Would Democracy Exist if the Persians had Won?

[Damien Evans]

I mean a social caste whose members have power over members of other social classes, but which itself is dominated by an individual despot.

The Russian aristocracy had power over serfs in the eighteenth century, but was itself (along with everyone else) subject to the unrestricted absolutism of the czars. Women's suffrage appears at a very late date. Almost nowhere at all prior to the twentieth century. Without looking up the information, I can think of two places where women could vote then. Wyoming Territory and the Isle of Man.

New Zealand gave women full voting rights in 1893, South Australia in 1895, Western Australia 1899 and Australia wide in 1902. In this respect the antipodean colonies actually led the mother country by nearly 30 years.

Oh, and women could vote on Norfolk Island since the 1850's, not that the rest of the world would have noticed.

 

[Craig B]

New Zealand gave women full voting rights in 1893, South Australia in 1895, Western Australia 1899 and Australia wide in 1902. In this respect the antipodean colonies actually led the mother country by nearly 30 years.

Oh, and women could vote on Norfolk Island since the 1850's, not that the rest of the world would have noticed.

Yes, I had forgotten that New Zealand and some Colonies in Australia had women's suffrage prior to the dominion status of Australia. But it was shortly before 1900.

 

[Craig B]

Most of the time anyway. They did have the Holodomor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Yes. I stress again that I was referring to the last few years of the USSR and trying to account for the failure of attempts at reform. I am aware of the earlier famines. The history of the Soviet Union falls into different phases, and Gorbachov's perestroika can not be simply equated with Stalin's collectivisation. One common feature, however, is the extreme weakness of civil society.

 

[gumboot]

My class and I are studying the ancient Greeks. If the Persians had won, I'm of the opinion democracy would have sprung up somewhere else, eventually, but maybe not.

Thoughts?

Considering our democratic system is based on Roman democracy rather than Athenian democracy, and that Roman democracy emerged independent of Athenian democracy while Athenian democracy ultimately failed... I think it's safe to say democracy would have arisen in any event.

 

[gumboot]

Let's not forget one thing: at the time of the Persian wars, there was only one Greek democracy, viz. Athens. All the other city states were either oligarchies or monarchies - Athens only exported democracy to here allies/vassals after the Persian wars.

This is incorrect. Sparta was a democracy long before Athens. People mistakenly think that because Sparta had a king (two, actually) it wasn't democratic, but this isn't the case, and by the time of the Persian Wars the King had no real authority other than on the battlefield.

The actual government of Sparta was the ephors and the Gerousia, both elected by all citizens. In fact Sparta's method of governance is more similar to our own than Athenian democracy is.

 

[Craig B]

This is incorrect. Sparta was a democracy long before Athens. People mistakenly think that because Sparta had a king (two, actually) it wasn't democratic, but this isn't the case, and by the time of the Persian Wars the King had no real authority other than on the battlefield.

The actual government of Sparta was the ephors and the Gerousia, both elected by all citizens. In fact Sparta's method of governance is more similar to our own than Athenian democracy is.

We tend to forget that S was a sort of democracy, both because of the kings and because the Spartans were a small ethnic minority ruling over a mass of oppressed Helots.

“It was their labour which permitted the Spartiate class to devote itself exclusively to non-productive pursuits.” Plutarch

That does not strike us as resembling anything we would call a democracy. But such a state of things is consistent with democracy, of a sort. The democracy of the barracks.

However, Thucydides reports that when Sparta interfered in the affairs of other states it did so generally for the purpose of sustaining oligarchy, not democracy.

Thucydides recounts a horrifying tale. During the war against Athens the Spartans became anxious that the Helots might rebel. Their ephors published an invitation to Helots who had distinguished themselves while serving in the Spartan army, to come forward so that their gallantry might be rewarded. Those who did so were put to death. This was to remove any potential leaders from the Helot mass. That is consistent with democracy too. Because the Helots were not owned by individual Spartan citizens, but collectively by the state.

