WI: Kimon's Spartan expedition is a resounding success. (Aristocratic Athens?)

[Skallagrim]

It may be persuasively argued that the foundation for what is called the "Golden Age of Athenian Democracy" was laid when the conservative leader of the Aristocratic faction, Kimon, was exiled. Kimon had been a much-admired military hero, but his popularity had utterly collapsed when he had persuaded the Athenians to send military aid to Sparta in 462 BC-- Sparta was facing a major helot uprising at the time. Kimon had always been an admirer of Sparta, and even though Kimon's rival Ephialtes maintained that Sparta was a deadly rival and should be left to fend for itself, Kimon managed to get his way. The expedition ended in total humiliation: the Spartans, wary of Athens, expelled Kimon and his army!

Kimon was seen as having shamed Athens and himself with his embarrassing failure, and in 461 BC, he was ostracised from the polis. The reformer Ephialtes then had an unprecedented chance to seize power. With the support of Perikles, he first reduced the power of the Areios Pagos (a.k.a. 'Areopagus'; a high court that served as a council of elders, and which was the great bastion of the conservative aristocracy). Power was transferred to the Council of Five Hundred, the Assembly, and the popular law courts. Other policies favoured by Kimon were also reversed, including his pro-Spartan policy. From that point on, the animosity between Athens and Sparta would only build and build-- culminating in the First Peloponnesian War (460–445 BC) and the (second) Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC).

The way Kimon's expedition turned out, it seems, had major effects! The question I'm asking here is: what if Kimon's Spartan expedition is a resounding success? Let's say he is in somewhat closer contact with the Spartan leadership, and they let him prove that he's truly on their side. Which he was... so they let him stay and support them. After the Spartan victory over the Helots, Kimon returns to Athens, once more confirmed as a great military leader and a true hero. His political fortunes look a lot better than in OTL.

Also, Ephialtes was murdered in 460 BC in OTL (and the most popular theory is that it was by a member of his own faction, since if it had been one of his conservative enemies, Perikles would certainly have used the event to turn Ephialtes into a martyr-- which he did not.)

So let's suppose that either Ephialtes still gets killed around the OTL time, and Kimon uses his increased political clout and the weakness of the opposite faction to exile Perikles. Or that he exiles Ephialtes, and later manages to sideline Perikles anyway. Neither seems unlikely to me. Kimon was actually a crafty operator; he had no way of knowing the Spartans - with whom he'd always enjoyed such good relations - would so crudely rebuff him. He was not, as some have asserted, some kind of rash fool. So if hew retains his status and popularity, I can see him getting rid of his rivals.

This would prevent the democratic reforms of Ephialtes and Perikles. With Kimon and the aristocrats firmly in charge, the 'Golden Age of Athenian Democracy' gets delayed at the very least. Quite possibly it gets prevented outright. In OTL, ephialtes acted at just the right time, having gotten a once-in-a-lifetime chance to exploit Kimon's fall from grace. Without that random chance, there may never come an opportunity to suddenly implement radical reforms. I'm fairly sure some reform of the aristocratic system could and would be forced, over time... but Athens might never become the more democratic polis with which we are all so familiar.

A lasting Aristocratic Athens. Is that a realistic option here? And do Kimon's good relations with Sparta have major effects? His ATL success in Sparta would get him goodwill there, and would likely convince Athens to get fully on board with his pro-Spartan policy. So might the Peloponnesian War even be prevented? Athens and Sparta are still rivals, which is natural and almost inevitable... but might it be reduced to a rivalry that does not result in such utterly destructive wars?

If this is a realistic perspective... what might be the further ramifications of such an ATL?

 

[Hecatee]

I'd say a more aristocratic Athens will put much less importance on (sea)trade and will thus be generally weaker than the democratic one because it will neither have as many people making money nor attract as many foreigners. On the other hand I could see a heavier engagement in northern Greece as aristocrats might want to get new lands to exploit.

A downfall of the democrats might also lead to more instability, maybe up to Corcyrean civil war levels.

