Essay On in What Ways Was Athens in the 5th Century BC an Imperial State?

Published: 2021/11/15
Number of words: 6443

During the course of this essay, I will analyse and critique the available evidence which supports the theory that Athens in the 5th Century BC was an imperial state, governing the members of the Delian League. After the Greek allies captured Byzantium in 478BC, Sparta left the Hellenic league[1], believing they had achieved their primary objective of securing liberation of mainland Greece and Greek cities of Asia Minor. Now a cordon sanitaire was created in the Asia Minor region[2], Sparta felt their involvement in the alliance was no longer beneficial to them. Athens on the other hand continued the struggle, some historians present evidence to support that the Athenians felt a connection with the Ionian people and wanted to protect them against the possible threat from the Persians[3]. This led to formation of the Delian League.

The Delian league was mainly an alliance made up of Island communities around the Aegan sea. Historian J.K Davies believes that the League was comprised of some 150 tribute paying communities[4]. Others feel that the alliance has in fact as many as 172 members[5]. The Delian league slowly formed what can arguably be seen as an Athenian Empire[6]. Historians note many key dates in which evidence supports the theory that Athens transformed and evolved from an alliance into an empire. For example, in 461BC Athens moved the treasury from the island of Delos to the acropolis of Athens. In 446BC Athens and Sparta signed a peace treaty which gave recognition to the two parties as leaders of both of their alliances[7].

Need an essay assistance?
Our professional writers are here to help you.
Place an order

Michael Doyle defines an imperial state as an, “effective control, whether formal or informal, of a subordinated society” [8]. Cooper stresses the differences and inequalities which exist between the imperial state and its subordinates. Most definitions include an imperial state enacting some form of political domination over another state[9]. In order to show how Athens was an imperial state, I will be using the criteria set out within these definitions, as it will give me some clarity and a clear definition to follow. For this I will be exploring Athens control over the political, economic and even social activities within the Delian League, in order to highlight the various different ways that Athens was an imperial state in the 5th Century BC. However, despite my creation of subcategories, I am aware that social and economic control was enacted through political domination of the allies. The time frame that I will be extracting my evidence about Athenian imperialism from will begin with the creation of the Delian League in 478BC, until the ending of the empire in 404BC. This theory, (formulated by Finley), was that the empire ended with the defeat by Sparta and the agreed dissolution of the Athenian empire[10]. It will also help me effectively cover the broadest time spectrum of 5th Century BC Athens as an imperial state.

One way in which Athens exerted its imperial dominance economically was the cash tributes that all members of the league had to pay to Athens, known as Phoros. A translation of Phoros is literally ‘burden’; Osborne feels this instantly gave the payments negative overtones[11]. It also aptly displays how Athens was able to force payments from its allies, proving itself to be an imperial state. Large pillars in Akropolis were inscribed with records of the tributes that were paid to Athens in 454-3. The inscriptions show that one sixteenth of their funds were given to Athens by the member state as cash tributes[12]. Historians note that league members could pay their tributes by giving the Athenians ships, most found it more convenient and less bother to pay in cash[13]. In addition there are cases of Athens taking land as capital, for example, Andros’ tribute was halved, reduced from twelve talents to six between the years 450-449BC because land was taken instead. This was not the only case, as Naxos, Karystos and Andros being other examples of communities whose tributes were reduced in return for the surrender of land[14]. The fact it was Athens, (initially through Arstedies), which decided how much each community had to pay, or how many ships were to be given to the league[15], these tributes would have greatly affected the economy of the nation as it would have drawn from their resources, which shows Athens was an imperial state and exerted economic dominance over its empire/allies.

The tributes were meant to be used by Athens to fund its navy, which would protect the Delian League, being a group of islands, a sea attack was an extreme threat to the allies so a strong navy was essential. A navy was extremely expensive, costing 3000 drachmai to pay a crew’s wages for only a month[16]. This makes the decision to take tributes seems justifiable, however, the three island nations that maintained their own navy; Samos, Chinos and Lesbos were still expected to pay phoros to Athens[17]. Pericles felt these payments to Athens were fair[18]., but if an ally supplied both, arms and money then the amount levied under phoros would be disparate in comparison to other member states. Athens also passed general decrees, stating that they could demand military assistance from an ally if necessary[19]. This demonstrates that Athens had enough power over her allies to ‘demand’ the support. The fact Athens was able to demand anything from the other members shows that the relationship between nations was not on equal terms. The other states were subordinate to Athens, which is the relationship which defines an imperial state.

