From Tyranny to Democracy: The Fifth Century

Supremacy in the West

It is customary to equate the end of the Persian wars in 480/79 with the beginning of a new era in Greek history and to regard the defeat of Xerxes as the boundary between the Archaic and the Classical period. Even if such an approach perhaps overemphasizes the break which the Persian wars constitute, it will be impossible to deny that there were changes and transformations involved in these historical events which were already in antiquity regarded as fundamental turning-points. What appears to be entirely clear in respect of the motherland and the Greek East, however, is by no means as evident when it comes to the Western Greeks. Ancient historians nonetheless sought to integrate the events in the Greek West into this picture in as seamless a manner as possible - by, e. g., dating the Carthaginian attack on Sicily in 480 in the same year as Xerxes’ offensive against Greece. Both military expeditions were allegedly the result of a co-ordinated strategy, with the object of conquering the whole Greek world by means of a gigantic pincer-movement (Diodoros 11.1.4-5;

20.1) . With a view to linking both military events as closely as possible with each other, historians actually placed the Carthaginian defeat at Himera and the Persian defeat at Salamis on the same day (Hdt. 7.166; Thermopylai instead of Salamis, Diodoros 11.24.1); and Pindar compared the victory over the Carthaginians with the battles of Salamis and Plataiai (Pindar Pythian Odes 1.75-79; cf. also Diodoros

Independent of the question of the authenticity of a Persian-Carthaginian joint strategy, still disputed today, it is necessary to interpret the events of480 differently in respect of the Greek West as compared with the East. It is true that the outcome of the battle at Himera represented a decisive break in that for the next 70 years Carthage refrained from any military intervention, but it would be difficult to argue for a fundamental historical break. With his victory over the Carthaginians, Gelon was able to ‘round off’ his political ambitions, which had begun with his capture of Gela in 491. At the time, Gelon, a leading member of the noble family of the Deinomenids, had seized the inheritance of his predecessor Hippokrates after his death, and in the following years built up what Hippokrates had established on a firm foundation between 498 and 491. Aided by a superbly organized bodyguard, an efficient mercenary force and a cavalry unit commanded by Gelon, Hippokrates had succeeded in expanding his rule far beyond Gela, indeed virtually over the entire south-east of Sicily. After conquering Katana, Naxos and for a time even Zankle (Messana), as well as many Sicel cities, he could only be prevented from seizing Syracuse because of the mediation of Korinth on behalf of her daughter-city.

Gelon then followed in the footsteps of Hippokrates with unflinching determination. And so in 485, when in Syracuse the protracted conflict between the leading oligarchic faction of the gamoroi and the democratic faction, allied with the killyrioi (the enslaved indigenous inhabitants), escalated into open hostilities, Gelon took advantage of the situation to invade, and conquered the city and reinstated the banished gamoroi, but without relinquishing power in Syracuse once he had seized it. Indeed, he now systematically turned Syracuse into his capital. At virtually the same time as Themistokles in Athens, Gelon in Syracuse too laid the foundations for the new supremacy in the West by building a harbour and fortifications, and by a comprehensive naval programme. The area encompassed by the city was greatly expanded and the size of the population significantly increased. From Gela alone, where Gelon installed his brother Hieron as tyrant, half the inhabitants were forced to resettle in Syracuse. Further mass deportations followed from previously conquered cities, from whose inhabitants the wealthy were granted Syracusan citizenship, while the members of the poorer classes were sold into slavery - since Gelon was persuaded that ‘the masses are very disagreeable to live with’ (Hdt. 7.156). In addition, Diodoros speaks of Gelon giving citizenship to 10,000 mercenaries (Diodoros 11.72.3).

The power which Gelon acquired by seizing Syracuse he expanded even further by means of adroit marriages. His marriage to Damarete, the daughter of Theron the tyrant of Akragas (he, in his turn, in a second marriage wed one of Gelon’s nieces), sealed a political alliance whose strength could not be trumped, since Theron’s power encompassed virtually the whole of northern Sicily. This constellation drove the other tyrants - most particularly Anaxilaos of Rhegion, who with Zankle/Messana had brought the straits between Sicily and southern Italy under his control, and Terillos, who had been driven out of Himera - into the arms of the Carthaginians, who were no longer willing to tolerate a further unification of Sicily under Syracusan initiative without taking action, and so proceeded to attack in 480. The large-scale military advance, however, ended in a devastating defeat for the Carthaginians at Himera (Hdt. 7.165-7; Diodoros 11.20-6). Gelon emerged from the war in a strengthened position. The polygamous relations of his brother Hieron are an indication of how firmly his power was established. In a second marriage he took the daughter of Anaxilaos of Rhegion as his bride, and in a third marriage a niece of Theron of Akragas.