In all case activity against Persia will probably wind down. We might also see more piracy on the high sea.

Sparta and Athens will stay rivals, and war will eventually come due to alliances systems, but it will be much more conventional and will be decided by a few battles instead of the long fight of OTL.

 

[Skallagrim]

I'd say a more aristocratic Athens will put much less importance on (sea)trade and will thus be generally weaker than the democratic one because it will neither have as many people making money nor attract as many foreigners. On the other hand I could see a heavier engagement in northern Greece as aristocrats might want to get new lands to exploit.

A downfall of the democrats might also lead to more instability, maybe up to Corcyrean civil war levels.

In all case activity against Persia will probably wind down. We might also see more piracy on the high sea.

Sparta and Athens will stay rivals, and war will eventually come due to alliances systems, but it will be much more conventional and will be decided by a few battles instead of the long fight of OTL.

Yes, I think you're right about all of this. Kimon himself favoured diplomatic solutions regarding Persia, rather than military ones. So that looks very likely. Less naval development and more piracy is also very likely. I like the angle of more military adventurism on land, possibly in northern Greece. I don't think it would have to be about land, though. More about the fact that the aristocrats gained prestige by leading armies in battle. (If nothing else, one must admit they were brave: they were expected to lead from the front.)

Might the lack of naval expansionism by Athens (possibly combined with a northward swing of Athenian military attention) be another factor in reducing the feud with Sparta? I seems very possible to me.

The only thing I have my doubts - or rather: uncertainties - about is the possible instability. Certainly this is possible, but is it a logical result of a more aristocratic system? The big risk I see is stagnation, rather than instability. Perhaps there is a factor I'm overlooking.

One thing that comes into play is that in an aristocratic society in Antiquity often tended to be less militaristic (or at least: less militarily adventerous) than more democratic societies. That reduces a major cause for instabilty, namely the various troubles of warfare. Of course external warfare still exists, but becomes centred on prestige campaigns for aristocrats-- overall militarism tends to acually be less than in a more democratic society. The logic behind this process is that in a more aristocratic society, the people who get to have any kind of say in matters were often the soldiers. Simply because hoplites (or their equivalents elsewhere) had to finance their own arms, which was expensive. Essentially, it meant that the (core of the) citizen-army automatically consists of the landowners, who are relatively affluent. Because of that reletively high social standing, they are also the ones who get to influence policy to some extent. So those who actually have to fight get to decide on matters of war and peace. When democracy gets expanded, more people get to influence policy... leading to people who don't have to fight to get a say in whether wars get declared. The result is, somewhat counter-intuitively, that a move towards more democracy tends to lead to a more adventurous military policy. (Populism also plays a role in this.)

Regardless of other issues, my big fear for aristocratic Athens would be that it ends up as a too-conservative, calcified society that cannot ultimately adapt anymore.

 

[JJL]

This is a stretch but could we see an attempt at a return to Tyranny?


After all it had been attempted ,albeit unsuccessfully, a number of times after the Persian wars,most notably by Miliatades, so a more aristocratic Athens may head that way and even at this point in the progression of Athenian democracy there were still people who held the old Tyranical views across the ancient world and many of the surrounding lands were yet to adopt full Athenian style democracy I believe?
Whilst a successful reversal all the way back would be almost impossible given the progress of Cleisthenes reforms, could we see the proportion of people able to vote/ the influence and power, slide back towards the old noble families and gradually lead to one becoming dominant again as in the the 500BC's under a rule such as that eventually enjoyed by Pesistratos?

If Pericle's fall from grace is extreme as your ATL seems to suggests it could lead to a state of "stasis" in the Eclesia and the other governing bodies of Athens, as the more pro-Spartan/conservative thinkers gain a rise of popular support, leading many of Ephialtes and Pericles key actions impossible to pass. As the two sides remain locked in a stalemate the citizens of Athens will become gradually frustrated with the deadlock, and with continuing good relations with Sparta and talks of a diplomatic solution with Persia which would be much less disruptive, why wouldn't popular view sway back toward the more authoritarian methods of ruling?

