Greek Democracy in the Context of Economy and Geography

Following the decline of Mycenaean civilization was the rise of city-states through synoecism throughout ancient Greece in the Archaic period. During this period, adjacent territories were engulfed by a leading territory in the region who sought to unite into a larger community. Consequently, throughout Greece and the Peloponnese, leading powers such as Athens, Sparta, and Argos among many others would rise.

The formation of these novel powers laid the foundation for the new political landscape that would arise in Greece, as these city-states were united by language, culture, and customs. The unity of these territories with greater population and land called for more developed political power and administration, as each territory sought progress, military advancement, and growth in power. These developments coincided with the concentration of economic power in aristocratic families, who relied on inherited landholdings. The rise of the aristocratic class and the evident disparity in social and economic classes in certain city-states across Greece was a key proponent in the changing and evolving government structures.

Each city-state was affected by this disparity differently; consequently, each one responded differently with nuances in their economic endeavors and administration. Influential and powerful city-states such as Athens developed a democratic government, reflecting government restructuring.

Struggling under the domination of aristocratic government, tyranny and economic unrest, Athenians were unsatisfied with their government. Thus, the first reforms were introduced through the philosophies of Solon's laws. These ideas would emerge as the foundation for a democratic government through the reforms of Cleisthenes, which would be enlarged by the laws of Ephialtes and Pericles (Cartledge 1998: 157-160).

The changes that leaders including Solon, Cleithenes, Ephialtes, and Pericles implemented marked Athens as unique for being the first democratic polis (Cartledge 1998: 157-160). Consequently, Athens is commonly hailed as the birthplace of democracy because under its system, citizens had the opportunity to participate directly in the political arena (McCannon 2012: 535-540). Citizens were able to decide on policy initiatives directly, serving actively through voting and participating in general assemblies. During the archaic period, Athens was the sole city-state with a significant number of established and practiced democratic principles (Laurian 2012: 10-11). This aspect of Athens’ government served to highlight its role in promoting democratic principles across Greece in other city-state such as Sparta and Argos. Despite Athens' potential influence on political systems in the Peloponnese, Sparta and Argos had government structures that were more of a reflection of the inherent economical and geographical landscape in the region.

Athen’s inherent geographical landscape paired with its foundational economic structure and system consisting of an aristocracy gave rise to an established political system with democratic principles that allowed for greater citizen participation.

Prior to its first introduction of democratic principles, Athens was a city dominated by aristocratic families, where the majority of the city’s wealth and power belonged to landowning aristocrats. However, Athens was a unique city-state at the time in the fact that those with power “[volunteered] to share this power with those from who they may extract” (McCannon 2012: 531). This result was driven by its geographical features that played a large role in shaping the city’s economy, and consequently, the political system. Located in Attica, a peninsula on the southern side of Greece, Athens was accessible by the Aegean Sea and Sea of Crete, enforcing its role in major trade routes on the seas. A more crucial factor that may have ultimately driven the establishment of democratic principles in the city, however, was Athens’ climate and terrain, as McCannon proposed “the agricultural output and terrain… determined the form of government in ancient Greece” (McCannon 2012: 536).

Because of the lack of fertile soil in Athens for producing crops such as wheat, Athens had an agricultural system that relied primarily on the production of olives. As a direct result of this economic system, the production of olives in the city required a significant amount of time, as it took at a minimum of eight to ten years from the moment a seed was implanted to when it would be able to produce its first fruit (Lin 2007: 467-468). Because of the lengthy period of time for olives to be harvested from their time of initial planting, it made monitoring farming and production significantly difficult. As a result of this difficulty, Athens faced the dilemma of incentivizing the farmers and non-elites in Athenian society to work to produce crops when there was little immediate reward or benefit from crop production. Moreover, Athens consisted of a largely hilly terrain, which served as a potential impediment for those in charge to be able to effectively monitor olive production and farming that occurred on the outskirts of the city, a significant distance from the city’s agora.

