Lesson 1.2 · Unit 1 · CA HSS 10.1.2
Athenian democracy and the Roman republic: what each actually was
Both are routinely described as ancestors of modern democracy and neither resembles one. The useful exercise is to identify precisely which features were passed on, which were rejected, and what the founders of later republics were reacting against.
- Athenian democracy was direct, not representative. Citizens voted on policy themselves in the Assembly rather than electing anyone to vote for them.
- Many offices were filled by lot, not election, on the reasoning that election favors the wealthy and well known while lot gives every citizen an equal chance.
- The citizen body was narrow. Women, resident foreigners and the enslaved were excluded, so the participating population was a minority of the inhabitants.
- The Roman republic was a mixed constitution: consuls with executive power, a Senate of the wealthy, and popular assemblies, each checking the others.
- Rome's structure was weighted toward wealth, since voting was by group rather than by head and the richest groups voted first.
- The tribunes could veto, giving the plebeians a genuine block on legislation, which is an early and effective example of a check on power.
- Later founders took Rome, not Athens. The mixed constitution, separation of powers and the word "republic" come from Rome; direct democracy was explicitly rejected as unstable.
Where students lose marks: praising Athens for democracy without stating who was excluded, or condemning it for exclusion without noting that direct participation by ordinary citizens in actual decisions went further than any modern system. Both facts belong in the same answer.
The source. Pericles' Funeral Oration, from Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book II, in Richard Crawley's 1874 translation. Public domain.
Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy.
If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition.
Our public men have, besides politics, their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for, unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless.
Step one: establish what kind of source this is before believing any of it. A funeral oration for the war dead, delivered by the leading politician of the city, during a war, and reconstructed by a historian who says he wrote speeches as he thought they ought to have been given. It is a statement of ideals, not a description of practice.
Step two: extract the constitutional claims. Three are made. Administration favors the many. The law gives equal justice regardless of standing. Advancement depends on capacity rather than class or wealth.
Step three: test the third claim against what is known. Athenian offices were mostly filled by lot from the citizen body, which genuinely removed wealth as a qualification for many positions. But the generalships, the most powerful offices, were elected, and were held overwhelmingly by wealthy men including Pericles himself. The claim is true of the majority of offices and false of the ones that mattered most.
Step four: state the exclusion the speech does not mention. "The many" means adult male citizens. Women had no vote, resident foreigners could not acquire citizenship, and a large enslaved population had no standing at all. The participating body was a minority of the adults in Attica.
This is not a modern complaint imposed on the text. It is a fact about who could enter the Assembly, and a student who omits it has described a system that did not exist.
Step five: analyze the final sentence, which is the most striking. A citizen who takes no part in public duties is regarded "not as unambitious but as useless." Participation is not a right to be exercised at will; it is an obligation, and declining it is a mark against you.
That is a genuinely different conception from the modern one, in which non-participation is a private choice. It is only workable in a small city where participation is practically possible, which is exactly why later founders judged it unscalable.
Step six: contrast with the Roman structure. Rome answered the same problem differently. Instead of everyone deciding everything, it divided power: consuls executed, the Senate deliberated, assemblies voted, and tribunes could veto. No part could act alone.
Step seven: identify which model later republics chose and why. The American founders took the Roman one almost entirely: separation of powers, a senate, a veto, and the word republic. They rejected direct democracy explicitly, arguing that large assemblies are swayed by passion and that a scheme of representation is what makes popular government possible over a large territory.
So Athens supplies the ideal of the participating citizen and Rome supplies the machinery. Saying which of the two a later constitution drew on is usually the examinable judgment.
Questions 1 to 5 are recall. Questions 6 to 10 ask for reasoning.
- How did Athenian citizens make policy decisions?
Show the full solution
Directly, by voting themselves in the Assembly
- How were most Athenian offices filled, and why?
Show the full solution
By lot, on the reasoning that election favors the wealthy and well known
- Who was excluded from Athenian citizenship?
Show the full solution
Women, resident foreigners, and the enslaved
- Name the three parts of the Roman mixed constitution.
Show the full solution
Consuls, the Senate, and the popular assemblies
- What power did the tribunes hold?
Show the full solution
A veto over legislation
- Why must the nature of the Funeral Oration be established before using it as evidence?
Show the full solution
It is a funeral speech for the war dead, given by the city's leading politician, during a war, and reconstructed by Thucydides, who states that he composed speeches as he thought they ought to have been delivered. Every one of those facts pushes it toward idealization. It is excellent evidence of what Athenians wished to believe about themselves and weak evidence of how the system operated, and treating it as description rather than aspiration is the standard error. It is aspiration by an interested speaker, reconstructed by a historian
- Test the claim that advancement depended on capacity rather than class.
Show the full solution
It holds for most offices and fails for the most important ones. Filling positions by lot from the citizen body genuinely removed wealth as a qualification, which is a stronger equalizer than anything in a modern system. But the generalships, which carried the real power, were elected rather than allotted, and were held overwhelmingly by wealthy men, Pericles included. The claim is accurate about the many and inaccurate about the few that mattered. True of allotted offices, false of the elected generalships
- Explain what is distinctive about regarding a non-participant as "useless".
Show the full solution
It treats political participation as an obligation rather than a right that may be declined. In the modern conception, not voting is a private choice carrying no stigma; in the Athenian one, it marks a citizen as failing at citizenship itself. That standard is only workable in a small city where attending the Assembly is practically possible for ordinary people, which is precisely why later founders judged the model unscalable to a large territory. Participation is a duty rather than an option, which requires a small city
- Which model did the American founders take, and what did they reject?
Show the full solution
They took Rome: separation of powers, a senate, an executive veto, and the term republic. They explicitly rejected Athenian direct democracy, arguing that large assemblies are swayed by passion and that representation is what allows popular government to work over a large territory. Athens supplied the ideal of the engaged citizen; Rome supplied the machinery, and identifying which of the two a later constitution drew on is usually the judgment being tested. Roman machinery, with Athenian direct democracy deliberately rejected
- Write two sentences that praise and criticize Athenian democracy accurately.
Show the full solution
For example: "Athens gave ordinary citizens direct power over actual decisions and filled most offices by lot, which removed wealth as a qualification more thoroughly than any modern system does. It also confined that power to adult male citizens, excluding women, resident foreigners and a large enslaved population, so the participating body was a minority of the adults in Attica." A strong answer holds both facts rather than selecting the one that suits its verdict. Unmatched direct participation, confined to a minority of the population