The stakes are simple: the future of democracy and Western Civilization. The choice: a young rogue or an aging coward?
As with many things in the Peloponnesian War that Thucydides doesn't mention, we don't know the exact date of this event. I'm convinced (and I believe scholarly consensus validates this conclusion) that it took place in the sixth prytany (sometime in February) of 416. [1] At this point, Athens has lost the Battle of Mantinea, but is still technically at Peace with Sparta under the terms of the Peace of 421, better known as the Peace of Nicias. Sparta, however, has not fully complied with peace because it has yet to return Amphipolis (an important colony to control the ship building supplies of the Northern Aegean; Ancient Greece's Skagerak) to Athenian control.
Ostracism to the citizen of modern, liberal democracy seems like a typical excess of Athenian democracy. Nonetheless, "throughout its history ostracism served both as a referendum on issues and as a vote of confidence in political leaders. Themistocles and Pericles followed the example and the intention of Cleisthenes when, as leaders of the majority, they used ostracism to rid themselves of dangerous political rivals. It was a safety valve that helped avoid the explosion of stasis which might rent Athens with factional strife and prematurely destroyed its greatness. The success of ostracism is attested to on the one hand by the weakness of subversive groups so long as the law was in force, and on the other hand by the small number of ostracisms necessary to the safety of the state." [2] Ostracism, IMHO, is correctly understood as having a very important dual effect on Athenian politics: it allows Athens to make long-term policy choices by silencing the voice of a major factional leader and hence his ideas and it guards domestic political integrity. The Ostracism of Hyperbolus was the last time the institution was used. I don't think it's a coincidence that after the last ostracism, Athens suffered two coups.
OTL Hyperbolus moved the ostracism in somewhat of surprise move. He's a minor historical figure so we don't know much about him. He was probably a radical democrat like Cleon; if so, both Alcibiades and Nicias were political opponents. He was probably hoping one of them would be exiled, allowing him the chance to further his own ambitions. As events unfolded, Alcibiades and Nicias, the two leading figures at Athens, had both suffered major setbacks: Alcibiades' Peloponnesian policy had was a failure due to the loss at Mantinea. Nicias' Peace (made in 421) is defunct due partly to the recent battle but mostly because Sparta has not return Amphipolis. Neither has enough support to be certain of avoiding being ostracized. This led Alcibiades OTL to approach Nicias to make a deal: they would both agree to have their supporters ostracize Hyperbolus. This meant that the institution failed to resolve the foreign policy deadlock (setting a poor precedent for the debate in the next year regarding the Sicilian expedition). Alcibiades and Nicas are also able to use their political "clubs" to undermine democratic institutions. Athenian politics will remain polarized for the next century or more.
In the spirit of democracy, before I offer up the beginnings of a TL, I'd like to get your input. Whom would you want ostracized from Athens in 416, Alcibiades or Nicias? (Pity I can't turn this into a poll, now, but I don't figure everybody on the site will want to participate, necessarily).
Alcibiades iOTL after 416 would be the major force behind the decision to go to Sicily in 415 (not its composition and the decision will occur again due to events in Sicily, so there's still a chance Athens will go a-conquering without him). Exiled in 414/3 because of complicity in a religious perversion, he will then go on to advise the Spartans on how to defeat Athens at Syracuse; he also at one point defects to the Persians. In 411, he aids the oligarchic conspirators of the 400 only to lead the Athenians of the fleet against the coup, restore democracy, win a series of battle in the eastern Aegean in 410-407, eventually winning the title of Supreme Commander. He is disgraced in 407 and retires to the North Aegean coast (where he probably meets Thucydides, also in exile nearby). He attempts to warn the Athenians in 405 at Aegos Potomoi of their tactical blunder but is ignored because no one trusts him.
Nicias iOTL was a competent general, but a somewhat timid politician. He has successfully conquered Cythera, off the coast of the Peloponnse, and Delos. He is rich and overly religious and tends to like proving how pious he is. His mistakes, as I outlined above, were probably responsible for the disaster at Syracuse. He loses an army of more than 10,000 men even though he has every chance to defeat the Syracusan forces arrayed against him. He dies when the Syracusans finally catch the remaining Athenians.
My fellow Athenians, the choice is yours. Cast your potsherds.
Click Here to see More about this Poll and to comment on the discussion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My apologies, the previous thread wasn't a poll. Hopefully, a nice moderator will help correct this error.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__________
1. Others suggest it occurred in either 417, directly after the Battle of Manitnea in 418. An inscription seems to prove the presence of Hyperbolus at Athens after the legal date for the ostracism of 417, so we can reject that. Still others suggest it occurred in 415 as a part of the decision regarding the Sicilian Expedition. A passage from Theopompus suggests that we prefer 416, however.
2. Donald Kagan, “The Origin and Purposes of Ostracism,” Hesperia, Vol. 30, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1961), 401. Don't worry; I'm just excerpting from an old college paper; I did not do this much research for this post.
