It is generally accepted that the ancient Greeks invented democracy. It can be rightly argued that they also invented politics, because this word comes from the word "polis", denoting the ancient Greek city-state.

In ancient times there were different forms board; among the Greeks, one of these forms of government was the adoption of decisions by a majority vote after a general discussion of bills by all citizens. This form of democracy, in which all citizens gather in one place and confer, is called direct. Far from all the policies of Ancient Greece were democratic states, and democracy itself at times became rather dubious. We know most about the democracy in Athens, where this form of government lasted, with short interruptions, for 170 years. During this period, the right to participate in public affairs all men born in Athens had, but women and slaves were deprived of this right.

We also call our form of government democracy, but it differs from Athenian in that it is a so-called "representative" democracy. Most of us do not directly govern the state. Once every three or four years we vote for the people who are part of the government; we have the ability to speak up, complain, demonstrate and petition, but we don't directly vote on every bill that goes before parliament.

If we ruled our state directly, then our society would be completely different. Of course, nowadays it is impossible to gather all the citizens of a large state in one place, but we could recreate some semblance of the ancient Greek system, say, by voting for every bill via the Internet. Based on public opinion polls, it is known that under such a system of government, Australia would never accept migrants from other countries, with the exception of the UK, and would certainly try to get rid of all Asian migrants; we would still hang criminals and flog them with whips; we would not send any humanitarian aid to other countries; single mothers and students would have to struggle for existence without receiving any help from the state. So maybe it's even better that modern form government restrains the ignorance and prejudices of people, to a certain extent limiting their freedom of expression.

If you have come to such an opinion, then your views are close to those of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the great Athenian philosophers who strongly doubted the values ​​of Athenian democracy and subjected it to severe criticism. They complained about the inconstancy of human nature: people are often indecisive and ignorant, they are easily swayed to one side or another. The art of government requires wisdom and the ability to make informed decisions, and not everyone has these qualities. Our system of representative democracy would certainly have pleased the ancient philosophers more. No matter what we say about our representatives in government and no matter how we criticize them, they are, as a rule, much more educated and better informed about the state of affairs in politics than the average layman. Many worthy politicians serve in our state apparatus. And although the people do not directly control the state, the state listens to the opinion of the people. True, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would not call such a form of government a democracy.

Ancient Greek democracy has its roots in the military organization of ancient Greek society. Exploring the different forms of government, we will definitely notice a close relationship between the form of the military system and the form of state government. In Athens, there was no regular army, which would consist of soldiers stationed in barracks and ready to join the fighting at any time. All the "soldiers" in Athens were ordinary citizens, merchants or peasants who received serious training for battle in close combat formations. When the war began, they left their usual occupation and took up arms. The Democratic Social Assembly originated as a gathering of such citizen-warriors awaiting the orders of the military leaders. Decisions on declaring war and making peace, as well as on tactics, were taken by the council of elders or representatives of the upper classes. Then these decisions were announced to the assembly of warriors, while the orators set themselves the goal of exciting the crowd and preparing it psychologically for the upcoming actions. No one even thought that the military meeting would discuss in detail the decisions made or propose something of their own; usually the warriors expressed their approval with a cry of mi and sang battle songs.

But gradually the powers of this assembly expanded, in the end it took full power into its own hands. When this happened exactly, we do not know, but since in those days people often fought and the existence of policies almost completely depended on their citizen-warriors, these citizen-warriors began to enjoy great prestige. Thus, democracy was born as a military assembly. But it was at the same time a tribal assembly. Initially, the entire population of Athens was divided into four clans, and it fought by dividing into units according to tribal characteristics. These families chose their representatives to govern the state, and even when a more formal democracy was established in Athens, a person continued to belong to the same electoral group, even if he changed his place of residence. The geographical principle was never central to ancient democracy.

* * *

Direct democracy presupposes both a greater civic consciousness of the entire population and faith in the people. The ideals of Athenian democracy were outlined by the famous Athenian commander Pericles, delivering a speech at the burial of those who died during the war with Sparta. This speech is recorded in the "History of the Peloponnesian War" by the Athenian author Thucydides, the first historian to attempt to describe events from an objective point of view. The "History" of Thucydides has been preserved in medieval copies made in Constantinople. In Italy, 1800 years after it was written, this speech was translated into Latin, and later there were translations into modern European languages. After Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, this is the most famous speech given by a politician at a cemetery. Pericles' speech lasted much longer than Lincoln's.

Here are just excerpts from it:

Our constitution does not imitate foreign institutions; we ourselves serve as a model for some rather than imitate others. This system is called democratic, because it is based not on a minority, but on a majority (demos). In relation to private interests, our laws provide equality for all; As for political significance, in our state life everyone uses it preferentially over another, not because he is supported by this or that political party, but depending on his valor, which gains him a good reputation in this or that matter. .

By repeated contests and sacrifices from year to year, we provide the soul with the opportunity to receive manifold respite from labors, as well as by the decency of home furnishings, the daily enjoyment of which drives away despondency.

With us, the same persons can both take care of their household affairs and deal with state affairs, and other citizens who have devoted themselves to other affairs are not alien to the understanding of state affairs. Only we alone do not consider him free from employment and labor, but useless, who does not participate at all in state activity.

A state that supports culture and education, consisting of highly conscious citizens striving for the common good - this is the ideal of ancient Greek democracy, although we know that the well-being of Athens depended to a large extent on the labor of slaves, and citizens sometimes had to be dragged by force to general meeting. Such ideas appeal to us even now, although the positive aspects of Pericles' inspirational speech have been rethought relatively recently.