Consequently, this difficulty stirred the rise of democratic principles, as the establishment of a democratic government in which the common people were involved allowed for a greater interaction between the non-elites and elites in society. This interaction enabled non-elites to feel an incentive and sense of duty towards their jobs in society and thus served to benefit the city. Moreover, the economic landscape of Athens in the beginning of the fifth century consisted largely of a landowning aristocracy, in which the wealth was concentrated in a small group of people (Kinneging 2016: 5-10). This accumulation of wealth was largely driven by the practice of debt bondage in which non-elites sacrificed their freedom as collateral for loans, creating an apparent economic disparity where the aristocratic class had a certain degree of influence over the government’s rulers and leaders (Kinneging 2016: 5-10). This economic⁠—and political⁠—disparity acted as a potential catalyst to fuel the desire for revolution by the non-elites. Thus, those in rule felt an incentive to establish democratic principles in Athenian government in an attempt to alleviate these potential desires for revolt. By having the privilege to participate in government, the non-elite would be less compelled to rebel.

The geographical and economic landscape in Athens in the early fifth century BCE drove the establishment of democratic governments that are evident in its government system.

In 620 BCE, Draco came to power, introducing the first reforms that would initiate a shift towards democratic principles in Athens. First, Draco eliminated oral law, establishing that all laws must be written down, signifying the responsibility of ensuring justice was being shifted from a select few elite to the common people. Next, altering the homicide law so that the guilty will be tried before magistrates to determine an appropriate penalty, Draco initiated a shift of power from families and individuals to the state. Draco set the foundations for democratic change, which were perpetuated by Solon’s reforms. Draco also established the boule of 401 members (Aristotle 1975: 149), the primary democratic instrument in Athenian government. The assembly consisted of members selected from the citizen body, and each citizen was obligated to attend or “was fined three drachmae” (Aristotle 1975: 149). Though it had flaws, the assembly equipped the non-elite in Athenian society with the means to participate actively in the affairs of the government.

The ideals in these reforms would be perpetuated by Solon, who was primarily concerned with strengthening Athens’ fragile agricultural base, a result of the city’s lack of fertile land. He revised the class system to be based off of agricultural wealth measured by production (Aristotle 1975: 152). One of the last major democratic reforms that Athens underwent was under Cleisthenes, who created a new council, the Council of 500 (Davies 1993 : 238-240). Under this council, each tribe would annually provide fifty members, and each tribe was reorganized to represent the different regions in Athens which included the coast, the city, and the plain (Aristotle 1975: 160). The reforms of these rulers all served to propagate democratic values that were unique to Athens. Evidently, at the start of the sixth century BCE, Athens underwent major reforms that were perpetuated throughout the end of the 4th century and that solidified the democratic principles in its government. As a region with a unique geographic landscape and historically aristocratic land-owning class, Athens found a democratic system necessary, as it allowed the ruling class to have the support needed from non-elites. Moreover, as a key power in Greece during this time, the ideals of Athens shaped, to some extent, the policies of other city-states such as Sparta, though its government was not an established democracy.

A competing power with Athens at the time, Sparta was influenced by Athens’ policies; however, Sparta’s inherent properties such as its landscape and economy hindered the extent to which Athenian democratic principles would shape its government and foreign policies

Sparta’s landscape consisted primarily of large, flat plains that made interactions between individuals and monitoring easier for the ruling class. A direct consequence of these large plains was that traveling was easily accessible by foot, and thus, Sparta developed a strong hoplite army consisting of armed foot-soldiers that held domination in Greek land warfare (Krentz 2013: 134-140). Because the hoplites held sway over Greek land warfare with weapons consisting of the spear and characteristic shield, rather than colonizing overseas like other Greek territories, Sparta attacked their land neighbors in the Peloponnese (Trundle 2016: 60-65). In their conquered territories, the Spartans did not permit marriage to foreigners or allow new citizens to gain citizenship. Consequently, the Spartans would consistently constitute only a fraction of the total population of their territories, which were all in proximity of each other because Sparta focused on conquering neighboring land territories. The city-state would struggle to resist revolt by its conquered people as a result; this result can be interpreted as one factor that led Sparta to pursue an oligarchic system rather than a democracy, as the government called for a strong central power that could push down such revolts using force.

