Cleisthenes and Class: Ostracism, Medism, Politics, and the Navy in Athens [510-466]

Abstract

The reforms of Cleisthenes, the introduction of a state-run navy, and the genesis of democracy were all occurring simultaneously in Athens between 510 and 480 BCE., yet all three components are rarely discussed at the same time despite going hand-in-hand. This study will examine the introduction of ostracism, the origins of the Athenian navy, and the overall impact that these sweeping changes had on both the politicians in charge of Athens and the people that were rowing the ships, fighting the battles, and casting the ostraca. Through close-textual analysis, the individual texts and fragments will be examined to highlight class inequality, determine the intended purpose of these reforms, discuss their background and necessity, and show how the upper-class still came out on top by changing the system to suit their own needs even if the reforms were introduced to limit their power or ability to do so. It will show that ostracism originated with Cleisthenes, and he intended it to be used to check the power of tyrants due to his, and his tribes’, experience dealing with them but did not fall victim to the practice himself. It will show that ostracism came in political waves, with the first in the 480s following a period of medism induced panic started by Hippias’ return and Miltiades’ failure at Paros which allowed an individual, most likely Themistocles, to eliminate powerful enemies by harnessing this xenophobia but ultimately met the same fate after he allowed the ostracised to return hoping to avoid a situation similar to Hippias. It will be shown that the socioeconomics of warfare can be examined through word usage in Herodotus, demonstrating the class inequalities, especially regarding those rowing the ships in comparison to their infantry counterparts. And finally, it will be shown that Cleisthenes’ reforms regarding the Strategoi and the Polemarchos were also made in order to spread power away from one individual, but this too backfired as more influential phylae were able to wrestle power away from weaker tribes and influence control over the strategoi through double, and sometimes triple, representation.