For many centuries, the ruling classes had a sharply negative attitude towards democracy, which was due not only to the political realities of Europe, but also to the education system itself. Most of the classical authors studied by the elite were opposed to democracy. This belief was so firmly rooted that at the beginning of the 19th century, the English scientist and radical thinker George Grote made a real revolution in historical thought, declaring that democracy and high culture are interconnected and that it is impossible to praise the second while condemning the first. Such is England's contribution to the recognition of democracy.

But even today we find some aspects of ancient Greek democracy at odds with our ideals. Almost everything in it was aimed exclusively at achieving the public good, sometimes even through coercion, and very little attention was paid to the interests of individuals. The main privilege of an Athenian citizen was considered to belong to the state, and, as Pericles said, if someone did not participate in state activities, he was considered a useless member of society and even unworthy of the title of citizen. Our understanding of human rights has a different origin.

Athens and other small ancient Greek city-states lost their independence after being conquered in the 4th century BC. e. they were conquered by Alexander the Great, who came from the north of Greece. Democracy came to an end, but Greek culture continued to develop, and, thanks to the military campaigns of Alexander, it spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. This culture survived even after the conquest of the eastern provinces by Rome, and flourished for a long time in this Greek-speaking half of the empire.

Rome during the conquests was a republic, not a democracy. It hosted public meetings, which, like in Greece, were historically associated with an assembly of citizens who had the right to bear arms. Every citizen of Rome went to war, equipping himself at his own expense. The contribution of each person to the common cause corresponded to his property condition. The richest people who could afford to buy war horses were the few Roman cavalry. All the rest were infantry soldiers, but different degrees: first came heavily armed warriors, dressed in armor, with a sword and shield; then lightly armed infantry; after her - warriors armed with one spear or dart, and in the end came the poorest citizens who could only afford a sling, that is, a piece of cloth or leather with which stones were thrown.

In the early era, a public meeting was more like a military parade. Men were distributed according to their military ranks: horsemen, heavily armed infantry soldiers, infantry soldiers of the second, third, fourth classes and, finally, slingers. Voting also took place in groups. At first, the horsemen discussed the state of affairs among themselves, coming to a definite decision; then the heavily armed infantry spoke out, and so on. Each group expressed its opinion, but their voices were not equal. There were 193 votes in total, distributed among the groups according to their status. The cavalry and heavily armed infantry had a total of 98 votes out of 193 - in fact, the majority, although the bulk of the soldiers belonged to other groups. When the first two groups came to a common decision, there was no longer any need to listen to the opinions of other groups, and they were often not asked; riders and heavily armed infantrymen solved all issues. Theoretically, the decision was made by all those gathered, but in practice the decisive vote remained with the rich.

This assembly elected the Roman consuls, a kind of "prime ministers" of the republic; there were two of them, and they could only act by mutual agreement. Each controlled the other, and their power was limited to a period of one year. The Romans counted the years by the names of the consuls.

Gradually, the plebeians gained more power, limiting the power of the rich and people of noble birth. Here we know exactly how it happened: the plebeians used military force, or rather the refusal to use military force. When a war broke out, infantrymen of the third, fourth and subsequent grades could, for example, refuse to take up arms, declaring that they would go to war only when they were given more votes in the assembly. As a result, a new assembly was convened, which elected tribunes from among the plebeians - a kind of analogue of modern representatives of the public or ombudsmen. Tribunes had the right to interfere in the adoption process government decisions at any stage, if the rights of the plebeians were infringed upon. After another refusal to go to war, this assembly was given the right to make laws.

Sometimes these actions are described as strikes, although this word does not convey the true essence of the matter. A strike is usually understood as a conflict in the sphere of industrial relations, but in ancient Rome, workers were not organized into unions and did not oppose their bosses. The plebeians usually rebelled without demanding higher wages or shorter working hours.

As in Athens, the power of the Roman citizen warriors gradually increased, although democracy in the full sense of the word was never established in Rome. The Senate, which included representatives of noble, and later the richest families, remained the highest state authority in Rome. Public meetings limited the arbitrariness of the senate, but never fully replaced it. Revolutions, that is, abrupt changes in the state structure, were not observed in Ancient Rome; the form of government gradually changed in the course of the creation of new authorities and new government positions to which real power passed. In this respect, ancient Rome is similar to the modern British constitutional monarchy, whose constitution has not yet been fixed in one single document. As for the question of the division of power and control over the various branches of government, in this respect the Roman model served as an important model for the state structure of the United States.

* * *

At first, kings ruled in Rome. The Republic was established around 500 BC. e., when the Romans overthrew their tyrant king Tarquinius the Proud. The ancient Roman historian Titus Livius wrote about this in his work. His work survived in Western Europe after the fall of Rome, but only in part; only a copy of one of the sections has survived to this day, and even then it was discovered only in the 16th century, so it was unknown to scientists of the Renaissance. This section is devoted to the formation of the republican system and formed the basis of Shakespeare's poem "Lucretia".

This is a story about how, as a result of one rape, the monarchy was overthrown and a republican system was established. The rapist was not Tarquinius himself, but his son Sextus Tarquinius. The victim of the rapist was Lucrezia, the wife of Collatinus. The uprising was led by Brutus, the king's nephew. Four hundred years later, his namesake led a conspiracy against Julius Caesar and killed him. The first Brutus had to witness the massacre of the cruel king over his relatives. To save his life, Brutus pretended to be a man of a narrow mind, otherwise Tarquinius would have quickly finished with him; By the way, in Latin, the nickname "Brutus" means "stupid". He did not complain when Tarquinius seized all his property, but waited for the right moment, which came after Lucretia was dishonored. What happened next, we know from the words of Livy. The whole story began from the moment when the sons of the king went to war with Ardea. They feasted in the tent with Collatin when it came to wives. Everyone boasted that his wife was better than the others. Collatin offered to resolve the dispute by going back to Rome and checking out what their wives were up to. It turned out that the wives of the princes were having fun, while Lucretia was sitting at home and spinning - thus Collatin won the argument. A few days later, secretly from Collatinus, Sextus Tarquinius returned to Lucretia.

