What do you think?
Rate this book
Athens: A History of the World's First Democracy
A history of the world’s first democracy from its beginnings in Athens circa fifth century B.C. to its downfall 200 years later
The first democracy, established in ancient Greece more than 2,500 years ago, has served as the foundation for every democratic system of government instituted down the centuries. In this lively history, author Thomas N. Mitchell tells the full and remarkable story of how a radical new political order was born out of the revolutionary movements that swept through the Greek world in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., how it took firm hold and evolved over the next two hundred years, and how it was eventually undone by the invading Macedonian conquerors, a superior military power.
Mitchell’s superb history addresses the most crucial issues surrounding this first paradigm of democratic governance, including what initially inspired the political beliefs underpinning it, the ways the system succeeded and failed, how it enabled both an empire and a cultural revolution that transformed the world of arts and philosophy, and the nature of the Achilles heel that hastened the demise of Athenian democracy.
The first democracy, established in ancient Greece more than 2,500 years ago, has served as the foundation for every democratic system of government instituted down the centuries. In this lively history, author Thomas N. Mitchell tells the full and remarkable story of how a radical new political order was born out of the revolutionary movements that swept through the Greek world in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., how it took firm hold and evolved over the next two hundred years, and how it was eventually undone by the invading Macedonian conquerors, a superior military power.
Mitchell’s superb history addresses the most crucial issues surrounding this first paradigm of democratic governance, including what initially inspired the political beliefs underpinning it, the ways the system succeeded and failed, how it enabled both an empire and a cultural revolution that transformed the world of arts and philosophy, and the nature of the Achilles heel that hastened the demise of Athenian democracy.
368 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 2015
74 people are currently reading
309 people want to read
About the author
Thomas N. Mitchell
7 books2 followersThomas N. Mitchell is professor and former provost and president of Trinity College Dublin and chair of its School of Classics. He is a member of the Royal Irish Academy and the American Philosophical Society. He lives in Dublin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
December 24, 2019
As Thomas N Mitchell notes at the beginning of Democracy’s Beginning: The Athenian Story, democracy is fragile, and easily lost. Most countries in the world, even today, are not democratic in any real sense, and there are curbs on our own democracies.
Indeed if history teaches us one chilling lesson, it is that most political systems pass away eventually. Perhaps the future does not lie with democracy. But if it does not, then what will replace it? A return to authoritarian or totalitarian governance, or a new improved system that bestows even more freedom?
Mitchell draws a compelling picture here of one of the earliest democracies, and perhaps one of the freest and most successful democracies the world has known. This statement must be qualified in a number of ways. Women were not allowed to participate in political activities, and nor were slaves or immigrants.
In short, the remarkable Athenian democracy deprived over half its inhabitants of democratic rights. It was reasonably enlightened by the standards of its time in relation to all three groups, but nonetheless perhaps 3 in 5 people in Athens were second-class citizens. Of course our own society has not made much progress on immigrants, and we have some way to go towards ending sexism and slavery.
Athens was also notable for its chauvinistic attitude towards other nations. Athenians considered that it was fair game to repress the people of colonised countries or towns, because they were inferior to Athenians.
Some laws may seem strange today. Athenians had the right to ostracise citizens who they thought were too powerful. If a vote went against you, then you could be exiled from your home state for ten years. There were individual abuses of the law – generals who bore the brunt of military defeat and were executed, and – most notorious of all – the execution of the brilliant philosopher, Socrates.
I live in Britain, a state regarded as a democracy, and reading this book made me think about what lessons we can learn from both the longevity of the Athenian democracy and the reasons for its demise. Assuming we wish to hold onto a democracy. Is a democracy desirable? – another issue that needs to be considered.
However let us look at what made Athenian democracy so desirable, and what lessons we can learn. Firstly the democracy was very popular. Citizens were encouraged to vote on everything from magistrates to soldiers. They were fully involved in all aspects of life in Athens, and pride was instilled into the people.
Perhaps this was easier to achieve in a small state, but it is hard to imagine the British electorate feeling enthusiastic about that level of voting. They complain about three elections in five years. The current system has a rare referendum, and votes on national government, councils, mayors, regional assemblies, and (until recently) the European parliament, and yet there is always a high number of people who do not turn up to vote.
Is it that people do not like democracy? I don’t think so. We too have a pride in the idea and a commitment to it. Nonetheless there is not much enthusiasm for our democracy. Winston Churchill famously said that democracy was the worst form of government apart from all the others that had been tried from time to time. I imagine many would agree.