 

[Skallagrim]

This is a stretch but could we see an attempt at a return to Tyranny?


After all it had been attempted ,albeit unsuccessfully, a number of after the Persian wars,most notably by Miliatades, so a more aristocratic Athens may head that way and even at this point in the progression of Athenian democracy there were still people who held the old Tyranical views across the ancient world and many of the surrounding lands were yet to adopt full Athenian style democracy I believe?
Whilst a successful reversal all the way back would be almost impossible given the progress of Cleisthenes reforms, could we see the proportion of people able to vote/ the influence and power, slide back towards the old noble families and gradually lead to one becoming dominant again as in the the 500BC's under a rule such as that eventually enjoyed by Pesistratos?

If Pericle's fall from grace is extreme as your ATL seems to suggests it could lead to a state of "stasis" in the Eclesia and the other governing bodies of Athens, as the more pro-Spartan/conservative thinkers gain a rise of popular support, leading many of Ephialtes and Pericles key actions impossible to pass. As the two sides remain locked in a stalemate the citizens of Athens will become gradually frustrated with the deadlock, and with continuing good relations with Sparta and talks of a diplomatic solution with Persia which would be much less disruptive, why wouldn't popular view sway back toward the more authoritarian methods of ruling?

Good thinking! I was more focused on the idea that any reform would be minimal and gradual, but a political stalemate is also an option... and could lead to people willing to accept some form of tyranny (which obviously did not yet have its pejorative meaning). Depending on who plays it smartest (by blaming the other side for the deadlock), we could either see the oligarchy overyhrown anyway, and a literal 'heir' to Pesistratos (meaning a populist tyrant eho relies on the masses)... or the ologarchy successfully blaming the reformers for everything, in which case we'd get an 'anti-Pesistratos' (a conservative tyrant representing the elite).

In that latter case, power could well be limited to a few powerful families again. (Instead of one tyrant, there could even be a council of tyrants, representing all these families. Would be historically ironic if there were thirty of them...)

Another possibility, tying into the idea of potential instability that @Hecatee mentioned, might be a situation where Athens ends up a bit like Syracuse eventually did: a revolving door of tyrants and more democratic governments, always trying to get rid of each other.

 

[Hecatee]

Yes, I think you're right about all of this. Kimon himself favoured diplomatic solutions regarding Persia, rather than military ones. So that looks very likely. Less naval development and more piracy is also very likely. I like the angle of more military adventurism on land, possibly in northern Greece. I don't think it would have to be about land, though. More about the fact that the aristocrats gained prestige by leading armies in battle. (If nothing else, one must admit they were brave: they were expected to lead from the front.)

I think it would be about land because of the ideal of the gentleman farmer. Aristocracy in Athens that early is mostly bigger farmers, not yet the bigger owners we see in, for instance, Xenophon's economic treaty. But land is limited in Attica, so if there are possibilities to get more lands for junior sons in the north they'd go for it I think. As for prestige from battle, it might be true for some of the smaller poleis, but not anymore in Athens : you had some hegemons leading the city as the main war-leader amongst the elected strategos of the year, but that's about it.

Might the lack of naval expansionism by Athens (possibly combined with a northward swing of Athenian military attention) be another factor in reducing the feud with Sparta? I seems very possible to me.

Probably so because it will mean less tension with Aegina (a Spartan ally) or Corinth. The main factor causing tension would be either Megara or something linked to Theban designs against Plateia.

The only thing I have my doubts - or rather: uncertainties - about is the possible instability. Certainly this is possible, but is it a logical result of a more aristocratic system? The big risk I see is stagnation, rather than instability. Perhaps there is a factor I'm overlooking.

I think it would be because while less developped than OTL the meteques and the thetes would still be there with a lack of opportunities to get rich, and would feel stiffled by the aristocratic regime. Add a probable debt issue rising again, and you get instability since money is more concentrated in the hands of the elite. Factor in tensions between the aristocrats themselves and you get probable instability.