Even if they had been the possessions of individuals, democracy might have prevailed. Was not the author of these words the owner of about four hundred human chattels?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

ETA I've found the passage in Thucydides. It's at 4:80.

They proclaimed that a selection would be made of those Helots who claimed to have rendered the best service to the Lacedaemonians in war, and promised them liberty. The announcement was intended to test them; it was thought that those among them who were foremost in asserting their freedom would be most high-spirited, and most likely to rise against their masters. So they selected about two thousand, who were crowned with garlands and went in procession round the temples; they were supposed to have received their liberty; but not long afterwards the Spartans put them all out of the way, and no man knew how any one of them came by his end.

Democracy ... of a sort.

 

[Belz...]

This is incorrect. Sparta was a democracy long before Athens. People mistakenly think that because Sparta had a king (two, actually) it wasn't democratic, but this isn't the case, and by the time of the Persian Wars the King had no real authority other than on the battlefield.

The actual government of Sparta was the ephors and the Gerousia, both elected by all citizens. In fact Sparta's method of governance is more similar to our own than Athenian democracy is.

Sparta was a democracy like oranges are berries. They kinda fit the bill under an extended definition, but who would call it that ?

 

[ddt]

This is incorrect. Sparta was a democracy long before Athens. People mistakenly think that because Sparta had a king (two, actually) it wasn't democratic, but this isn't the case, and by the time of the Persian Wars the King had no real authority other than on the battlefield.

The actual government of Sparta was the ephors and the Gerousia, both elected by all citizens. In fact Sparta's method of governance is more similar to our own than Athenian democracy is.

In addition to the other comments, the elections of the Gerousia only seemed to be democratic:

While elections to the Gerousia were technically democratic, contemporary writers (such as the Stagirite philosopher Aristotle) considered the fairness of the elections to be dubious at best.

In practice, both Gerousia and Ephors were drawn from a class of oligarchs. That is, oligarchs from within the ranks of the Spartiates, the free citizens - not the Periokoi, the free but non-citizen residents of Lakedaimonia, and certainly not the Helots. Craig, above, mentioned how Athenian democracy was only open to about 10% of the populace, because of the large number of slaves and aliens, but in Sparta this was undoubtedly even worse. Does anyone have firm numbers on this? As indication, at Leuktra, Sparta could only field 400 soldiers from the ranks of the Spartiates.

 

[Wudang]

I'm still reading and have to do "life" stuff but so this article on the Icelandic Althing is interesting - he describes it as "proto-democratic"
http://www.viking.ucla.edu/publications/articles/icelandic_allthing.pdf

 

[Belz...]

In addition to the other comments, the elections of the Gerousia only seemed to be democratic:

In practice, both Gerousia and Ephors were drawn from a class of oligarchs. That is, oligarchs from within the ranks of the Spartiates, the free citizens - not the Periokoi, the free but non-citizen residents of Lakedaimonia, and certainly not the Helots. Craig, above, mentioned how Athenian democracy was only open to about 10% of the populace, because of the large number of slaves and aliens, but in Sparta this was undoubtedly even worse. Does anyone have firm numbers on this? As indication, at Leuktra, Sparta could only field 400 soldiers from the ranks of the Spartiates.

So, as I said: not a democracy we'd recognise as such.

 

[Craig B]

... the elections of the Gerousia only seemed to be democratic:

I didn't know about the acclamation procedure, to select "gerontocrats", which looks truly eccentric, to the point of being comical.

If one γέρων geron (any Gerousia member other than the kings ... ) died, the people would immediately vote for a new one by shouting for the man they felt was best suited for the job. A group of men in a house would decide which the loudest shout had been without knowing whom it had been given for. Of the other 28, usually several would belong to one of the two royal Spartan houses (the Agiad and the Eurypontid). Elected members had to be over the age of 60 and were elected for life.

Can we really say that this is "more similar to our own" democracy?

