Ancient Greece consisted of several hundred more or less independent city-states (
poleis). This was a situation unlike that in most other contemporary societies, which were either tribal, or kingdoms ruling over relatively large territories. Undoubtedly the geography of Greece—divided
and sub-divided by hills, mountains and rivers
Contributed to the
fragmentary nature of ancient Greece. On the one hand, the ancient
Greeks had no doubt that they were 'one people'; they had the same
religion, same basic culture, and same language. Furthermore, the Greeks
were very aware of their tribal origins; Herodotus was able to
extensively categorise the city-states by tribe. Yet, although these
higher-level relationships existed, they seem to have rarely had a major
role in Greek politics. The independence of the poleis was
fiercely defended; unification was something rarely contemplated by the
ancient Greeks. Even when, during the second Persian invasion of Greece,
a group of city-states allied themselves to defend Greece, the vast
majority of poleis remained neutral, and after the Persian defeat, the allies quickly returned to infighting.
Initially many Greek city-states seem to have been petty kingdoms;
there was often a city official carrying some residual, ceremonial
functions of the king (
basileus), e.g. the
archon basileus in Athens.However, by the Archaic period and the first historical consciousness, most had already become aristocratic oligarchies.
It is unclear exactly how this change occurred. For instance, in
Athens, the kingship had been reduced to a hereditary, life-long chief
magistracy (
archon)
by c. 1050 BC; by 753 BC this had become a decennial, elected
archonship; and finally by 683 BC an annually elected archonship.
Through each stage more power would have been transferred to the
aristocracy as a whole, and away from a single individual.
Inevitably, the domination of politics and concomitant aggregation of
wealth by small groups of families was apt to cause social unrest in
many
poleis. In many cities a tyrant
(not in the modern sense of repressive autocracies), would at some
point seize control and govern according to their own will; often a
populist agenda would help sustain them in power. In a system racked
with class conflict, government by a 'strongman' was often the best solution.
Athens fell under a tyranny in the second half of the 6th century.
When this tyranny was ended, the Athenians founded the world's first
democracy as a radical solution to prevent the aristocracy regaining
power. A citizens' assembly (the
Ecclesia), for the discussion of city policy, had existed since the reforms of Draco in 621 BC; all citizens were permitted to attend after the reforms of Solon
(early 6th century), but the poorest citizens could not address the
assembly or run for office. With the establishment of the democracy, the
assembly became the
de jure mechanism of government; all citizens had equal privileges in the assembly. However, non-citizens, such as metics (foreigners living in Athens) or slaves, had no political rights at all.
After the rise of the democracy in Athens, other city-states founded
democracies. However, many retained more traditional forms of
government. As so often in other matters, Sparta was a notable exception
to the rest of Greece, ruled through the whole period by not one, but
two hereditary monarchs. This was a form of diarchy. The Kings of Sparta belonged to the Agiads and the Eurypontids, descendants respectively of Eurysthenes and Procles. Both dynasty founders were believed to be twin sons of Aristodemus, a Heraclid ruler. However, the powers of these kings was trammeled by both a council of elders (the
Gerousia) and magistrates specifically appointed to watch over the kings
Thus, the major peculiarities of the ancient Greek political system
were; firstly, its fragmentary nature, and that this does not
particularly seem to have tribal origin; and secondly the particular
focus on urban centres within otherwise tiny states. The peculiarities
of the Greek system are further evidenced by the colonies that they set
up throughout the Mediterranean Sea, which, though they might count a certain Greek polis as their 'mother' (and remain sympathetic to her), were completely independent of the founding city.
Inevitably smaller
poleis might be dominated by larger
neighbours, but conquest or direct rule by another city-state appears to
have been quite rare. Instead the
poleis grouped themselves into
leagues, membership of which was in a constant state of flux. Later in
the Classical period, the leagues would become fewer and larger, be
dominated by one city (particularly Athens, Sparta and Thebes); and
often
poleis would be compelled to join under threat of war (or
as part of a peace treaty). Even after Philip II of Macedon 'conquered'
the heartlands of ancient Greece, he did not attempt to annex the
territory, or unify it into a new province, but simply compelled most of
the
poleis to join his own Corinthian League
.