He was warmly received by the hosts, who did not suspect his intentions; after dinner he was taken to the guest bedroom, but as soon as it seemed to him that it was quite quiet around and everyone was sleeping, he, inflamed with passion, enters with a drawn sword to the sleeping Lucretia and, pressing her chest with his left hand, says: “Be quiet, Lucretia, I am Sextus Tarquinius, I have a sword in my hand, you will die if you shout. Freed from sleep in awe, the woman sees: there is no help, next to her is threatening death; and Tarquinius begins to declare his love, to persuade, threats interfere with prayers, from all sides seeks access to female soul. Seeing that Lucrezia was adamant, that she could not be swayed even by the fear of death, he, in order to frighten her even more, threatened her with shame: he would throw a naked slave into her bed, dead, cutting her down - let them say that she was killed in dirty adultery. With this terrible threat, he overpowered her unyielding chastity. Lust seemed to have gained the upper hand, and Tarquinius went out, intoxicated with the victory over women's honor.

Lucretia, crushed by grief, sends messengers to Rome to her father and to Ardea to her husband to arrive with a few true friends: there is a need for them, let them hurry, a terrible thing happened. Spurius Lucretius arrives with Publius Valerius, son of Volesius, Collatinus with Lucius Junius Brutus - by chance he returned to Rome with him when he was met by a messenger. They find Lucretia in the bedroom, crushed by grief. At the sight of their own, tears come to the eyes of a woman; to her husband's question: "Do you live well?" She replies: “It couldn’t be worse. What good remains in a woman with the loss of chastity? Traces of a strange man on your bed, Collatin; however, the body alone was subjected to disgrace - the soul is innocent, let death be my witness. But swear to each other that no adulterer will be left without retribution. Sextus Tarquinius - that's who last night came in as a guest, but turned out to be an enemy; armed, by force he stole here a disastrous thing for me, but also for him - if you are men - a delight.

Everyone swears in order, consoles the desperate, diverting the accusation from the victim of violence, blaming the criminal: the thought sins - not the body, who had no intention, there is no guilt on that.

“It is up to you,” she replies, “to judge what is due to him, but even though I do not blame myself for sin, I do not free myself from punishment; and let the example of Lucretia not save the life of any whore!” She had a knife hidden under her clothes, thrusting it into her heart, she leans on the knife and falls dead. Her husband and father cry loudly to her. While they were grieving, Brutus, holding a bloody knife pulled out of the body of Lucretia, said: “I swear by this pure blood before, before the royal crime, and I take you, gods, as witnesses, that from now on, with fire, with a sword, than I can , I will pursue Lucius Tarquinius with his criminal wife and all offspring, that I will not tolerate either them or anyone else in the kingdom in Rome.

Brutus kept his word. Thus, the establishment of the republic was the result of the terrible crime of the son of the king; the woman, like a virtuous Roman, considered her honor above life, and another virtuous Roman swore to avenge her. But not everyone in Rome wanted to overthrow Tarquinius, and there was even a conspiracy to restore him to power. By the time the conspiracy was uncovered, Brutus was one of the two consuls and held the position of judge in the public assembly. There he was told the names of the conspirators, among whom were his two sons. The decision on punishment was to be made by Brutus himself. The assembled crowd shouted words of encouragement; people said that they did not want dishonor for members of his family and that he could well pardon his sons. But Brutus would not even hear of it; he said that the laws are the same for everyone, including his children. Therefore, right in front of his eyes, his sons were stripped naked, flogged with rods and beheaded. My father did not even frown at this sight - such was his devotion to the ideals of the republic.

Jacques-Louis David. "The lictors bring the bodies of his sons to Brutus." 1789

Of course, since then, the Romans have praised Brutus, because devotion to the common cause, regardless of personal and family ties, was the basis of the republic. The Romans called such devotion a virtue necessary for the prosperity of the state. For the sake of the common good, one could go to cruel deeds. In our time, many would consider Brutus's act even inhuman - how could he sit quietly and watch the execution of his own children? Truly, republican virtue has bred monsters.

Curiously, just before the Great Revolution, there was a cult of republican Rome in France, and not only among those who wished to reform the monarchy. The court painter of Louis XVI, Jacques-Louis David, chose two famous episodes from the "History" of Titus Livius as the theme for two of his paintings. On the first, he depicted Brutus not in the chair of a judge pronouncing sentence on his sons, but at home, when the bodies of his executed sons were brought to him. This allowed David to create a sharp contrast between the relentless father who turned away and the women - the mother and sisters of the executed - mourn their bitter fate. The second painting on the theme of Roman republican virtue is called The Oath of the Horatii.

Jacques-Louis David. "Oath of the Horatii". 1784

The Horace brothers were chosen by the Romans to take part in the battle that was to determine the fate of their city. At that time, Rome was at enmity with the neighboring city, and in order to avoid a bloody war, it was decided to hold fights between three representatives of each city. In his painting, David depicted Father Horace raising his swords and taking an oath of allegiance to Rome from his sons. They raise their hands in a Republican salute similar to the Nazi salute. Women - the mother and sisters of warriors - are also depicted here as weak creatures, demonstrating their feelings and crying before an imminent separation. One of the sisters, who is engaged to a representative of the other side, is especially grieving.