I'm trying to imagine how that procedure might work in Europe or the USA. At least the people of Florida wouldn't need to worry about dimpled chads.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

I thought this might be of interest to some here: a BBC Radio 4 programme about British women (and not just property-owning women) voting in local elections in 1843:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r9c9r

As a general comment: I've never understood how anyone could claim that the Athenian system was a democracy. To me, it always seemed to be an oligarchy with a somewhat larger olig* than other Greek states. Claiming it as a predecessor from antiquity for "democracy" is a classic case of a retroactively invented tradition.


* Yes, I know it's not a word.

 

[Craig B]

As a general comment: I've never understood how anyone could claim that the Athenian system was a democracy. To me, it always seemed to be an oligarchy with a somewhat larger olig* than other Greek states. Claiming it as a predecessor from antiquity for "democracy" is a classic case of a retroactively invented tradition.

* Yes, I know it's not a word.

I think you're making two points, which might also be considered separately.

The Athenian system was not a democracy, because it was an oligarchy. As I have argued above, there are oligarchies and oligarchies, and some of them are internally democratic, even if not equal. Or at least, they are not internally despotic. I have cited the Polish Szlachta and the English electorate as examples, because these were significant minorities of the population, comparable with the Athenian "olig" (which was not big enough to be a "poly").

I think that the existence of a democratic spirit, or some comparable sentiment, within an oligarchy is quite important. It is possible for such an oligarchy to expand until it encompasses wider sections of the population. If some of the people enjoy freedom, it is easier to extend it to others. Where no freedom exists at any level (as was the case in Russia--all were slaves, including the highest nobility) it is very difficult to introduce it into a society. But where it already exists, it is quite practicable to extend its enjoyment to parts of the population for which it was not initially designed.

Consider, for example, the Polish Constitution of 1791

The constitution sought to supplant the prevailing anarchy fostered by some of the country's magnates with a more democratic constitutional monarchy. It introduced elements of political equality between townspeople and nobility, and placed the peasants under the protection of the government, thus mitigating the worst abuses of serfdom. It banned parliamentary institutions such as the liberum veto, which had put the Sejm at the mercy of any deputy who could revoke all the legislation that had been passed by that Sejm.

This initiative was stifled by the Partitions.

For a century subsequent to 1832, the franchise was extended in the UK, first to all male property owners, then all male householders, then all men, older women, and then younger women. But if there had not been even a restricted franchise and a representative parliament in earlier times, that process would have been impossible.

The US constitution was not designed for slaves, but once they were freed from legal servitude its protection sooner or later had to be extended to freedmen and -women, and their descendants, albeit over the course of a century of struggle.

So I think that the character of oligarchies is important, and if democracy exists within an oligarchy, that is advantageous.

Your second point Claiming it as a predecessor from antiquity for "democracy" is a classic case of a retroactively invented tradition. is I think quite right. Although it is a "predecessor", not necessarily or even probably an inspirer, of the kinds of democratic oligarchies I have been discussing, ancient Athens is not an example of what we mean now by "democracy" in the modern states where democratic political systems prevail.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
If the Persians had won the battle of Plateau Plataeae and/or Salamis. I don't think there would have been much left of Greece. Xerxes was out for revenge because his father was defeated by the Greeks. An army of 180,000 back then meant business.

Pedantic correction. And 180,000 seems a bit large, more like 100,000, IIRC.

A further pedantic correction. The figure of 180,000 is a modification of the figures given by
Herodotus in his book the Histories. In it Herodotus gives a figure of 1,800,000 has the number of Persian army members. Modern historians in an effort to appear reasonable reduce this insane figure to 1/10 of it. Herodotus then goes on to calculate that if you include servants navy etc., the total of the Persian invasion force is more than 5 million!!

It is pretty obvious that Herodotus basically pulled these figures out of thin air. They are simply preposterous and reducing them by 90% doesn't make them any less absurd.

As for the actual size of the Persian army being 100,000? The Persians would have had to have been logistical geniuses to have supplied such a huge horde in Ancient Greece. If Herodotus is to be believed the Persian army at the battle of Platea (479 B.C.E.) numbered more than 100,000, just how did Boetia supply enough food for such a horde? to say nothing of the Greek army.