The marriage connection with the tyrant family in Rhegion is an indication that Hieron was already casting his eyes across the straits, to the mainland of Italy, in accordance with his expansionist foreign policy - i. e., after he took the place of his brother in 478, who had just died. In 477/6 he actively supported the inhabitants of Lokroi in a conflict with his father-in-law Anaxilaos of Rhegion (scholion to Pindar Pythian Odes 2.36), and at approximately the same time came to the aid of Sybaris in her fight against Kroton (Diodoros 11.48.4). Then in 474 Hieron responded to a call for help from Kyme against the Etruscans, and came away the triumphant victor in a naval battle in the Gulf of Naples. Pindar compared this victory with that of Gelon over the Carthaginians at Himera, and painted it as ‘Hellas’ deliverance from grievous slavery’ (Pindar Pythian Odes 1.75). That Hieron’s victory over the Etruscans paved the way for the rise of Rome is something which at the time probably could still not be foreseen. Hieron’s successes in foreign policy expanded the sphere of influence of the Deinomenids deep within Italy. Through the friendly connection with Kyme and the temporary establishment of a military colony on the island of Pithekoussai (today Ischia) (Strabon 5.4.9) the southern sector of the Tyrrhenian Sea had gradually become a ‘Syracusan lake’ (Asheri 1992: 149).

Developments in the political realm were matched by flourishing activity in the cultural sphere, which continued to thrive even after the collapse of the tyrant regimes. The tyrants on Sicily summoned poets, artists and philosophers to their Courts, pursued a vigorous building programme and sought to raise their international profile by numerous victories at the Panhellenic games. Although their conduct may correspond at least in part to that of the tyrants in the motherland and in the Aegean in the Archaic period, their rule was characterized by fundamental differences and therefore took on a completely different style - one that in many respects approximated what was later to characterize the Hellenistic monarchies. This may explain the unquestionably anachronistic statement in Diodoros (it probably goes back to Timaios) that following his victory at Himera, Gelon, in a genuinely Hellenistic manner, was greeted as ‘Benefactor, Saviour and King’ (euergetes, soter, basileus) (Diodoros 11.26.6). Consequently, tyrannisin the West cannot be made to conform to the approach that prevailed in the nineteenth century, i. e., as divided into different phases along chronological lines: an ‘older tyrannid in the Archaic period, and a ‘younger tyrannis’ towards the end of the fifth century. In view of the great diversity in the instruments of government, a division into ‘old’ or ‘young’, ‘atavistic’ or ‘modern’ simply will not go down. The recruiting of bodyguards and mercenaries, the organization of spy networks, as well as political marriages and the promotion of art and culture were all part and parcel of the conduct of tyrants, although the polygamy of the Sicilian tyrants went far beyond the bounds of what was customary at the time, and already anticipated the practices of Hellenistic rulers.

The Sicilian tyrants, however, struck out into completely new paths by creating inclusive territorial states. Accordingly, the Deinomenids of Syracuse and the Emme-nids of Akragas had succeeded in bringing large parts of Sicily under their direct rule in the first third of the fifth century. Even they, however, could not of course deprive the individual cities completely of their autonomy, but by pursuing a rigorous ‘city policy’, in which they did not shy away from radical intervention in the makeup of the citizenry or from the total destruction of cities, they did make sure that the cities they conquered remained docile. We have already mentioned Gelon’s settlement policy in Syracuse. In 476 Hieron adopted a similar strategy in connection with the city of Katana, which may be cited as an example of the fate which overtook it: After initially transplanting her inhabitants as well as those of Naxos to Leontinoi, Hieron settled 10,000 new inhabitants - half from the Peloponnese and from Syracuse - and changed the name of the city from Katana to Aitna, and installed his son Deinomenes there as ruler. Hieron’s new foundation, which Pindar celebrated in his first Pythian Ode and Aischylos in his play The Women of Aitna, however, lasted only a few years. After the fall of the Deinomenids, the original inhabitants returned to the city, which was once again called Katana, while Hieron’s colonists settled in Inessa, which they renamed Aitna (Diodoros 11.49.1-2; 76.3; Strabon 6.2.3). In 403 the inhabitants of Katana once more became the victims of Syracusan policy, when Dionysios I conquered the city, had the inhabitants sold into slavery and settled Campanian mercenaries in their place. But after only a few years they too were transplanted to Aitna/Inessa.