As Titus Livius writes, this battle was very cruel, a battle not for life, but for death. And although only one son of Horace survived, the Romans were victorious. Returning home and finding his sister mourning the death of her fiancé, the brother took a sword and stabbed her to death, because she was supposed to rejoice at the victory of Rome, and not mourn the defeated enemy. The main idea of ​​this story is again that the interests of the family should be subordinated to the interests of the state. The brother was brought to trial, but was soon acquitted. The father himself spoke at the trial, condemning his daughter and making a speech in defense of his son.

* * *

The Roman Republic lasted about two hundred years, followed by a period of gradual decline. Rome constantly expanded its possessions; the great commanders who had earned glory for their state began to argue and fight among themselves, and the soldiers more often remained loyal to their commanders than to the republic. One of the commanders, Julius Caesar, managed to defeat all the others and achieve superiority. The second Brutus killed Caesar in order to preserve the republic and prevent power from concentrating in the hands of one person; but by doing so, he only contributed to the next round of the civil war. In the course of subsequent battles, the great-nephew, adopted by Caesar, came out victorious, who in 27 BC. e. became the first Roman emperor under the name Augustus.

Augustus was an intelligent and insightful man. He retained the republican order: the senate continued to hold its meetings, and the popular assembly elected consuls. Augustus called himself not "emperor", but only "first citizen", stating that it was his duty to resolve emerging disputes and help the republican apparatus operate. Augustus did not have a magnificent retinue; he walked around Rome alone, without guards, like a simple citizen; from time to time attended meetings of the Senate; Any Roman could turn to him. The republican salute in the form of a raised straightened arm was preserved as a form of greeting. In the presence of Augustus, there was no need to bow and demonstrate their devotion in every possible way - each visitor and emperor greeted each other like ordinary citizens.

Augustus tried to revive the ancient Roman virtues. He believed that Rome was ruined by luxury and the decay of morals, and therefore insisted on preserving, as we would now put it, family values. He sent the poet Ovid into exile, because he wrote that women who gave birth lose their beauty. He also criticized his contemporary historian Titus Livius for allegedly incorrectly describing some of the civil strife from the recent past of Rome, but agreed with him in praising Roman virtues, worthy behavior and devotion to the state. True, one of key features he never managed to revive the ancient era. Under the leadership of Augustus, Rome became a stable and well-governed state, but its citizens no longer took up arms and became warriors, because now mercenaries served in the army.

Augustus became the first Roman emperor in 27 BC. e.

For two centuries, the relatively peaceful period of the existence of the Roman Empire lasted, during which Roman laws and Roman orders were established over a vast territory. Formally, the state remained a republic: the emperors never became kings or kings, whose power was inherited. The emperor chose his successor, who might not be his relative, and this choice had to be approved by the senate. Subsequently, bloody wars broke out between the contenders for this title, but for two centuries the emperors made a reasonable choice, which received the approval of the majority.

In the III century, the first wave of Germanic invasions swept, which almost destroyed the empire. After the invasion was repulsed, two emperors, Diocletian and Constantine, carried out extensive transformations in the empire. In short, the defenses were strengthened and the army was reformed, in which Germans who lived within the borders of the empire began to be accepted. To maintain a large army, taxes had to be raised, and to collect taxes, it was necessary to conduct a more thorough population accounting. As a result, the bureaucratic apparatus grew, and officials became the real rulers of the empire. In the old days, individual provinces were allowed to independently manage their own affairs. internal affairs as long as they paid taxes to the central treasury and did not oppose the central government.

Diocletian attempted to contain inflation by imposing the death penalty on price increases. High taxes were imposed on the maintenance of a huge army, but merchants were not allowed to raise prices in order to somehow compensate for their expenses. As a result, no one wanted to do commercial activities, but Diocletian found his solution here too. He achieved the passage of a law according to which merchants were not allowed to leave their activities, and the son was obliged to continue the work of his father. Thus the power of the emperors became more and more cruel; they no longer simply controlled the implementation of laws, but imposed them on society. As a result of such a rule, society no longer had the spirit and desire to resist the next wave of barbarian invasion.

The official recognition of Christianity by Emperor Constantine in 313 was another step towards strengthening the empire. At the same time, he did not seek to rely on the church as an organization - by that time, although Christianity had grown stronger compared to the first centuries, it continued to be a minority religion. Constantine, like many of his subjects, was losing faith in the old Roman gods and came to believe that a Christian god would better protect him and his empire. At first, he had the vaguest idea of ​​Christianity, but he hoped that if he began to support the Christians, then their god would help him.

Diocletian, Constantine and subsequent emperors became very distant from the people. They began to imitate the Persian kings and pose as rulers with divine status; they lived in palaces and never walked the streets of the city, as did Augustus. Before meeting with the emperor, visitors were subjected to a strict search, they were blindfolded and led through a labyrinth of corridors so that no one could remember the way to the emperor’s chambers, and then sneak into the palace and kill him. When a person finally got to the emperor, he had to prostrate, that is, lie belly down on the floor in front of the throne.

As the central government became more and more strict, the subjects of the empire tried to free themselves from its oppression.

Landowners did not want to pay taxes themselves and fortified their estates, protecting the people who worked on their lands. Previously, slaves worked the land, but when the flow of slaves dried up, as Rome ceased to wage wars of conquest, the landowners divided their lands and leased them to slaves, freedmen and free people who sought patronage. And although the landowners did not like the tax policy of the emperors (and they tried in every possible way to evade paying taxes), they liked the laws that workers who cultivated the land should remain in their places. If the worker ran away, then he was put in chains and returned to the owner. So land workers of various origins formed a class of those who in the Middle Ages became known as serfs or villans (that is, dependent or serfs). Unlike slaves, they were not the property of the master; they owned their own plot of land and got married, but they had no right to leave their plot and had to work part of the time for their master.