The Ancients routinely wildly exaggerated the size of "oriental" armies and sum what exaggerated the size of their own. I merely note that armies of 100,000 or more don't appear in the west until Napoleonic times because of the huge problems involved in feeding them. The oriental horde is a trope in Western historical writing. It was thought until the late 19th century that the Mongol invasion of Europe involved over 200,000 Mongols. Well it appears it actually numbered under 50,000 altogether. So much for that oriental horde. The size of Ottoman armies is also routinely massively exaggerated.

Rome with a greater population and wealth than the Persian empire was unable to ever field a army of 100,000 and armies of more than 70,000 are highly exceptional and apparently didn't stay together long.

So even 100,000 for the size of the Persian army invading Greece in 480 B.C.E. is highly unlikely and Herodotus' figures are totally worthless to give an estimate.

What was the size of the Persian army that invaded Greece? I have no idea and neither did Herodotus when he pulled his figures from his backside.

As an aside Xerxes is said by Herodotus to have been motivated by revenge. There is no reason to believe Herodotus here anymore than we are to believe Herodotus' story of Darius being told at dinner to remember the Athenians.

 

[Pacal]

This is incorrect. Sparta was a democracy long before Athens. People mistakenly think that because Sparta had a king (two, actually) it wasn't democratic, but this isn't the case, and by the time of the Persian Wars the King had no real authority other than on the battlefield.

The actual government of Sparta was the ephors and the Gerousia, both elected by all citizens. In fact Sparta's method of governance is more similar to our own than Athenian democracy is.

Actually that is debatable. The Kings had enormous influence and the real check on each king was the other king. The Ephors for one only served for one year and could not ever serve again, usually. If a king was strong and decisive he was generally able to dominate the other king and the government. So it was much of the time a strong monarchical government. Only factionalization between the two kings made the government even remotely democratic. As it actually was the government can be characterized as an oligarchical Monarchy.

One of the features of this state was that according to the Greek / Roman writer Plutarch the Spartans would each year declare war on the Helots and Spartan youths would then go out and murder Helots at night, including any perceived has a threat.

It is generally thought Helots outnumbered Spartans 10 to one. This includes all classes of Spartans. One of the overlooked aspects of Spartan history is that overtime the number of full fleged Spartans declined. It appears that overtime land was increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. So that the number of Spartans who could meet their financial obligations to the state steadily declined. Spartans to whom this happened too became lesser citizens losing voting rights, and the right to serve in political office. Further they were unable to serve has Hoplite infantry in the army. It appears that the number of full fleged Spartans was c. 5,000 in 480 B.C.E., and by 371 B.C.E. the number had declined to c. 1,000.

 

[LorenzoValla]

And to answer your question: I think it would have mattered very little for our present-day notion of democracy. That has sprung from an organic development where more and more people demanded a say in government, and because the king wanted to tax them, for his war, for his courts and what-not, he had to. That started with the nobility (e.g., Magna Carta), then the cities that sprang up during the Middle Ages, or the landed gentry (the Commons since Edward I), and eventually expanded to every free citizen (the American Revolution). Moreover, as the system expanded, it developed into a representative democracy with elections of those representatives, whereas Athens had a direct democracy: everybody was entitled to attend the Ecclesia.

I can see the Magna Carta connection, of course, but not a connection to the evolution in medieval cities. Even during the Renaissance periods of Italy, The Netherlands, and England, I don't see any path towards democracy coming through medieval cities. From what I see, it would be more of an Enlightenment product coupled with the relative freedom first enjoyed in the New World as colonials and then made not only more popular but more attainable after the American Revolution. Remember, most of the American founding fathers never foresaw the civil freedoms that we take for granted today, and our social and civil freedoms seem, to me at least, to be the product of what truly as American exceptionalism in the post American Revolution period - the conflation between nascent civil freedoms and unprecedented economic opportunity.

