The events of the Hoplite reform and the strengthening claim for isonomia inevitably reshaped the social and political structure of the polis. The mindset developed in the interior of the phalanx and the ensuing political capital acquired by the middle class represented a threat to the aristocratic claim to power. Nonetheless, the transition to democracy was far from expedite and such form of government arose only after Kleisthenes’ reforms. Ironically, the aristocracy played a crucial and protagonist role in the development of previous reforms. According to Vassillopolus, the Athenian ruling elite “allowed Solon extraordinary powers” to modify the legislation in an attempt to avoid any possibility of civil war or stasis, while preserving their
…show more content…
To explain the rise of tyrannies, Hammer develops relies upon the concept of plebiscitary leadership “in which the decisions of leaders derive at least part of their legitimacy from the acclaim (…) of the people” (Hammer ___, 335). Thus, tyrants and their followers can resemble an early form of patronage in which the demos supported the ruler that satisfied their interests. In return, the ruled acknowledged his authoritarian actions as legitimate. For instance, following Solon’s reforms, Aristotle writes that “people fell to the ground and accepted [Peisistratus] with awe” after his first return from exile, and he “told to the crowd (…) to go home and look after their private affairs [while] he took care of the state” (Aristotle on Hammer ___, 354). However, the debate behind the rise of democracy begs the question of the hoplite class self-consciousness. According to Snodgrass, conceiving a political class with a solid and defined internal initiative to change the social structure was unprecedented and challenged the ancient Greek traditional mentality (Snodgrass ___, 115). Thus, one can affirm that the hoplite class was the most potentially powerful political force, but only lacked a trigger or an inciting incident to make its will and desire manifest. This leads to a more intriguing question: to what extent did aristocrats bring upon the upsurge of
To explain the rise of tyrannies, Hammer develops relies upon the concept of plebiscitary leadership “in which the decisions of leaders derive at least part of their legitimacy from the acclaim (…) of the people” (Hammer ___, 335). Thus, tyrants and their followers can resemble an early form of patronage in which the demos supported the ruler that satisfied their interests. In return, the ruled acknowledged his authoritarian actions as legitimate. For instance, following Solon’s reforms, Aristotle writes that “people fell to the ground and accepted [Peisistratus] with awe” after his first return from exile, and he “told to the crowd (…) to go home and look after their private affairs [while] he took care of the state” (Aristotle on Hammer ___, 354). However, the debate behind the rise of democracy begs the question of the hoplite class self-consciousness. According to Snodgrass, conceiving a political class with a solid and defined internal initiative to change the social structure was unprecedented and challenged the ancient Greek traditional mentality (Snodgrass ___, 115). Thus, one can affirm that the hoplite class was the most potentially powerful political force, but only lacked a trigger or an inciting incident to make its will and desire manifest. This leads to a more intriguing question: to what extent did aristocrats bring upon the upsurge of