The poleis and their inhabitants thus became a disposable mass, subject to the whims of the tyrant, whose goal continued to be that of securing his rule over the widest territory possible. Nonetheless, the tyrants were ever intent on not flaunting their personal power in public, but sought to integrate themselves into the discipline of the polis community and present themselves as part of the citizen body. Titles which the rulers assumed and by which they were addressed by the people, such as Diodoros ascribes to the Syracusans (see above), are not attested either in contemporary inscriptions or on coins. Instead, ‘Gelon, son of Deinomenes, the Syracusan’ dedicates to Apollo in Delphi a tripod as a thank offering for the victory at Himera (M&L 28), and the bronze helmets which Hieron dedicated to Zeus at Olympia from the booty from the naval battle at Kyme were engraved as follows: ‘Hieron, son of Deinomenes, and the Syracusans for Zeus from the Etruscan booty from Kyme’ (M&L 29; SEG 23 253; 33 328). It is not until we reach Dionysios I that we have evidence for a title, in official decrees. In Athenian honours from 393 and 368 he is referred to as ‘archon Sikelias’ (R&O 10; 33; 34). But this title too, which no doubt had to have the endorsement of Dionysios I himself, reflects the attempt to paraphrase his political power in as neutral a language as possible. Employing the term archon, which could serve as a completely general designation for military or high civil office also in a polis, showed the intent of attempting to avoid any association with terms such as basileus (king), tyrannosor dynastes(Lewis 1994: 136-9). Thus tyrannis in Sicily, after its revival in the fourth century, took the same route for which the first tyrants had shown the way at the turn from the sixth to the fifth century. It therefore retained its entirely distinct character, which could not conceal its archaic roots, but at the same time already foreshadowed what was to become its essential expression in the Hellenistic period.

The road to democracy - an interlude?

The successors did not succeed in maintaining the inheritance of their predecessors. Within a single decade (471-461) the three major tyrant regimes in Syracuse, Akragas and Rhegion were eliminated, and the realms over which they had ruled collapsed like a house of cards. Upon succeeding his father, Thrasydaios of Akragas was able to maintain his rule for only one year (472/1). After a vain attempt to challenge the supremacy of Hieron of Syracuse, the people of Akragas forced him to flee to Megara in Greece, where he was condemned to death and executed. In the following years the successors of Hieron and of Anaxilaos of Rhegion were both overthrown, after only a brief rule - i. e., after having themselves seized power from Hieron and Anaxilaos, respectively. As in a domino effect the tyrants were simply swept away. Their abrupt end clearly demonstrated that tyrannis was inextricably bound up with the personality of the individual holding power in the first instance, but also that tyrannis had simply become out of date and was shunted aside: the wealth and prosperity which increased significantly under the tyrants, and from which the rest of the population no doubt profited, strengthened the desire within the citizenry for greater participation in political decisions.

In addition, there was the pent-up opposition to the arbitrary manner in which the tyrants treated the cities. Mass deportations and the forced integration of tens of thousands, as well as the creation of new citizens including non-Greeks, led to serious tensions with the ‘old citizens’. After the fall of the tyrants, these tensions culminated in prolonged conflicts bordering on civil war, until an agreement was reached which guaranteed the return to their original cities of those who had been deported and banished, and the settlement of all foreigners who had been granted citizen rights by the tyrants - mostly mercenaries - in Messana (Diodoros 11.72.2-73.3; 76.4-6). The coins of the period demonstrate the impressive revival of autonomy amongst the cities of Sicily, some of which - like Naxos and Kamarina - had to be completely rebuilt after having been destroyed by the tyrants (on the redistribution of the citizenry in Kamarina, see now the approximately 150 bronze tablets from the period, SEG 41 846; also SEG 47 1431). But the restoration of the poleis apparently proceeded all the more smoothly because the political unrest evidently did not have any serious negative effect on prosperity (Diodoros 11.72.1). Moses Finley offers the following pertinent summary:

The end of tyranny saw no cessation in the outward signs of prosperity: in agriculture, in continuation of the tradition established by the tyrants of minting the finest coins, in the scale and quality of temple-building and of other public works. On the material side, it seemed as if Syracuse and Akragas had the necessary conditions to follow the path of Athens, where the tyranny had been overthrown in 508. (Finley 1979: 57)

The same path was in fact followed. From everything we can deduce from the highly fragmentary information in the ancient sources, as a rule democratic factions came to power in the newly constituted poleis, and insisted on greater participation by the citizens in political decision-making. Many details - such as the introduction of petalismos in Syracuse (Diodoros 11.87.4), similar to ostracism in Athens - corresponded to those in democratic institutions known in other parts of the contemporary Greek world. To that extent the West was following the trends of the time.

Nonetheless, conditions in the West were fundamentally different. Indeed, the tyrants in the Greek West did not attempt to secure the support of the lower classes, as was the case elsewhere (Hdt. 7.156.2-3), but always remained closely aligned with the nobles. Although social changes came about from the tyrants having intervened in the very structure of the poleis, no consolidation of the lower classes took place. Consequently, after restoration of the poleis the aristocratic factions were able to re-establish themselves, under a democratic guise. Just how strong the influence was which they exerted is shown by the fact that in Syracuse the petalismos was, under pressure from the aristocrats, abolished not long after having been introduced (Diodoros 11.87.4). With this, certain social structures became consolidated, which thwarted any lasting political change and left little prospect for democratic development within the lower classes. Here we may also look for the reason why, after a promising beginning in overthrowing the tyranny, ‘the end-product proved to be weak and short-lived’ (Finley 1979: 5), and why democracy remained an ‘interlude’ - if not indeed in the entire West, then at least in Sicily (Finley 1979: 58-73).

No less of an interlude, albeit much shorter, was the attempt of the Sicel Douketios to exploit the confusion to establish a dominion of his own in the wake of the collapse of the tyrant regimes. Stemming from an eminent Sicel family (Diodoros 11.78.5), he sought to unite his fellow-Sicels into a kindred alliance - Diodoros refers to a synteleia or a koinon (Diodoros 11.88.6) - and thereby create a powerful counter-weight to the Greek poleis. Initially supported by Syracuse, Douketios was able to score substantial successes in the years after 461, and in 453/2, with the founding of the city of Palike in the immediate vicinity of a leading Sicel sanctuary, he established an urban centre for his newly created Sicel league (Diodoros 11.88.6-90.1). Even though Douketios may have played the Sicel card, it is scarcely possible to speak of a national Sicel revolt. Douketios’ action doubtless bears the stamp of Greek tyrants, whom he used as his model. Indeed, ‘Ducetius’ models were Gelon and Hieron, not Kokalos or Hyblon of old’ (Asheri 1992: 165). The founding of a Sicel league was therefore much more the result of an already highly advanced Hellenization of the Sicels than a conscious return to indigenous origins.

The constitutional changes in the Sicilian cities altered but little in respect of the struggles for supremacy. Thus, after the situation in domestic politics had become stabilized, Syracuse - along with Akragas - moved decisively against the growing power of Douketios. He was finally defeated in 450. After Douketios had been sent into exile in Korinth for several years, he returned to Sicily in 448/7 in order to found the Greek-Sicel city of Kale Akte. It is uncertain to what degree Douketios was acting with the connivance of the Syracusans or was being used by them to further their own political ambitions. At all events, this affair led to conflict between Syracuse and

Akragas, in which the other poleis also became involved. Douketios, who once more - admittedly in vain - announced his claim to the leadership of the Sicels, became a player in the power politics of the rival cities until his death in 440. In this drama Syracuse was able to re-establish her former hegemonic position until the end of the 430s. At the same time, there was a sharp increase in the conflicts amongst the various poleis: the call for outside help became increasingly more pronounced, and brought the major powers of mainland Greece upon the scene - above all Korinth and Athens, but eventually Sparta as well.