After Greece had driven the Persian threat from the Aegan, Pericles still demanded payments from the allies despite the relative peace within the Delian League. He believed the restoration of Athenian temples was an obligation of the whole empire and that taxes were necessary to fund this[20]. This angered many members of the Delian league, for example, Euboia, were said to be “seething” at the thought of having to pay tributes in peace time, when as recently as the year 450BC they were paying their contribution with ships for the purpose of protection[21]. Now a payment was required for what could be conceived as Athenian selfish purposes. We can only assume that many allies either could not, or chose not to pay Athens, as they seem to have tightened their reigns on the league and from 430BC historians note, Athens now sent ships directly for collection of the phoros. In 426 it was also made a treasonable offence to impede any of the Athenian ships collecting tributes[22]. This law may have been created as a reaction to hostility by the allies concerning these tributes. The way in which Athens was able to successfully obtain tributes from its allies, despite evidence suggesting that members of the league were aggrieved by tribute payments, being paid even in peace time, certainly fits the description of a state that controls its subordinate states. This means the payments that Athens forced the Delian League to pay to them is a prime example of the way in which Athens in the 5th Century BC was an imperial state.

Another way in which Athens is shown to be an imperial state is by the control it had over its allies concerning membership of the Delian League. After the Persians agreed to not undertake further hostility against Athens and its allies, many members of the league may have began to question the purpose of the league and why they were still allowing Athens to govern their internal affairs and take tributes from them[23]. This dissatisfaction with the system and a general wish for autonomy culminated in many “revolts” in an attempt to leave the league. However Athens had now firmly established itself as the leader of the Delian League and was not about to let members resign[24].

Naxos attempted to leave the league, Oman believes that Naxos was one of the wealthiest island states, and were able to be self sufficient, and now had no need to be in the league[25]. In response Athens sent a fleet to blockade the island, stopping any supplies getting in. A siege of the island then ensued and Naxos had no choice but to surrender and accept they could not leave the league. They were also fined, had ships confiscated and their protective walls were demolished, a harsh lesson was taught by the Athenians for their attempt to abandon the league[26]. Two years after Naxos attempted to leave, the island of Thasos, (a supposedly powerful island), challenged the authority of Athenian control through rebellions. Athens had a special interest in Thasos because its geographical position was perfect for developing a new trade centre. It took two years to quash the revolt, but by again cutting off supplies to the island, Thasos was forced to surrender. Like Naxos, the island of Thasos was punished with the confiscation of its war fleet and further fiscal requirements[27]. The domination Athens displayed over its allies concerning league membership is yet further proof Athens was an imperial state in the 5th Century BC.

From 454BC membership of the league was made compulsory. Athens was now prepared to use force to gain new members to the alliance[28]. Melos was one community which felt Athens wrath, after they refused to join the Athenian empire every male on the island was slaughtered by the Athenian army, led by Alkibiades, a warring leader[29]. The Melian Dialogue is also Thucydides interpretation of the force used by Athens to obtain new league members. Thucydides was an Athenian citizen born in mid 5th century BC, he was exiled from Athens for commanding a failed fleet of ships in 424BC. He then spent the next 20 years writing contemporary history as an eye witness to the struggles between Persia and Athens[30]. Within the Melian dialogue the representative of Athens tells the Melians, they will be destroyed unless they join the league[31]. The imagined conversation he creates certainly seems to show his opinion to be that Athens was an imperial state that exerted ruthless control and force over its allies and even potential members of the Delian League, proving they were an imperial state. Finley summarises best when he states that independence was a myth once the league had been joined[32]. The fact that Athens was able to force members to join, often without the facade of there being much benefit for the new member shows what a powerful and feared state it was. The way in which it controlled its allies once they had surrendered and joined shows that Athens was an imperial state in the 5th Century BC, as it achieved the goal of control over its subordinate states, and the benefits Athens gained from the empire in comparison to the other members, shows the inequality which existed. This again fits the description of an imperial state.