By 476, which is considered the date of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, a medieval society had already taken shape on its territory. The fortified estates were inhabited by landowners, masters and defenders of people engaged in agriculture on their land. The whole way of life of Western European society has changed, and its basis was devotion to the owner, and not to the state, whether it be a republic or an empire. But the period of ancient Roman statehood remained for a long time in the memory of Europeans and had a great influence on the further development of society.

Ancient Greece has always amazed even the imagination of compatriots, not to mention the historians of our time. Their civilization, which originates from simple fishermen and herders, soon became one of the most powerful in the Ancient World. The Greeks were revered as outstanding (and extremely cunning) politicians, excellent sailors and warriors.

They also reached considerable heights in mechanics: some of their devices are not inferior in complexity to mechanical watches of the 19th century. The Greeks were aware of the energy of steam, they created the first prototypes of steam engines in the form of toys.

However, all these and many other achievements would not have been possible without a carefully adjusted social structure of the state, which could educate its citizens and protect them from enemies. Since the polis was the main "cog" of the ancient Greek civilization, this phenomenon should be discussed separately.

What is an ancient Greek polis?

In fact, a separate city was called a policy. But here an important clarification should be made: in those years, cities were often in fact separate states. The same Phoenician Empire was, in the modern sense of the word, a confederation formed by individual countries that could leave it at any time. In addition, the main part of the population of the policy was politically active: any free person considered it his duty to participate in the vote, in making important government decisions.

All this often resulted in fierce disputes and even fights right on the streets, which is why contemporaries considered the Greeks to be "wacky and noisy people." Thus, the policy should be considered a separate, special form of political and social organization. The territory of such a formation was limited not only by the city walls, but also by those lands that the main part of the population of the policy (that is, people who were on public service) could protect and cultivate.

How did city-states come about?

The policy is unique in that it arose at a turning point in ancient history, during the transition from the tribal and communal system to the first "proto-states". In those distant years, the stratification of society began: they preferred to become artisans and sell the results of their work, rather than give away the benefits they created for nothing. Merchants appeared who knew how to sell handicrafts to other tribes, a “caste” of warriors who defended those same merchants and the general well-being of all members of this “forerunner of the state” became rigidly isolated.

In general, almost all city-states of Ancient Greece had a good army, and therefore, if necessary, they could stand up for themselves.

Of course, all these people preferred not to live in a bare field. Large cities began to emerge and develop rapidly. Due to the fact that artisans and landowners, merchants and warriors, scientists and politicians lived within their walls, they were completely self-sufficient. This is how policies came into existence.

But what was social structure such amazing (by modern standards) "cities"? Oddly enough, but the bulk of the population of the Greek-style policy was represented by free people, citizens. They participated both in the production of everything necessary (cattle breeders, farmers, artisans), and in the protection of their land. The military class defended settlements from not too dangerous threats, while at the time of enemy raids, all its inhabitants came out to protect the walls of the policy.

The peculiarity of the republican form of government in the cities of Magna Graecia

Introduction

Chapter 1. Athenian Democracy

1.1. State system of the Republic of Athens

1.2.Executive power in Athens

1.3 Law and court of Athenian democracy

1.4. Forms of government; political regime

1.5 Solon's reforms

Chapter 2. Spartan oligarchy

1.1 State structure.

1.2. The laws of Lycurgus and the formation of the oligarchy

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction.

The problem of the originality of the forms of government in Ancient Greece, the struggle between oligarchic and democratic principles becomes especially relevant in the age of social contrasts and upheavals experienced not so long ago by the world and our country in the 20th century. It should be taken into account that the struggle of different tendencies of social life in the era of antiquity had a certain specificity.

Due to this circumstance, it would be quite interesting to see how the features of democracy, oligarchy were laid in the bowels of the city-states of Ancient Greece, how this can be associated with their peculiar forms of government - the republican type.

For example, we should take two policies - Athens and Sparta, because. they represented different levels and forms of social relations. Having common roots of development - the confrontation between communal (clan) and private land ownership - they eventually went along different vectors of development. These vectors were determined by land relations. How?

A special civilization is being formed in Greece. Civilization is writing, monumental architecture and statehood. The community is civilization. The principle of dividing communities into types: property relations in the community. Community types:

A. Tribal (blood relations, communal property);

B. Territorial (the principle is not consanguineous, but territorial);

C. Civil (stratification, the community includes only those who have civil rights and property).

As a result, the following communities are formed:

Athens is a democracy;

Sparta is an oligarchy;

The differences are in the principle of ownership and attitude to the land. As part of community property private appears (except Sparta)

The nobility is interested in the preservation of communal property (tribal), and ordinary community members are interested in the emergence of private property. Hence the struggle between oligarchic and democratic principles.

This process can be illustrated in the following table:

Now let's see how it looked in individual policies.

Chapter 1.

Athenian democracy.

State system of the Republic of Athens

Athens, along with the state of the Spartans, is the most famous and at the same time the most revered ancient city-state. At the time of its heyday, relating to the reign of Pericles, Athens is perceived as a model of democracy, and the beginning of this transformation was laid by the political reforms of Solon.

In the history of Greece in the 5th century. BC. called the classical period. This was the heyday of Athenian democracy.