Although the Athenians had not participated in the colonization of the West, as had the Korinthians and the Spartans, they nonetheless had cast their gaze on southern Italy and Sicily ever since the time of the Persian wars. Themistokles is said to have named two of his daughters Sybaris and Italia (Plutarch Themistokles 32.2), and before the battle of Salamis Themistokles threatened to resettle all Athenians in Siris, which had been destroyed by her neighbours in the sixth century, and, as an Ionian city, ‘has long been ours, and the oracles have foretold that Athenians must live there some day’ (Hdt. 8.62.2).

In the middle of the fifth century Athens headed up a Panhellenic colonization venture, and carried out the founding of Thourioi at the site of Sybaris, which had been destroyed in 510. And the treaties which Athens made with Rhegion, with Leontinoi (M&L 63, 74) and eventually also with Segesta (M&L 37 - possibly not until 418/17) and the Messapian leader Artas (Thuc. 7.33.4) go back to approximately the same period.

Within this configuration of events southern Italy was without fail also pulled into the undertow of the political conflicts which in the end engulfed the entire Greek world, i. e., the Peloponnesian War. Despite this, our sources provide extremely little information on the history of this region, which seems to have taken a very similar course to that of Sicily. In any event, it is possible to observe very similar developments in the constitutional history of the poleis in southern Italy, where, against the background of social tensions, the aristocratic-oligarchic regimes were also plunged into a crisis after the end of the sixth century. Here too demands for the extension of political participation by the citizenry had fostered the rise of tyrant regimes. According to later tradition, Pythagoras is said to have played a central role in the internal conflicts. He had emigrated from Samos c. 530 and settled in Kroton, where he founded a religious community, whose adherents attained great political influence in many poleis in the Greek West. ‘Did not many of them act as guardians of the laws and govern Italic cities by proclaiming what in their view was best, and gave advice. . . It was evidently at this time that the best forms of government existed in Italy and Sicily’ (Iamblichos Life of Pythagoras 129).

The rigorous and sectarian conduct of these aristocratically inclined men led to bitter internal conflicts, which culminated in a pogrom against the Pythagoreans about the middle of the fifth century:

When, in the district of Italy, then known as Greater Hellas, the club-houses of the Pythagoreans were burnt down, there ensued, as was natural, a general revolutionary movement, the leading citizens of each city having thus unexpectedly perished, and in all the Greek towns of the district murder, sedition and every kind of disturbance were rife. (Polybios 2.39.1-3; cf. also Iamblichos Life of Pythagoras 249)

To all appearances, these political upheavals fostered the breakthrough of democratic forces, but without it becoming possible for us to discern more precisely the forms which these democracies assumed. Aristotle’s reference to the democratic constitution of Taras (Tarentum) (Aristotle Politics 1320b9-16) at least suggests that it was a case of more or less moderate forms of democracy, which still afforded many opportunities for the aristocrats to exert their influence. But one had adjusted to the demands of the times and to political necessity. Beyond that, in the case of Tarentum events in foreign policy left the aristocrats no alternative after they had suffered a devastating defeat against the Messapians in a ‘great bloodbath that was so common amongst Greeks’ (Hdt. 7.170.3). Aristotle offers the terse comment: ‘In Tarentum, following the defeat in which many eminent citizens were killed by the lapyges (= Messapians) not long after the Persian wars, a democracy replaced the government’ (Aristotle Politics 1303a3-5).

Enduring internal disputes within the poleis and constant rivalries amongst the poleis are characteristic features of conditions in both Sicily and southern Italy. On the other hand, in southern Italy conflicts with the indigenous population became accentuated in the course of the fifth century, while in Sicily Syracuse succeeded in thwarting Sicel ambitions. The cities of southern Italy came increasingly under the pressure of native tribes who - as already noted - united together in strong alliances and thereby presented great potential for aggression. In order to confront this threat, the Greek cities came closer together. In the last third of the fifth century at the latest, the cities of Kroton, Kaulonia and Sybaris (re-founded after civil strife had erupted in Thourioi by citizens who consequently chose to leave their city) formed the nucleus of an alliance that was modelled on the institutional structures of the federal principles of the Achaian League in the Peloponnese (Polybios 2.39.4-6). This league not only became effective in terms of foreign policy, but may at the same time also have contributed decisively to stabilizing democratic constitutions in the member states of the league.