One thing that comes into play is that in an aristocratic society in Antiquity often tended to be less militaristic (or at least: less militarily adventerous) than more democratic societies. That reduces a major cause for instabilty, namely the various troubles of warfare. Of course external warfare still exists, but becomes centred on prestige campaigns for aristocrats-- overall militarism tends to acually be less than in a more democratic society. The logic behind this process is that in a more aristocratic society, the people who get to have any kind of say in matters were often the soldiers. Simply because hoplites (or their equivalents elsewhere) had to finance their own arms, which was expensive. Essentially, it meant that the (core of the) citizen-army automatically consists of the landowners, who are relatively affluent. Because of that reletively high social standing, they are also the ones who get to influence policy to some extent. So those who actually have to fight get to decide on matters of war and peace. When democracy gets expanded, more people get to influence policy... leading to people who don't have to fight to get a say in whether wars get declared. The result is, somewhat counter-intuitively, that a move towards more democracy tends to lead to a more adventurous military policy. (Populism also plays a role in this.)

I'm not so sure... Sure the democraties tended to be bolder, but aristocrats often went to war too, if only to be able to show off ! Don't forget also that athenian democracy was also a regime where the citizens voting for war were the one fighting it (at least in the 5th century, later there are enough mercenaries). It's especially true of the small landowners who were happy to go to Athens for trials and public debates because they got paid the money they'd have gotten by hard labor on that day.

Regardless of other issues, my big fear for aristocratic Athens would be that it ends up as a too-conservative, calcified society that cannot ultimately adapt anymore.

It will certainly be more conservative, with interesting side effects on theatre for instance (remember that Eschyle's The Persians was paid for by the young Pericles starting his political career...) as well probably as on architecture (Parthenon and new Acropolis never done ?)

This is a stretch but could we see an attempt at a return to Tyranny?


After all it had been attempted ,albeit unsuccessfully, a number of after the Persian wars,most notably by Miliatades, so a more aristocratic Athens may head that way and even at this point in the progression of Athenian democracy there were still people who held the old Tyranical views across the ancient world and many of the surrounding lands were yet to adopt full Athenian style democracy I believe?
Whilst a successful reversal all the way back would be almost impossible given the progress of Cleisthenes reforms, could we see the proportion of people able to vote/ the influence and power, slide back towards the old noble families and gradually lead to one becoming dominant again as in the the 500BC's under a rule such as that eventually enjoyed by Pesistratos?

If Pericle's fall from grace is extreme as your ATL seems to suggests it could lead to a state of "stasis" in the Eclesia and the other governing bodies of Athens, as the more pro-Spartan/conservative thinkers gain a rise of popular support, leading many of Ephialtes and Pericles key actions impossible to pass. As the two sides remain locked in a stalemate the citizens of Athens will become gradually frustrated with the deadlock, and with continuing good relations with Sparta and talks of a diplomatic solution with Persia which would be much less disruptive, why wouldn't popular view sway back toward the more authoritarian methods of ruling?

Could very well be one of the forms of instability, after all Pisistrate's rule isn't that far away in the past, but I think the state's propaganda made the idea of tyranny rather abhorant to athenians, what with the most beautiful statue of the agora and some paintings in the stoa showing the death of the last pisistratides...

 

[JJL]

Good thinking! I was more focused on the idea that any reform would be minimal and gradual, but a political stalemate is also an option... and could lead to people willing to accept some form of tyranny (which obviously did not yet have its pejorative meaning).

I suppose in terms of the phrasing and realism I mean more of an Oligarchical type system would form, rather than a Tyranny as we use the term, but essentially similar principals.

Another possibility, tying into the idea of potential instability that @Hecatee mentioned, might be a situation where Athens ends up a bit like Syracuse eventually did: a revolving door of tyrants and more democratic governments, always trying to get rid of each other.

and yes a Syracuse like situation could well be on the cards in Athens in this ATL.