Beyond catalyzing the development of a hoplite army, the large plains in Sparta’s geographical landscape fostered fertile land that allowed for an economy based on grain production. In contrast to the agricultural economy in Athens, the production of grain did not require long-term investments, as they would be harvested within a season (McCannon 2012: 535).

As a result, Sparta did not necessarily experience the difficulty associated with monitoring agricultural production, which was a crucial component in both the city-states’ economy. Consequently, there was a lack of incentive for Sparta to establish strong foundational democratic principles in its government so as to gain greater support from non-elites, resulting in an oligarchical political system. Though Sparta’s government system was not a complete democracy, there is still evidence of Athens’ influence on its structure.

The primary organ of the Spartan government was its executive office, which was composed of a hereditary dual kingship in which the power was divided between two families with succession determined through family lines (Millender 2009: 1-5). Sparta’s retention of kingship in the context of Greece may have been unusual (Millender 2009: 1-5); however, the government did not solely consist of oligarchical and monarchical elements, as there existed evidence of democratic elements as well.

Ruling with the two kings in Sparta were five ephors who supervised the kings and held the responsibility to uphold the principles of law. These individuals shared some of the executive powers granted to the kings, as they held the right to judge the validity of the laws. This sense of greater control may have been the result of the aggressive foreign policy that Sparta pursued, as they sought to dominate the territories they conquered.

Rather than granting the public the right to ensure that the laws were being followed, the Spartans instead gave that right to the five ephors, a very select few in society, to assert and ensure domination. Another ruling body in the Spartan government was the Council of Elders. The council was composed of men over the age of sixty who held their position for life. These men had the responsibility to discuss and negotiate bills that were considered for approval before passing it on an assembly (Thomas 1974: 260-265). Both these aspects of Spartan government highlight how the city-state’s difference in geographical landscape gave rise to a government system in which the power was significantly more concentrated in a select few. Despite this result, the city-state still retained elements of democracy through its most democratic organ: the assembly. The Spartan assembly consisted of all adult male citizens, who did not debate but rather voted for or against a proposal that was brought forth by the Council of Elders. In this manner, it is evident that some elements of democracy introduced by Athens, such as the assembly, were present in other city-states in Archaic Greece. However, in Sparta, the Council of Elders had the power to decline a decision of the assembly and, in turn, overrule the votes of the citizens. This aspect of Spartan government served to hinder the democratic principles that were attempted to be established through the assembly. Evidently, the foundational differences between Sparta and Athens that arose from their starkly different geographies led Sparta to ultimately develop a government different from that of Athens.

In addition to Sparta and Athens, Argos was another prominent city-state in Greece whose distinct geography and economy haltered the political influence of other Greek city-states and enabled it to develop its own distinct political system.

Located on the Peloponnese, Argos was a city-state located on the harbor, and through the gulf, the people had the opportunity to interact with a broad range of peoples. Consequently, this aspect of the city allowed them to develop into a more advanced city-state that became a center for trade (Courbin 1956: 166-167). Though it was a trade hub, Argos’ geographical landscape consisted largely of fertile plains, making agriculture and stockbreeding the primary outlets of Argos’ economy. The fertile land increased land value, and because Argos was located near a harbor, the city’s crops played a crucial role in trade and commerce for the region (Courbin 1956: 180-185). Similar to Sparta, Argos did not have the difficulty of monitoring the land and produce, as its agricultural production cycle was relatively short. Moreover, unlike Athens, Argos did not have to face the conflict of having factions of individuals that lived in very different climates and regions within the city.

As a result of these nuances, Argos prospered under a monarchy government ruled by King Pheidon (Drews 1979: 111-35). During this time, King Pheidon introduced several economic reforms, including the introduction of coinage, to Argos, enabling the city-state to grow as a prominent power in the Peloponnese (Svoronos 1909: 142-145).

As a prominent power in the Peloponnese, Argos faced a constant threat from Sparta, its neighbor. Due to its geographic location, Argos faced an imminent threat, as Sparta was becoming increasingly militarily dominant. With this threat, Argos, under King Pheidon, developed the Hoplite army that helped strengthen the city-state’s warfare, challenging Sparta’s dominance in the Peloponnese.