The majority of people vote, but unenthusiastically. Politicians are despised and distrusted, even by the people who vote for them. I imagine that most voters in this country are cheated by elections, whether they realise it or not – and many do realise it.
What is it about British democracy that differs from Ancient Greek democracy? Mitchell touches on some of these points in his conclusion. Firstly there is a political party system whereby individuals are mere units in a party machine without the ability to decide for themselves outside of a certain narrow range.
These parties are funded by big businesses and vested interests, who subvert democracy with their power. Of course wealthy people tended to dominate the Athenian democracy, but they were not bribing politicians. They were running for power.
Nowadays, wealthy people give money to political parties in order to evade high taxes. In Ancient Greece, taxation was a more voluntary system, in which the rich gave more taxes as a way of currying favour with the public.
Then there is the press, a cartel of newspapers promoting an agenda of their own, and bending public opinion to suit their own selfish wishes. Democracy is also profoundly unrepresentative. Referendums and general elections are decided by less than half of the population, leaving most people disenfranchised, and parliament totally dominated by parties who won less than 40% of the vote.
Such was not the case in Ancient Greece. Of course wealthier parties dominated politics as they always do, but there was no well-oiled machinery manipulating public opinion, and votes actually counted for something. This is a disturbing element for our democracy, as there is no reason to love it – only to fear the alternatives.
Still even Athenian democracy failed. What were the challenges that threatened it? And how do we relate to them? Athens was a profoundly chauvinistic nation, and these displays of extreme nationalism worked against it. The economy was boosted by colonialism opening up new markets. The country was perpetually in a state of war. Eventually it would be a clause in a peace treaty after an Athenian defeat that would end the democracy.
There are lessons here about being too insular and narrow-minded in our sense of national identity, about collaborating with our neighbours and not isolating ourselves economically and militarily, and avoiding foolish wars that might potentially destroy the country. Wars are less common in Europe, so perhaps we are prevented from some of these dangers, but our island mentality does not serve us well.
One reason Athens got drawn into military exploits is because the public often got influenced by demagogic public figures. Demagogues like stirring up hatred and conflict as a means of uniting the nation against them, and a demagogue generally has a tin ear for civil and political rights. We have seen in our own age that the public are in awe of ‘powerful’ but buffoonish figures who trade on hatred and bigotry as a means of garnering support.
Does this not demonstrate the limits of democracy, and the need for a better system? Such arguments are not new, and could be found in Athens itself. Plato and Aristotle were not lovers of democracy. They favoured a ‘mixed’ system, and felt that too many uneducated people of little insight were allowed to make decisions in a democracy.
Indeed that is probably the view that most people have held throughout history. For decades after the fall of democracy in Athens or ancient Rome, almost everyone was opposed to democracy, and it still has its critics today. Henrik Ibsen talked about how the majority is always wrong, and said that power should go to the academic elite.
It is fair to say that people’s commitment to democracy waxes and wanes, depending on how much they get their own way. When the vote goes in their favour, they are angry with anyone who calls foul and suddenly turn into the most committed of democrats according to that narrow victory. When the vote goes against their wishes, they are disillusioned with the electorate and feel that democracy does not work.
I am often disturbed by the illiberal tendency in the general public. They vote for individuals who wish to take the rights of others (and by extension) everyone away, and favour strong leaders who do not much care for consensus or seeking an honest solution. It often seems as if the biggest enemies of democracy are the electorate themselves.
An intellectual elite certainly sounds better than a moneyed elite, and it is easy to see why the idea is so bewitching to many. There are problems however. How does one decide who is privileged enough to count as learned enough to join the ruling cabinet? Also mere intellectual talent is not the same thing as political acumen.
I think we have to stick with democracy, but find better ways of educating people, of finding ways of freeing their minds from the corrupting influence of an over-powerful media and wealthy corporations bankrolling a party system.
Mitchell’s book is well-written and interesting. There are a few stylistic infelicities. He says ‘centred around’ a lot, an expression that irritates me. He is also a ‘But-man’. The word ‘but’ constantly appears in the book, often at the beginning of a sentence. At one point, he wrote two sentences in a row that began with ‘But’. However he outdid himself later by starting four paragraphs in a row with the offending word.
On the whole though, his style is clear and easy to read, which is the main requirement from a grammatical point of view. Mitchell’s enthusiasm for the Athenian system is clear, but he also recognises its limitations, and the philosophical implications of Athenian democracy.