 

[Craig B]

From what I see, [democracy] would be more of an Enlightenment product coupled with the relative freedom first enjoyed in the New World as colonials and then made not only more popular but more attainable after the American Revolution. Remember, most of the American founding fathers never foresaw the civil freedoms that we take for granted today, and our social and civil freedoms seem, to me at least, to be the product of what truly as American exceptionalism in the post American Revolution period - the conflation between nascent civil freedoms and unprecedented economic opportunity.

Is democracy then entirely a product of exceptional unprecedented American political and economic achievement? The English revolution which secured the permanence of Parliament, the French Revolution with its Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Netherlands Oath of Abjuration of Spanish rule in 1581 ... none of these, or anything else, played any part in the process?

 

[McHrozni]

My class and I are studying the ancient Greeks. If the Persians had won, I'm of the opinion democracy would have sprung up somewhere else, eventually, but maybe not.

Thoughts?

Yes.

Democracy we have today is a result of developments in Germanic world after the year 1500, not an ancient Greek city-state that was conquered and defeated many times over, and lacked many principles that make a state democratic. Our present system is in many ways more similar to that of the Roman republic than to Athenian democracy.

We might call it by some other name, but that's about it.

McHrozni

 

[LorenzoValla]

Is democracy then entirely a product of exceptional unprecedented American political and economic achievement? The English revolution which secured the permanence of Parliament, the French Revolution with its Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Netherlands Oath of Abjuration of Spanish rule in 1581 ... none of these, or anything else, played any part in the process?

No, that is not what I said. I was saying I didn't see how the emergence of cities in medieval Europe played a role in the formation of democratic thinking. The American contribution was an attempt to apply democratic principles to a brand new government, and those principles originated from ancient Greece and Rome, with a lot of trials and errors along the way in England.

I don't see, however, what the Dutch Revolution really has to do with that. That was a declaration of independence that basically created the usual type feudal relationships among the new entities. Even the French Revolution ended up with an Emperor for life.

The uniqueness of the American situation as I see it was the recent history of a variety of democratic systems in the colonies along with then-modern ideas of Enlightenment coupled with a geographic isolation that made their ideas easier to attempt. Then, once they made the break, there was so much economic opportunity (just about boundless natural resources along with the emergence of the industrial revolution) that the carefully designed social order created by the framers actually broke down into an actual meritocracy. Remember, the social order was designed along the traditional English class system where educated and benevolent aristocrats were expected to govern a nation of farmers and merchants. Americans, however, quickly came to respect money as a means to determine social rank and dispelled with the old class system pretty quickly, and that had a huge influence on the political system as populism was ushered into power within two or so generations after the revolution.

So, some good ideas, some good luck, and some good timing.

 

[Craig B]

... with a lot of trials and errors along the way in England.

And no successes or achievements?

I don't see, however, what the Dutch Revolution really has to do with that. That was a declaration of independence that basically created the usual type feudal relationships among the new entities.

I'm not sure I agree. Read this

The rapid economic development of the country after the Dutch Revolt in the years 1585 - 1620 accompanied by an equally rapid accumulation of a large fund of savings, created the need to invest those savings profitably. The Dutch financial sector, both in its public and private components, came to provide a wide range of modern investment products beside the possibility of (re-)investment in trade and industry, and in infrastructure projects. Such products were the public bonds, floated by the Dutch governments on a national, provincial, and municipal level; acceptance credit and commission trade; marine and other insurance products; and shares of publicly traded companies like the Dutch East India Company (VOC), and their derivatives. Institutions like the Amsterdam stock exchange, the Bank of Amsterdam, and the merchant bankers helped to mediate this investment. In the course of time the invested capital stock generated its own income stream that (because of the high propensity to save of the Dutch capitalists) caused the capital stock to assume enormous proportions.

Even the French Revolution ended up with an Emperor for life.

And that was that. Nothing more happened?

As to the Dutch Act of Abjuration; this may be of interest.

The Act was remarkable for its extensive Preamble, which took the form of an ideological justification, phrased as an indictment (a detailed list of grievances) of King Philip. This form, which is strikingly similar to that of the American Declaration of Independence, has given rise to speculations that Thomas Jefferson, when he was writing the latter, was at least partly inspired by the Act of Abjuration.