Even after Athens had forced a state to join the Delian League, certain formalities had to be undertaken before the membership became official. Athens used the opportunity of a new state being initiated into the league as an opportunity to show both the current allies and the new member that they were the dominant state within the Delian League. They did this by forcing new members to pledge an oath of allegiance. According to Osborne, the oath involved a promise of allegiance to Athens and also a vow that they would have the same enemies and friends as Athens[33]. This oath is strong evidence of Athens domination over its empire. Swearing an allegiance to “friends of Athens” only pays lip service to the other members of the Delian League, they are not considered equal members and are only acknowledged by their relationship to Athens. Also, promising to have the same enemies as Athens could be conceived as Athens preparing the new member to a period of servitude in the league as followers of Athens. Scribed on mid 5th Century inscriptions was a requirement that states swear an allegiance solely to Athens, without mention of the other members of the league and supposed “allies” of Athens[34]. This again illustrates that Athens dominated its allies and made its allies subordinate in order to make itself an imperial state. However it must also be noted that the concept of an imperial empire may not have been the same for the Athenians as we have defined it. An imperial state and concepts such as imperium date back to the Roman Empire, which is after the Athenians[35]. This could mean that the Athenians did not perceive their actions as imperial, which could prove the dominance they enacted was not that of an imperial state because that was a concept which hadn’t yet been created.

However, it was not just at national level that the oath of allegiance to Athens was created, Councillors also had to take a similar pledge when being inaugurated into their new position. For example, the members of the new council of Erythrae, which was formed around 453-2BC[36]. Within the Oath, the councillors state “I will not revolt from the people of Athens” or “permit another to do so” [37], showing the threat of revolt could become a real occurrence within the Athenian Empire, especially as many of their members had been, as mentioned earlier, forced to join against their will. For example Boetia, who was a disloyal league member since they were forced to join and revolted in 447BC[38]. The oath the councillors had to take also shows how Athens had control, not only of just a nation, but all the smaller political chambers which may have existed within it. The Council of Erythrai contained one hundred and twenty members[39], yet Athens still controlled them and made them take an oath, like the leaders of new Delian League members. The total control over its allies is encompassed within the oaths Athens allies had to take and shows them to be an imperial state in 5th Century BC

Finley observes that the interference in internal matters of the member-states became a growing trend within the Athenian Empire. This can be seen as one main reason why many members began to refer to Athens as the “tyrant city” [40]. The way in which Athens meddled in the affairs of their allies shows attempts to control the social elements of the occurrences which went on within their empire. The dominance they exerted over the internal affairs within the empire affirms Athens status as an imperial state in the 5th Century BC. One state which complained about Athens interfering with what they considered internal affairs was Aigina, within the treaty of 445BC Athens had made a promise of “autonomy”, but Aigina felt their internal matters were being tampered with which was a contradiction to the promise they been made[41]. The various changes Athens enforced upon the allies’ internal affairs illustrates their power as the imperial state of the Delian League.

One change the Athenians made was enacted by Pericles. The state organised new festivals in which the allies would have to participate. In his mind he was offering the great art, music and culture of Athens, to the common man within the empire[42]. Although his intentions may have been admirable, forcing a festival upon another state is another example of Athens imperialism, this is because it shows the Athenians were dominant enough to impose changes in the social culture of the subordinate Delian League members. Erythrai for example were required to send offerings to Athens for Athenian religious festivals (A.L Rowse feels this emphasises Erythrais subject status) [43]. Festivals such as “the city Dionsyia and the Panathenaia” were expected not only to contribute towards the festivals they also had adopt them within their own culture[44], this could be viewed as extreme intrusion into the society of the members of the Delian League.

Athens also interfered in legal matters within the Delian League. Any trial which carried the death penalty or exile, were now transferred to the Athenian jury-court[45]. This is evident within decrees with both Khalkis and Euboea, created in 446BC[46]. The decrees are described by historians to have an “imperialistic tone” [47] due to the clear impeding of internal affairs by Athens. Athens area of judicial control, known as the law court of the thesmothetai[48] became the main body for appeal within the Athenian Empire. Athens had set up a system where in some cases, the court systems would have two chambers and all serious crimes, which would be punishable by murder and exile, were now to be judged by Athens. The new court system Athens created totally undermined the current systems which existed within the nations of the Delian League.

Athens again showed itself to be the hegemon of her empire and evidence of the inequality which now existed within the judicial system of the Delian League proves Athens to be an imperial state in the 5th Century BC. Athens also imposed laws on their allies stating trade regulations, for example, in a decree created in 426BC, the Methoneans were given permission to export corn from Byzantium, however they were restricted to only several thousand medimnoi every year[49]. The exporting of goods from one state to another can be seen as an internal affair of little concern to Athens. But the way Athens placed stipulations upon internal matters was another way in which Athens exerted dominance and confirms their imperialistic values.