5th century BC opened with the Greco-Persian wars, which were of great historical significance. The Greek political system and the Greek army brilliantly justified themselves in these wars.

At the end of the Persian Wars, there are two political movements in Athens:

democratic;

oligarchic.

Democratic movement (it was attended by: prosperous demos, artisans, peasants).

They aspired to a state system in which the supreme power would belong to the overwhelming majority of citizens, organized in a popular assembly.

Oligarchic movement (participated in it: the landed aristocracy, large slave owners).

They strove for such a state order in which the completeness civil rights and the actual possibility of active participation in the government of the state would be provided only to the richest part of the citizens.

The struggle between the two movements ended in the end with the victory of democracy.

Executive branch in Athens

Among the executive authorities in Athens there were two colleges: strategists and archons.

The main functions of the college of strategists are the supreme leadership and command of all the armed forces of the Athenian state. According to Athenian laws, all ten strategists enjoyed the same rights and had the same duties. In practice, an unwritten custom was established that one of the strategists occupied the first place not only in the college of strategists itself, but throughout the state.

Sale and rental of villas in the secondary market, work with commercial real estate, apartment for a day. Catalog of real estate objects, database of houses.

Law and Judgment in Athenian Democracy

Judicial functions belonged to the National Assembly, the Areopagus, and several other judicial boards created for certain categories of cases. Unintentional murders were dealt with by the court of efetes; robbery, theft, other property crimes - a collegium of eleven; civil non-property disputes - the Diet Arbitration Court and the Collegium of Forty. During the reign of Pericles, courts were established in houses. The National Assembly was in charge of investigating especially grave crimes. The archon-basileus dealt with premeditated murders.

Historically, the first court was the court of the basileus of the tribal leader, who had power over the life and property of fellow tribesmen.

From 527 to 560 BC. in Athens, Pisistratus ruled - there was a kind of dictatorship, under which, however, democratic institutions were not completely discarded. It was at this time that the construction of the navy, city fortifications began in Athens, and a socially oriented policy of employment was being pursued.

Law in Ancient Greece, as in other regions of the ancient world, was closely linked with justice, but this justice correlated with the democratic demand for equality in the enjoyment of political rights. All free citizens were considered equal in defending their rights with the help of a lawsuit, but for a meteq (foreigner) or a freed slave (freedman), the prostate (patron) acted as a defender. In all codes, the size and nature of punishments are precisely determined so that the judge cannot impose punishment at his own discretion. Concessions to the remnants of the tradition of revenge by blood (blood feud) were also noticeable. In the first written legislation of Athens in the reign of Draco (621 BC), grave and light crimes were not distinguished (this distinction was introduced by Solon).

In the IV century. BC. Athens falls under the rule of Macedonia, and in the II century BC. become one of the provinces of Rome, thus the republic ceases to exist.

Form of government, political regime

The state apparatus of the Athenian democracy consisted of the following authorities:

the people's assembly;

Council of Five Hundred;

board of strategists;

colleges of archites.

National Assembly (ekklesia). It was the main and decisive body. All full-fledged Athenian citizens (men) who had reached the age of twenty had the right to participate in the national assembly, regardless of their property status and occupation. At the People's Assembly, laws were passed, issues of war and peace were decided, officials were elected, reports of the masters were heard at the end of their terms of office, matters related to the food supply of the city were decided, the state budget was discussed and approved, and control was exercised over the education of young men. The competence of the people's assembly included such an extraordinary event as ostracism. Of particular importance were the rights of the people's assembly to protect the fundamental laws. The institution of "complaints against illegality" - protected the inviolability of the fundamental laws from attempts to change or restrict them to the detriment of the rights of the people through legislative acts. The right of every Athenian citizen to file "complaints against illegality" became the true, basic pillar of the Athenian democratic constitution.

The ekklesia met quite often. Usually, each pritaniya convened 4 people's meetings every 8-9 days. The chairman of the people's assembly was the chairman of the tributaries.

At the end of the fifth century, a fee for attending public meetings was introduced: at the beginning in the amount of an obol, and then three obols. This made it possible to participate in the meetings of the broad masses of the people.

Next to the people's assembly was the Council of Five Hundred (bule). The council, being one of the important state institutions of Athenian democracy, did not replace the popular assembly, but was its working body. The Council of Five Hundred was elected by lot from among full-fledged citizens who had reached the age of thirty, 50 people from each of their 10 fils. Representatives of all categories of the population could enter the Council of Five Hundred.

The competence of the Council is quite extensive. The pritanes held popular assemblies, with one of them presiding. The council prepared and discussed all the cases that were submitted for discussion and decision by the people's assembly. He drew up a preliminary opinion to be submitted to the people's assembly, the people could not make a decision on the issue on the issue, if the preliminary conclusion of the Council did not take place on this.

In addition, the Council monitored the implementation of resolutions of the people's assemblies, controlled the activities of all officials, heard the reports of many officials. An important function of the Council was to organize the construction of the fleet.

Introduction

A new higher level of ancient civilization with its inherent state-legal organization of human life is associated with the development of ancient society, which was formed in the south of Europe in the Mediterranean basin. The ancient civilization reaches its apogee and greatest dynamism in the 1st millennium BC. - at the beginning of I AD it was to this time that the impressive successes of the Greeks in all areas belong human activity, including political and legal.

The history of Ancient Greece is divided into five periods: Achaean (XX-XII centuries BC); Homeric, or "Dark Ages" (XI-IX centuries BC); archaic (VIII-VI centuries BC); classical (V-IV centuries BC); Hellenistic (III-II centuries BC).