Indeed if history teaches us one chilling lesson, it is that most political systems pass away eventually. Perhaps the future does not lie with democracy. But if it does not, then what will replace it? A return to authoritarian or totalitarian governance, or a new improved system that bestows even more freedom?
Mitchell draws a compelling picture here of one of the earliest democracies, and perhaps one of the freest and most successful democracies the world has known. This statement must be qualified in a number of ways. Women were not allowed to participate in political activities, and nor were slaves or immigrants.
In short, the remarkable Athenian democracy deprived over half its inhabitants of democratic rights. It was reasonably enlightened by the standards of its time in relation to all three groups, but nonetheless perhaps 3 in 5 people in Athens were second-class citizens. Of course our own society has not made much progress on immigrants, and we have some way to go towards ending sexism and slavery.
Athens was also notable for its chauvinistic attitude towards other nations. Athenians considered that it was fair game to repress the people of colonised countries or towns, because they were inferior to Athenians.
Some laws may seem strange today. Athenians had the right to ostracise citizens who they thought were too powerful. If a vote went against you, then you could be exiled from your home state for ten years. There were individual abuses of the law – generals who bore the brunt of military defeat and were executed, and – most notorious of all – the execution of the brilliant philosopher, Socrates.
I live in Britain, a state regarded as a democracy, and reading this book made me think about what lessons we can learn from both the longevity of the Athenian democracy and the reasons for its demise. Assuming we wish to hold onto a democracy. Is a democracy desirable? – another issue that needs to be considered.
However let us look at what made Athenian democracy so desirable, and what lessons we can learn. Firstly the democracy was very popular. Citizens were encouraged to vote on everything from magistrates to soldiers. They were fully involved in all aspects of life in Athens, and pride was instilled into the people.
Perhaps this was easier to achieve in a small state, but it is hard to imagine the British electorate feeling enthusiastic about that level of voting. They complain about three elections in five years. The current system has a rare referendum, and votes on national government, councils, mayors, regional assemblies, and (until recently) the European parliament, and yet there is always a high number of people who do not turn up to vote.
Is it that people do not like democracy? I don’t think so. We too have a pride in the idea and a commitment to it. Nonetheless there is not much enthusiasm for our democracy. Winston Churchill famously said that democracy was the worst form of government apart from all the others that had been tried from time to time. I imagine many would agree.
The majority of people vote, but unenthusiastically. Politicians are despised and distrusted, even by the people who vote for them. I imagine that most voters in this country are cheated by elections, whether they realise it or not – and many do realise it.
What is it about British democracy that differs from Ancient Greek democracy? Mitchell touches on some of these points in his conclusion. Firstly there is a political party system whereby individuals are mere units in a party machine without the ability to decide for themselves outside of a certain narrow range.
These parties are funded by big businesses and vested interests, who subvert democracy with their power. Of course wealthy people tended to dominate the Athenian democracy, but they were not bribing politicians. They were running for power.
Nowadays, wealthy people give money to political parties in order to evade high taxes. In Ancient Greece, taxation was a more voluntary system, in which the rich gave more taxes as a way of currying favour with the public.
Then there is the press, a cartel of newspapers promoting an agenda of their own, and bending public opinion to suit their own selfish wishes. Democracy is also profoundly unrepresentative. Referendums and general elections are decided by less than half of the population, leaving most people disenfranchised, and parliament totally dominated by parties who won less than 40% of the vote.
Such was not the case in Ancient Greece. Of course wealthier parties dominated politics as they always do, but there was no well-oiled machinery manipulating public opinion, and votes actually counted for something. This is a disturbing element for our democracy, as there is no reason to love it – only to fear the alternatives.
Still even Athenian democracy failed. What were the challenges that threatened it? And how do we relate to them? Athens was a profoundly chauvinistic nation, and these displays of extreme nationalism worked against it. The economy was boosted by colonialism opening up new markets. The country was perpetually in a state of war. Eventually it would be a clause in a peace treaty after an Athenian defeat that would end the democracy.
There are lessons here about being too insular and narrow-minded in our sense of national identity, about collaborating with our neighbours and not isolating ourselves economically and militarily, and avoiding foolish wars that might potentially destroy the country. Wars are less common in Europe, so perhaps we are prevented from some of these dangers, but our island mentality does not serve us well.
One reason Athens got drawn into military exploits is because the public often got influenced by demagogic public figures. Demagogues like stirring up hatred and conflict as a means of uniting the nation against them, and a demagogue generally has a tin ear for civil and political rights. We have seen in our own age that the public are in awe of ‘powerful’ but buffoonish figures who trade on hatred and bigotry as a means of garnering support.