Athens also imposed a “Standards decree” [50] upon the allies. A further stipulation was added to a councillor’s oath that the use of foreign currency, weights and measures was now a punishable offence. Foreign currency could be exchanged for the Athenian coinage, which was now the imperial currency[51]. Historians differ over the usefulness of this social economic measure. For example A.R Burn feels it was an extremely sensible measure, he gives the example of Keos, which had four independent cities and three separate currencies[52]. This made trade a difficult issue, so making an imperial currency seemed a logical step, as far as Athens was concerned. Osborne, however, feels this change of currency was no benefit to Athens[53]. This measure seems to have been successful, with no evidence of individual Aegan state coins dating between 440BC and 420BC[54].

Despite the clear advantages of a universal currency, historians are certainly in agreement about the effects this had upon the citizens on the various Delian League states. Even though many currencies are said to have disappeared since Persian occupation, the new imperial measures offended local pride and patriotism[55]. Other historians go on to say that it took away any tangible signs of independence from the allies[56]. The change in currency and imperial weight measure, had now forcibly indoctrinated Delian League societies into the Athenian state. This is another sign of Athenian imperialism; they took away any last signs of individuality within the different states and forced them to adopt Athenian policies. It is clear from the way Athens was able to enforce these new internal policies with relative ease that Athens was a very powerful state. There may not have been direct opposition to these policies, but there certainly is evidence of criticism[57]. Thucydides notes that policies were not actively opposed due to fear of reprisals from Athens[58]. Whatever the reason, the power to force a policy upon another state effectively, is a key feature of an imperial empire, this is yet another example that shows Athens to be an imperial state in the 5th Century BC.

Despite the clear contradiction, Thucydides considered the concept of freedom, as being able to rule over others[59]. It was also believed, by Pericles in particular, that Athens led the world in art, education and civilisation. But, he also believed it was Athens “duty” to lead politically, as well as socially[60]. This view provoked them to embark on a policy where Athens could interfere in the political systems of the allies within the Delian League. The same concept applies when I state that the interference of political matters show domination over the subordinate allies, (in a similar manner to the policy of interference Athens followed within the allies’ internal affairs). It is clear Athens intention was to be the political leader of their alliance. For example, the elected general from Athens, (i.e. Pericles), became the General-in-Chief over the Athenian empire[61]. Also, it is no coincidence that the Delian league officials, including military commandment and treasurers, had always come from Athens since the creation of the Delian League[62]. This gave Athens enough power to govern over the allies. In many cases Athens either changed, or formulated a totally new constitution for the new allies to adopt. Erythrai, a state which has been the subject of numerous examples of Athenian domination, had no choice but to adopt the constitution written for them by Athens.

The constitution included Erythrai having a council, provided for them by Athens, which was a smaller version of the model Athens themselves used[63]. Samos was one state that wished to change the constitution which Athens had given them. In response Athens sailed to Samos with forty ships, they kidnapped fifty Samian boys as hostages and fifty adult males, Athens then set up a democracy in Samos[64]. This can be seen as yet another contradiction. As historians have noted, democratic regimes are generally pacifist by nature. However, Robert Flaceliere feels that Athens was both, a democratic and an imperial state during the 5th Century BC[65]. Athens did not allow their allies to self govern; they interfered and imposed their law and customs upon the governments of the Delian League. Like many empires that followed Athens, imperial states do not allow their subordinates to run autonomous governments. This is evident within Athens which imposed democracies, and changed the political constitutions which existed within the allies states, proving Athens was an imperial state in the 5th century BC. In Athens there was also a political faction known as the “country party”, who campaigned for the rights of the allies against what they considered radical imperialists[66]. This shows the general consensus of Athenian citizens, was that their city was an imperial state.

However, when examining the ways Athens’ behaviour was that of an imperial state, the ways in which it wasn’t must also be considered in order to bring some balance to my assessment. The main argument against Athenian imperialism is that Athens was in fact popular with its allies, and any changes introduced were in accordance with the beliefs and ideals held by the Delian League members. Athens allowed states to remain autonomous and govern themselves, and merely gave them suggestions for a ‘better way’. This would make Athens just another member of the Delian League, and not an imperial state. A major debate was provoked by G.E.M de Ste Croix in 1954 on the issue of Athenian imperialism. In his view, our perception that Athens was an imperial state is mainly based upon Thucydides and his presentation of Athens and the Delian League. But the views Thucydides gives (i.e. Athens was despotic and hated), was that of his own. He believes Athens was in fact popular, particularly with the less wealthy members of the alliance[67]. It must also be noted, that formally at least, all members of the Delian League were considered to be equal[68].