Little is known about the early history of Ancient Greece, therefore, in this paper, those signs of statehood that took place in the above periods will be considered, with the greatest attention being paid to the classical and Hellenistic periods as the most productive in terms of the development of institutions of state and law.

The purpose of this work is to consider the features of the state and legal development of Ancient Greece on the basis of the study and analysis of scientific literature on the history, history and theory of state and law.

To achieve this goal, you need to solve the following tasks:

- to consider the features of the state mechanism in Ancient Greece;

– identify the main powers of the authorities state power in Ancient Greece;

- to analyze the features of the political and legal regime and the administrative-territorial structure;

– to consider the main reforms in the field government controlled and legislation.

When writing this work, such general scientific methods of cognition as the historical-materialistic, system-structural, method comparative analysis and some specific methods such as formal-pragmatic and formal-dogmatic.

1. State mechanism in Ancient Greece

The creation of the first proto-states, and then larger state formations in the south of the Balkan Peninsula and on the islands of the Aegean Sea in the III-II millennium BC. was the result of the conquest by the Achaean Greeks of the autochthonous population of this region (Pelasgians, Minoans). In the Achaean period, as a result of constant wars, individual Achaean communities rise to subjugate neighboring settlements, and within them - the concentration of political power and material resources in the hands of the leader and his family. From a country of fortified villages, Greece is turning into a country of powerful fortresses dominating the countryside. Proto-states arise, Achaean kingdoms, among which Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Athens, Thebes and Iolk stand out. Each Achaean kingdom was an association of separate rural communities (damos) into one macro-community-state.

Continuous wars led, on the one hand, to the depletion and destruction of the human and material resources of Achaean Greece, and on the other, to the enrichment of its ruling elite. The alienation of rural damos from the state is deepening, which is increasingly becoming an instrument of the king's personal power. Ultimately, mighty citadels find themselves surrounded by a hostile rural world, economically backward and socially undifferentiated.

I would like to note that natural conditions influenced the organization of state power in Greece. The mountain ranges and bays that cut through the sea coast, where a significant part of the Greeks lived, turned out to be a significant obstacle to the political unification of the country and, all the more, made centralized government unnecessary and impossible. Thus, the natural barriers themselves predetermined the emergence of numerous, relatively small in size and rather isolated from each other city-states - policies.

The polis stage of the history of Ancient Greece, depending on the degree of socio-economic, political and cultural development, is divided into three periods:

1. The Homeric period, or the Dark Ages, or the prepolis period (XI-IX centuries BC), - tribal relations in Greece.

2. Archaic period (VIII-VI centuries BC) - the formation of a polis society and state. Settlement of the Greeks along the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas (Great Greek colonization).

3. The classical period of Greek history (V-IV centuries BC) - the heyday of ancient Greek civilization. The Greek policy as a sovereign small state with its specific socio-economic and political structure, which ensured the rapid development of production, the formation of civil society, republican political forms and a remarkable culture, exhausted its potential and in the middle of the 4th century. BC. entered a period of protracted crisis.

The Homeric period occupies a special place in Greek history. The socially differentiated society and state that already existed in Greece during the heyday of the Mycenaean civilization are now emerging here again, but on a different scale and forms. The centralized bureaucratic state of the Mycenaean era was replaced by a small self-governing community of free farmers. Over time, the first city-states, or policies, grew out of such communities. The so-called Dorian conquest set Greece back several centuries. Throughout Greece, the primitive communal system was again established for a long time.

Associations of clans - the so-called phyla and phratries - form the basis of the entire political and military organization of the community. According to the phyla and phratries, a community militia is built during a campaign or battle. According to the phyla and phratries, the people converge to a meeting when it is necessary to discuss some important question. A person who did not belong to any phratry stands outside society, he is not protected by law.

The formation of the polis system is the content of the process of historical development of ancient Greece in the archaic period of the 8th-6th centuries. BC. The elimination of tribal and the formation of class relations in Greece in the 8th-6th centuries. BC. happened gradually, in two stages.

The first stage (VIII - the first half of the 7th century BC) is characterized by the existence of strong remnants of the tribal system and the dominance of the tribal nobility. From the middle of the 7th century BC. a new, second stage begins social stratification Greek society. Complication social structure, the formation of social strata with different, conflicting interests gave rise to tension in society, which in a number of policies developed into bloody clashes, led to murders, exile, and confiscation of property.

Of great importance in the political development of Greece in the 7th-6th centuries. BC. the ousting of the tribal nobility from power in a number of Greek policies and strengthening the position of the trade and craft elite had the activity of the so-called tyrants. Tyrants were called persons, as a rule, of rather noble origin, who forcibly seized power in various policies, subordinated the existing government bodies to their influence (in particular, the aristocratic council of elders and traditional magistracies).

First of all, in the second half of the 7th century. BC. tyranny was established in the cities of Corinth, Megara and Sicyon. In the VI century. BC. tyrannical regimes were established in Miletus, Athens, on the island of Samo and other islands of the Aegean Sea, in a number of policies in southern Italy and Sipilia. The tyrants who seized power generally pursued a policy directed against the domination of the old tribal aristocracy. They not only removed many noble families from power, but also confiscated their property and lands, expelled them from the policy, and freed persons dependent on them. The tyrants supported trade and craft circles and small farmers, encouraging crafts and trade, built merchant ships and improved ports, minted coins and provided security. trade routes.