Evidently, Argos’ geographical location led to its development of a unique economy and its imminent rivalry with a neighbouring power. Both these aspects were unique to Argos as a city-state and thus contributed to Argos developing a government system unique from Sparta and Athens at the time. The lack of factional divides in the city by geographical location reduced the need to establish democratic principles. Moreover, the threat of Sparta was an effective proponent in establishing a monarchy during the time. With a monarchy, Argos had the power concentrated in the state, enabling the state to easily make key decisions without the potential consideration and opposition from the public. This lack of opposition may have been what was necessary to fight against Sparta, a powerful city-state. As a result, it is evident that Argos exhibited a unique economy and faced distinctive challenges that arose from its geographical location, and these factors propelled the city-state to develop a government different from other Greek city-states in the archaic period.

Through the analysis of prominent city-states in archaic Greece including Athens, Sparta, and Argos, it is evident that a variety of different factors including geography, economy, and social structure shaped the governing institutions in these polis.

The differences in geography and economy paved for even greater nuances in social structure and foreign policy in each of the city-states. Consequently, these factors played a crucial role in determining what governmental systems were ultimately established across the different city-states. Thus, although Athens is commonly hailed as the birthplace of democracy, the accuracy of such a statement is debatable, as in archaic Greece, the political systems were more affected by the inherent geographical features of the region rather than the policies of a neighboring city-state. The analysis of the factors that contributed to the rise of distinctive governments across these various Greek city-states enables individuals to better understand the influence of a country’s policies and how they may shape those of neighboring countries in the modern day.

Laurian, Lucie. "This Is What Direct Democracy Looks Like: How Athens in the 5th Century BC Resolved the Question of Power." The Town Planning Review 83, no. 4 (2012): V-Xi.

Bryan C. McCannon, "The Origin of Democracy in Athens," Review of Law and Economics 8, no. 2 (2012): 531-562

Lin, Foxhall. 2007. “Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy”. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kinneging, Andreas. "DEMOCRACY TEMPERED BY ARISTOCRACY: RETHINKING AN OLD IDEA." Politeja, no. 45 (2016): 5-26.

Krentz, Peter. "Hoplite Hell: How Hoplites Fought." In Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece, edited by Kagan Donald and Viggiano Gregory F., 134-56. Princeton University Press, 2013.

Trundle, Matthew. "The Spartan Krypteia." In The Topography of Violence in the Greco-Roman World, edited by Riess Werner and Fagan Garrett G., 60-76. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016.

Powell, Anton. 1988. Athens and Sparta: constructing Greek political and social history from 478 BC Greece -- History -- To 146 BC. London: Routledge.

Millender, Ellen. "THE SPARTAN DYARCHY: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE." In Sparta: Comparative Approaches, edited by Hodkinson Stephen, by Barnes Timothy, Bayliss Andrew J., Figueira Dorothy M., Figueira Thomas J., Flower Michael A., Hansen Mogens Herman, Harman Rosie, Langerwerf Lydia, Link Stefan, Luraghi Nino, Rabinowitz Adam, and Roy James, 1-68. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2009.

Courbin, Paul. "DISCOVERIES AT ANCIENT ARGOS." Archaeology 9, no. 3 (1956): 166-74. 

Drews, Robert. "Argos and Argives in the Iliad." Classical Philology 74, no. 2 (1979): 111-35.

Svoronos, M. Jean. "THE ORIGINS OF COINAGE." American Journal of Numismatics (1897-1924) 43, no. 4 (1909): 141-48.

Aristotle, Moore, J.M., Aristotle, and Aristotle. 1975. The Politics, and the Constitution of Athens. Berkeley and Los Angoles, California: University of California Press.

Thomas, C. G. "On the Role of the Spartan Kings." Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 23, no. 3 (1974): 257-70.

Image on Title Slide: 2nd century BCE. Map of the Aegean area, mainland Greece, and Ionia (western Turkey).. Cartography..