As with many things in the Peloponnesian War that Thucydides doesn't mention, we don't know the exact date of this event. I'm convinced (and I believe scholarly consensus validates this conclusion) that it took place in the sixth prytany (sometime in February) of 416. [1] At this point, Athens has lost the Battle of Mantinea, but is still technically at Peace with Sparta under the terms of the Peace of 421, better known as the Peace of Nicias. Sparta, however, has not fully complied with peace because it has yet to return Amphipolis (an important colony to control the ship building supplies of the Northern Aegean; Ancient Greece's Skagerak) to Athenian control.
Ostracism to the citizen of modern, liberal democracy seems like a typical excess of Athenian democracy. Nonetheless, "throughout its history ostracism served both as a referendum on issues and as a vote of confidence in political leaders. Themistocles and Pericles followed the example and the intention of Cleisthenes when, as leaders of the majority, they used ostracism to rid themselves of dangerous political rivals. It was a safety valve that helped avoid the explosion of stasis which might rent Athens with factional strife and prematurely destroyed its greatness. The success of ostracism is attested to on the one hand by the weakness of subversive groups so long as the law was in force, and on the other hand by the small number of ostracisms necessary to the safety of the state." [2] Ostracism, IMHO, is correctly understood as having a very important dual effect on Athenian politics: it allows Athens to make long-term policy choices by silencing the voice of a major factional leader and hence his ideas and it guards domestic political integrity. The Ostracism of Hyperbolus was the last time the institution was used. I don't think it's a coincidence that after the last ostracism, Athens suffered two coups.
OTL Hyperbolus moved the ostracism in somewhat of surprise move. He's a minor historical figure so we don't know much about him. He was probably a radical democrat like Cleon; if so, both Alcibiades and Nicias were political opponents. He was probably hoping one of them would be exiled, allowing him the chance to further his own ambitions. As events unfolded, Alcibiades and Nicias, the two leading figures at Athens, had both suffered major setbacks: Alcibiades' Peloponnesian policy had was a failure due to the loss at Mantinea. Nicias' Peace (made in 421) is defunct due partly to the recent battle but mostly because Sparta has not return Amphipolis. Neither has enough support to be certain of avoiding being ostracized. This led Alcibiades OTL to approach Nicias to make a deal: they would both agree to have their supporters ostracize Hyperbolus. This meant that the institution failed to resolve the foreign policy deadlock (setting a poor precedent for the debate in the next year regarding the Sicilian expedition). Alcibiades and Nicas are also able to use their political "clubs" to undermine democratic institutions. Athenian politics will remain polarized for the next century or more.
In the spirit of democracy, before I offer up the beginnings of a TL, I'd like to get your input. Whom would you want ostracized from Athens in 416, Alcibiades or Nicias? (Pity I can't turn this into a poll, now, but I don't figure everybody on the site will want to participate, necessarily).
Alcibiades iOTL after 416 would be the major force behind the decision to go to Sicily in 415 (not its composition and the decision will occur again due to events in Sicily, so there's still a chance Athens will go a-conquering without him). Exiled in 414/3 because of complicity in a religious perversion, he will then go on to advise the Spartans on how to defeat Athens at Syracuse; he also at one point defects to the Persians. In 411, he aids the oligarchic conspirators of the 400 only to lead the Athenians of the fleet against the coup, restore democracy, win a series of battle in the eastern Aegean in 410-407, eventually winning the title of Supreme Commander. He is disgraced in 407 and retires to the North Aegean coast (where he probably meets Thucydides, also in exile nearby). He attempts to warn the Athenians in 405 at Aegos Potomoi of their tactical blunder but is ignored because no one trusts him.
Nicias iOTL was a competent general, but a somewhat timid politician. He has successfully conquered Cythera, off the coast of the Peloponnse, and Delos. He is rich and overly religious and tends to like proving how pious he is. His mistakes, as I outlined above, were probably responsible for the disaster at Syracuse. He loses an army of more than 10,000 men even though he has every chance to defeat the Syracusan forces arrayed against him. He dies when the Syracusans finally catch the remaining Athenians.
My fellow Athenians, the choice is yours. Cast your potsherds.
Click Here to see More about this Poll and to comment on the discussion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My apologies, the previous thread wasn't a poll. Hopefully, a nice moderator will help correct this error.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__________
1. Others suggest it occurred in either 417, directly after the Battle of Manitnea in 418. An inscription seems to prove the presence of Hyperbolus at Athens after the legal date for the ostracism of 417, so we can reject that. Still others suggest it occurred in 415 as a part of the decision regarding the Sicilian Expedition. A passage from Theopompus suggests that we prefer 416, however.
2. Donald Kagan, “The Origin and Purposes of Ostracism,” Hesperia, Vol. 30, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1961), 401. Don't worry; I'm just excerpting from an old college paper; I did not do this much research for this post.