ideas and provide me with a bit of guidance on the topic.

If anyone had any ideas suggestions I would love to hear them, especially if you know individual leaders of note that you think might be interesting to look I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Here are some links to websites that I have looked to begin having some preliminary thoughts,

http://www.hierarchystructure.com/ancient-greek-social-hierarchy/
http://www.hierarchystructure.com/ancient-greece-hierarchy/http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/gkru/hd_gkru.htm
http://quatr.us/greeks/government/
http://www.ancient.eu/Greek_Government/
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html
http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/ancient-greece-democracy

Thanks

Bibliography

Sources Used:

Hierachy Structure. http://www.hierarchystructure.com/ancient-greek-social-hierarchy/. (Accessed May 1 2016).

Cartwright, M., Ancient History Encyclopeadia. http://www.ancient.eu/Greek_Government/. (Accessed May 1 2016).

Carr, K.E., Government in Ancient Greece. http://quatr.us/greeks/government/. (Accessed May 1 2016).

Athenian Democracy. http://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/clas21/notes/atheniandemocracy.html. (Accessed May 19 2016).

Blackwell, C.W., Classical Athenian Democracy. http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_development?page=6. (Accessed May 19 2016)

Kenyon, F.G., the Athenian Constitution. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.1.1.html. (Accessed may 19 2016).

History. http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/ancient-greece-democracy. (Accessed May 1 2016).

Alexander the Great. http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html. (Accessed May 1 2016).

JACT, The World Of Athens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1996.

Bury, J. B. and Meiggs, R., A History of Greece. Macmillan, London. 1978.

Pyne, M. and Pyne, R., Classical Athens. Society and People. Addison Wesley Longman. Melbourne. 1998.

Bradley, P., Ancient Greece. Using Evidence. Cambridge University Press. Melbourne. 2001.

Davies, J.K., Democracy and Classical Greece. Fontana Press. London. 1993.

Schrader, H.P., Leonidas of Sparta. A Boy of the Agoge. Wheatmark. Tucson. 2010.

Sealey, R., A History of the Greek City States. 700-338B.C. University of California Press. Los Angeles. 1984.

Hammond, N.G.L., The Classical Age of Greece. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. London. 1999.

Dillon, M. and Garland, L., Ancient Greece. Social and Historical Documents from Archaic Times to the death of Socrates. Routledge. London. 2002.

Martin, T. R., Ancient Greece. From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times. Yale University Press. London. 1996.

Pomeroy, S.B., et al. Ancient Greece. A Poltical, Social, and Cultural History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1999.

My Log of Working Hours

Working Log:

1/05/2016, 7:00 - 8:20 - 1 hour 10 mins - finding of sources, small amount of reading
15/05/2016, 2:45 - 4:00 - 1 hour and 15 mins - Preliminary reading
17/05/2016, 7:15 - 8:00 - 45 mins - Preliminary reading
19/05/2016, 7:45 - 9:00 - 1 hour 15 mins - reading of sources, development of question
23/05/2016, 11:45 - 12:40 - 55 mins - gathering books for reading and referencing them.
19/06/2016, 1:15 - 3:00 - 1 hour and 45 mins - Reading of sources
19/06/2016, 7:30 - 9:00 - 1 hour and 30 mins - Reading of sources - update of blog.
20/06/2016, 6:30 - 7:30 - 1 hour -Research and reading
21/06/2016, 6:30 - 8:00 - 1 hour and 30 mins - Research and reading
22/06/2016, 7:00 - 8:00 - 1 hour - Research and reading
23/06/2016, 8:00 - 8:30 (morning) - 30 mins - discussion with Mr Stewart about topic
23/06/2016, 7:00 - 8:00 - 1 hour - Mindmap and development of plan
26/06/2016, 11:00 - 12:00 - 1 hour - Development of plan
27/06/2016, 10:30 - 11:00 - 30 mins - scanning and blog update

Trying out my blog

I have just finished customising my blog completely and am testing out a new post.
Hope you all get the chance to look around, sees the pictures, read the quotes, do the poll and have a great year in classical studies!

My First Post

This is my first post. Just learning to create posts on my blog. Looking forward to classical studies!