Archaic Greece was a period in time which innovation, development, and revolution changed the course of physical, geographical cities and political ideology. The “polis” or city state was a vital part to the development and change of politics and fundamental ideology . Each polis had different laws from Athens to Sparta and each Polis had different aspects that made them unique and distinguished them from each other. Sparta was a very exclusive and rigid polis with an emphasis on battle, blood, and courage whereas Athens’s concentration tuned towards communication, trade, and government. While Athens, is very well known for the birth of democracy it is important and necessary to see and acknowledge the development of Greece’s overall political society and how city states went from an oligarchy to a democracy while growing socially, economically, and politically. An important part in the transition to democracy is the introduction of ancient Greece’s tyrants . The tyrants of Athens unlike the tyrants of other city-states significantly changed and influenced Athens into Greece’s leading polis through economic, political, and social reforms and innovations. Among these ideas and innovations were; the diminishing barriers of social classes, the beauty in architecture, concentration on cash crops, and the universality of a common currency. The introduction of tyrants and transition from oligarchy to democracy didn’t occur in stages but formed out of tension between the aristocrats and middle class . Tyranny in the present age is received with a negative connotation and stigma. To refer to someone as a tyrant or tyrannical is usually meant as an insult and used to say a person is cruel and oppressive. However, the definition of the word of tyrant has evolved throughout history starting from ancient Greece to the present day. When the word “tyrant” was first used it meant champion or the people’s champion however, “Tyrants were seen as both instruments and oppressors of the people” . Some views argue that the tyrants of Athens were democratic visionaries whose only goal was to manipulate the masses or that the tyrants were seen as a common enemy for the people to unite against . This was not the case for Athens, the Athenians used the tyrants as charismatic leaders who merged social boundaries, cut across class lines, and unified the people to look at the polis as a whole and not a division of classes . However there were instances in which the tyrants appeared to manipulate citizens for their own selfish gain and make themselves appear that they were reforming laws and gaining power for the “people’s” interest . The term “people” is often used in context of referring to the middle class Athenians; the middle class were the primary victims of aristocratic governance and abuse and made up a large portion of the population. The middle class were an incredibly vital aspect of society in Athens. The middle class contributed both to the economy and the
…show more content…
Peisistratus used the dissension of his predecessor’s, Solon, reforms to obtain power and the favor of the masses . While Peisistratus was perceived as a trickster he used his former position as a general of the army as a part of his influence. He was seen by many as a strong pinnacle of strength . Peisistratus made many additions including buildings, fountains, temples, etc. . It can be argued however, that his greatest contribution to Athens’s polis was the introduction of loans and the encouragement of cash crops (e.g. olives) . While at first this contribution may seem small and insignificant, the production and growth of the cash crop olives would eventually set Athens up as a major exporting polis where their primary export and cash crop would be olives . This is a very important step especially for …show more content…
Peisistratus’s sons were not known for much except for their deaths. Hipparchus was assassinated which spiraled Hippias into a cruel and bitter rule until he was eventually overthrown by Sparta’s leader. This is commonly known as the end of The Age of Tyrants, however it was not the end of other tyrants’ rule . Throughout the years of being ruled under different tyrants under Solon’s constitution and the effects of Peisistratus’s rule left Athenians of all kinds with a strong sense of nationalism. This made it harder for the traditional aristocrats to return to an oligarchical
Peisistratus used the dissension of his predecessor’s, Solon, reforms to obtain power and the favor of the masses . While Peisistratus was perceived as a trickster he used his former position as a general of the army as a part of his influence. He was seen by many as a strong pinnacle of strength . Peisistratus made many additions including buildings, fountains, temples, etc. . It can be argued however, that his greatest contribution to Athens’s polis was the introduction of loans and the encouragement of cash crops (e.g. olives) . While at first this contribution may seem small and insignificant, the production and growth of the cash crop olives would eventually set Athens up as a major exporting polis where their primary export and cash crop would be olives . This is a very important step especially for …show more content…
Peisistratus’s sons were not known for much except for their deaths. Hipparchus was assassinated which spiraled Hippias into a cruel and bitter rule until he was eventually overthrown by Sparta’s leader. This is commonly known as the end of The Age of Tyrants, however it was not the end of other tyrants’ rule . Throughout the years of being ruled under different tyrants under Solon’s constitution and the effects of Peisistratus’s rule left Athenians of all kinds with a strong sense of nationalism. This made it harder for the traditional aristocrats to return to an oligarchical