The growth of the league benefited the whole of the empire, not just Athens. Not only did the labouring forces within the dockyards and men involved in the manufacture of arms benefit, but 700 officials were employed from abroad to help with the administration of the league[69]. This evidence suggests Athens did not have a monopoly on the running of the Delian league as there were foreign officials, their presence suggests Athens was not an imperial state. The benefits of the league were certainly evident to many of the Aegan Islands, as Megara joined on their own free will[70]. This goes against the theory that Athens forced members to join so they could rule them. The political and economic prosperity members of the league enjoyed is said, by historian Finely to have unified the entire league. It also gave allies a form of civic pride towards the Delian League[71]. It was this pride that kept members in the league and realising its benefits, not the power of force from Athens making them remain. The benefits of league membership were actualised by every member of the league, on an equal scale.

Worry about your grades?
See how we can help you with our essay writing service.

Rhodes feels that the democratic regimes Athens introduced were hugely popular with the majority of citizens[72]. This may have been due to Athens policy of “Demos”. This was the idea of the lower classes, and people as a whole, acting in a democracy. This democracy would take the form of a citizen-body acting through an assembly[73]. This form of an early democratic regime gave the lower classes a say in the running of their state. This system, (in theory), meant it was them, and not Athens who decided on the running of their state. Also, within the early days of the Delian League, some historians feel there is not sufficient evidence to suggest Athens did interfere with internal affairs. The only time there was interference was when the state in question posed some threat to Athens or any other league member[74]. This seems a perfectly reasonable action, rather than the actions of an imperial state. Historians have also posed hypothetical questions about the threat of a combined allied force against Athens[75]. The threat would have caused Athens some concern, but, this never became a reality, which endorses the probability of their contentment. Maybe, most league members were happy with the Delian leagues arrangement and were willing to enact certain changes at the suggestion of Athens. This could prove, Athens may have been an innovator in terms of their social, political and economic policies, but they were not imperial, as they did not force this upon other Delian League members, they were just suggestions from Athens which were enacted by members as they saw the benefits which they may provide.

Having reviewed the evidence I am in agreement with the view of historian Fowler, when he states that Athens was an imperial state, and that “Athens deprived the subjects of her empire of independence”[76]. I have provided evidence which supports the view that members of the Delian League “resented their inferior position” [77]. This is evident in such states as Euboia, who took the first opportunity they could to revolt against the Athenians[78]. It may be many allies benefited from what Athens gave them, for example democracy, protection and a strong economy, by which all Delian League members prospered. However, the manner Athens forced these changes upon the allies, shows they were an imperial state. Delian League members, in many instances being forced to join the league and became little more than subjects of Athenian dominance. They had no choice but to pay tributes directly to Athens, supply military assistance on demand, and change there entire political structure to suit that of the Athenians. Refusal to follow the Athenian political structure resulted in harsh punishment and the imposition of penalties. Athens was a democratic state that took into account wishes of the lower classes within their allies’ societies. Although this democracy may have helped Aegan Island states govern certain internal affairs, it was Athens who decided what matters the allies could deliberate and govern for themselves. Athens was the main body of control and power for the entire league, since 461BC, when the Leagues treasury was moved from Delos to Athens. This leads me to conclude that, despite advantages allies felt from Athenian control, the force Athens used to gain their position of leadership proves that they were an imperial state, over the subordinate states of the Delian League, in the 5th Century BC.


A.R. Burn, Pericles and Athens (Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1948)

J.K Davies, Democracy and Classical Greece (Harvester Press Sussex, 1978)

M. I. Finley, The Ancient Greeks (Chatto and Windus, 1963)

Robert Flaceliere, Daily Life in Greece at the time of Pericles (Phoenix Press)

Fowler, The City State of the Greeks and Romans (Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1931)

J.M. Moore, Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy (Chatto and Windus, 1983)

Oman, A History of Greece (Longmans, Green and Co, 1918)

Robin Osborne, The World of Athens, second edition (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

P.J Rhodes, The Athenian Empire (Clarendon Press, 1985)