However, tyranny in Greece was a short-lived phenomenon. While the tyrants fought against the domination of the tribal nobility, carried out reforms in favor of the general population, contributed to the economic prosperity of the policies, their regime found supporters. But soon the rule of the tyrants began to take on a despotic character, giving rise to violence and abuse both by the tyrants themselves and by their entourage. The population ceased to support them, and the tyrants were expelled or died in the struggle. By the end of the VI century. BC. tyranny as a form of state government has become obsolete and was destroyed in almost all Greek cities. In general, tyranny played an important role in the fight against the dominance of the conservative tribal nobility, it cleared the way for the establishment of the polis system, prepared the conditions for strengthening the trade and craft strata and increasing their role in society and government.

According to its political structure, structure government agencies Greek policies of the 5th-4th centuries. BC. divided into two main types: policies with a democratic system and policies with oligarchic rule. The presence of a democratic or oligarchic system in certain policies was not an accident, a temporary confluence of circumstances, but, as a rule, reflected significant differences in the socio-economic relations that developed within these policies. Policies with a high level of economy, intensive agriculture, developed handicrafts and active trade gravitated towards democratic forms of government. The democratic system, as it were, crowned an intensive economy, a dynamic social structure of trade and craft policies.

The oligarchy, on the contrary, in most cases formalized in the political field a conservative agrarian economy, archaic public relations.

By the VI-V centuries. two of the largest and militarily strong city-states, Athens and Sparta, come to the fore among hundreds of ancient Greek policies. Under the sign of the antagonism of these two policies (the democratic system was formed in Athens, and the oligarchy in Sparta), the entire subsequent history of the statehood of Ancient Greece unfolded.

So, the Greek civilization grew up on the basis of the decomposition of tribal relations through property and social differentiation, the formation of different roles in production social groups through the creation of public authorities that expressed the interests of the ruling class. The early class society and primitive statehood that emerged from tribal relations developed through monarchical states with a bureaucratic apparatus and a narrow layer of aristocracy associated with the court of the monarch, the creation of centralized state farms, processed by slaves, and cruel non-economic exploitation of the vast majority of the population organized in tribal communities. However, these primitive monarchies, with their bureaucracy and aristocracy, had little to do with the organization of production, were mostly parasitic strata and were doomed to perish. Subsequently, a new cell arose in Greece - the Greek polis, which turned out to be a stable form of historical existence, since it created a favorable environment for the formation of a dynamic economy, a complex social structure, progressive state forms and high culture.

bit Bellerophon

Roman Voynich

Insect

Diptera insect

Spring rye

The pool, the abyss [Dal]

A novel by E. L. Voynich (1897)

. "Cowsucker" by Ethel Voynich

. "Insect" by Ethel Voynich

Arthur in Voynich

Arthur from Voynich

The hero of the novel Voynich

Diptera

Diptera insect whose larvae paralyze on the body of animals

Gastric or equine

Bitten a cow

Nickname Arthur (Voynich)

Voynich's nickname for Arthur

Horse Bloodsucker Ethel Voynich

horse bloodsucker

horsefly

bitten the cow

Bloodsucker Ethel Lilian Voynich

Bloodsucker in heat

Bloodsucker pestering a cow in summer

biting insect

Biting insect by the river

Summer bloodsucker

horse fly

Horse "mosquito"

M. fly Oestris in (a) day; deer gadfly, tarandus. They call and indifferently a gadfly every fly that is greedy for livestock; but the gadfly, string, but (bud), water, hairy, smaller and blacker than a horsefly, does not bite, but lays testicles in the wool or in the ulcers of animals. The horse itself licks the testicles from the shoulders and neck, the caterpillars are born, grow in the food passage, and fall out on time, turning into larvae, from which the gadfly flies again. Horsefly is a simpleton, and a gadfly is a sly one. Gadfly, gadfly eggs. Gardening summer. Watery forest, swamp. Gadfly time, heat, heat, when cattle are attacked by tongue, string, byzy, gorse. Even though it's warm, it's not cold. It's cold, it's not cool

M. vod zh. novg. hard. psk. spring rye. Abyss, abyss

The name of this creature comes from the Greek word meaning "pain", "torment", "torment"

We are bitten by a mosquito, and he bites cattle

Insect

Insect "bull scourge"

vampire insect

Nickname of Arthur Burton

Artwork Voynich

Roman Voynich

Roman Ethel Lilian Voynich

horsefly

Spring rye

Diptera stinging insect

And the "burning" insect, and the novel by E. Voynich

biting insect

Insect, enemy of cattle

This work begins with the words: "Arthur sat in the library of the theological seminary in Pisa and looked through a stack of handwritten sermons"

The epigraph to this anti-clerical book was the words of the Bible: "Leave what is up to you, Jesus of Nazarene"

In the old days, horses were rubbed with dope leaves, and who was thus scared away

. "sits on a sweaty horse ... sits" (last)

The Giant Insect That Was Chasing Poor Io

Insect, Diptera order

Buzzing cow scourge

Film with Kharitonov

Biting livestock tormentor

nasty insect

Biting herd tormentor

Vile molested cows

Fly, scourge of cattle

Star role of A. Kharitonov

cow scourge

biting fly

Bloodsucker pestering a cow in summer

And the "burning" insect, and the novel by E. Voynich

This work begins with the words: "Arthur sat in the library of the theological seminary in Pisa and looked through a stack of handwritten sermons"

The epigraph to this anticlerical book was the words of the Bible: “Leave what is up to you, Jesus of Nazareth”

The name of this creature comes from the Greek word meaning "pain", "torment", "torment"

In the old days, horses were rubbed with dope leaves, and who was scared away in this way?

. "sits on a sweaty horse ... sits" (last)

. cowsucker by Ethel Voynich

We are bitten by a mosquito, and he is cattle

Horse "mosquito"

We are bitten by a mosquito, and he is a cattle

Insect "bull scourge"

. "Insect" by Ethel Voynich