Hugh Trevor-Roper, Thucydides, the Pelopennesian war (Oxford University Press, 1959)

Thucydides, ‘The Melian Dialogue’, The Peloponnesian War (London: Penguin, 1954)

Internet Resources

The Athenian Empire, Learn History <> [Accessed 1st January 2010]

Delian League, Article By Jona Lendering < dh/delian_league/delian_league.html> [Accessed 3rd January 2010]

History and society, imperium, Encyclopaedia Brittania<> [Accessed 3rd January 2010]

[1] The Athenian Empire, Learn History <> [Accessed 1st January 2010]

[2] Delian League, Article By Jona Lendering <> [Accessed 3rd January 2010]

[3] Delian League,  Jona Lendering

[4] J.K Davies, Democracy and Classical Greece (Harvester Press Sussex, 1978) p.80

[5] The Athenian Empire, Learn History

[6] Delian League, Jona Lendering

[7] Delian League, Jona Lendering

[8] Alex Callinicos, Imperialism and Global Political Economy, (Polity Press, 2009) p.3

[9] Callinicos, Imperialism, p.3

[10] M. I. Finley, The Ancient Greeks (Chatto and Windus, 1963) p.63

[11] Robin Osborne, The World of Athens, second edition (Cambridge University Press, 2008) p.239

[12] Davies, Democracy, p.78

[13] Osborne, The World, p.238

[14] A.R. Burn, Pericles and Athens, p.85

[15] Robin Osborne, The World of Athens, p.237

[16] J.K Davies, Democracy and Classical Greece,p.92

[17] Burn, Pericles, p.132

[18] Burn, Pericles, p.106

[19] Davies, Democracy ,p.87

[20] Burn, Pericles, p.101

[21] Burn, Pericles, p.104

[22] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.240

[23] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.239

[24] Finley, The Ancient Greeks, p.54

[25] Oman, A History of Greece (Longmans, Green and Co, 1918) p.250

[26] Oman, A History of Greece (Longmans, Green and Co, 1918) p.250

[27] Oman, A History, p.251

[28] Finley, The Ancient Greeks, p.59

[29] Burn, Pericles, p.238

[30] Hugh Trevor-Roper, Thucydides, the Pelopennesian war (Oxford University Press, 1959) p. xi

[31] Thucydides, ‘The Melian Dialogue’, The Peloponnesian War (London: Penguin, 1954), pp. 400-408

[32] Finley, The Ancient Greeks, p.59

[33] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.237

[34] P.J Rhodes, The Athenian Empire (Clarendon Press, 1985) p.38


[36] Davies, Democracy,p.93

[37] Burn, Pericles, p.88

[38] Oman, A History of Greece, p.264

[39] Burn, Pericles, p.87

[40] Finley, The Ancient Greeks, p.60

[41] Burn, Pericles, p.195

[42] Burn, Pericles, p.160

[43] Burn, Pericles, p.86

[44] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.240

[45] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.244

[46] Davies, Democracy ,p.85

[47] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.244

[48] Davies, Democracy ,p.85

[49] Davies, Democracy ,p.84

[50] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.241

[51] Davies, Democracy ,p.88

[52] Burn, Pericles, p.89

[53] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.241

[54] Davies, Democracy, p.88

[55] Burn, Pericles, p.89

[56] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.241

[57] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.242

[58] Davies, Democracy and Classical Greece,p.97

[59] J.M. Moore, Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy (Chatto and Windus, 1983) p.30

[60] Burn, Pericles, p.90

[61] Burn, Pericles, p.131

[62] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.327

[63] Burn, Pericles, p.87

[64] Davies, Democracy,p.86

[65] Robert Flaceliere, Daily Life in Greece at the time of Pericles (Phoenix Press) p.245

[66] Burn, Pericles, p.167

[67] Rhodes, The Athenian, p.36

[68] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.237

[69] Osborne, The World of Athens, p.241

[70] Oman, A History of Greece, p.265

[71] Finley, The Ancient Greeks, p.76

[72] Rhodes, The Athenian, p.37

[73] Finley, The Ancient Greeks, p.68

[74]Moore, Aristotle, p.32

[75] Moore, Aristotle, p.34

[76] Fowler, The City State of the Greeks and Romans (Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1931) p.181

[77] Rhodes, The Athenian ,p.36

[78] Burn, Pericles, p.112

Cite this page

Choose cite format:
Online Chat Messenger Email
+44 800 520 0055