Does this not demonstrate the limits of democracy, and the need for a better system? Such arguments are not new, and could be found in Athens itself. Plato and Aristotle were not lovers of democracy. They favoured a ‘mixed’ system, and felt that too many uneducated people of little insight were allowed to make decisions in a democracy.
Indeed that is probably the view that most people have held throughout history. For decades after the fall of democracy in Athens or ancient Rome, almost everyone was opposed to democracy, and it still has its critics today. Henrik Ibsen talked about how the majority is always wrong, and said that power should go to the academic elite.
It is fair to say that people’s commitment to democracy waxes and wanes, depending on how much they get their own way. When the vote goes in their favour, they are angry with anyone who calls foul and suddenly turn into the most committed of democrats according to that narrow victory. When the vote goes against their wishes, they are disillusioned with the electorate and feel that democracy does not work.
I am often disturbed by the illiberal tendency in the general public. They vote for individuals who wish to take the rights of others (and by extension) everyone away, and favour strong leaders who do not much care for consensus or seeking an honest solution. It often seems as if the biggest enemies of democracy are the electorate themselves.
An intellectual elite certainly sounds better than a moneyed elite, and it is easy to see why the idea is so bewitching to many. There are problems however. How does one decide who is privileged enough to count as learned enough to join the ruling cabinet? Also mere intellectual talent is not the same thing as political acumen.
I think we have to stick with democracy, but find better ways of educating people, of finding ways of freeing their minds from the corrupting influence of an over-powerful media and wealthy corporations bankrolling a party system.
Mitchell’s book is well-written and interesting. There are a few stylistic infelicities. He says ‘centred around’ a lot, an expression that irritates me. He is also a ‘But-man’. The word ‘but’ constantly appears in the book, often at the beginning of a sentence. At one point, he wrote two sentences in a row that began with ‘But’. However he outdid himself later by starting four paragraphs in a row with the offending word.
On the whole though, his style is clear and easy to read, which is the main requirement from a grammatical point of view. Mitchell’s enthusiasm for the Athenian system is clear, but he also recognises its limitations, and the philosophical implications of Athenian democracy.
August 30, 2022
A very substantial, concise and relevant guide for any acolyte of the classical texts. The bibliography is a reach source of precursors for any serious multidisciplinary study on Athens.
July 13, 2020
The idea of justice distinguished society from the brute animal world, he says of the Greeks, but I wondered if it wasn't at least mammalian when my cat expostulated against something as unfair. The Athenians 'understood and cherished the concept of nationalism' as had the Egyptians, the first nation state. 'The judgment of ordinary citizens in political affairs is as trustworthy as any other and collectively more likely to be right', as ours may be on Brexit. The principle was 'everyone should rule and be ruled in turn.' 'Slavery and unequal rights were social phenomena too embedded to allow' for anyone to conceive of any change. Public building by Pericles was designed to give Athens artistic eminence, a form of soft power, that Thucydides of Melesias said brought dishonour by diverting allied money from war against Persia. The Athenian allies lost freedom from external control and self-government under their own laws, a desideratum of any polis. Thucydides the historian probed information to extract lessons on human nature and behaviour. Aristocrats excelled more under democracy than they would in an oligarchy. Aristotle was against the poor controlling, as they did. We don’t, except in referenda and, like them, in holding the elected to account. The cause of war was Athens' bid for primacy and Peloponnesian fear of it. Athens ordered Potidaea to raze its walls, give hostages and stop having Corinthian magistrates. Its Council didn't make policy; the assembly did. Lower class Cleon, without aristocratic support, had to be populist, for the people against the elite. He used a new style while appealing to imperialism. The assembly decided both to execute Myteline men and then not to on grounds of expediency. Sophists argued laws too were an expedience. After Hyperbolus, ostracism wasn't used. The young nobles were behind the hubris of the Sicilian expedition but its failure was down to decisions of the demos. Socrates felt obliged to find out what Apollo meant, that there was none wiser, by questioning everybody, concluding the psyche was sole source of wisdom. His refusal to support the illegal proposal to try ten generals was met with shouts for his prosecution. The execution of the generals, after their victory at Arginusae, undermined further successful prosecution of the war and the Spartan victory, on Aegospotami, was total. Socrates was put to death because seen as Sophist teacher of Critias; he was anti-democratic himself. He was asking for it when choosing what would be suitable punishment, that he deserved free meals for life at the state’s expense, so he could go on with his work, seen as corrupting young nobles and what he’d been convicted for. After the defeat of Athens, Demosthenes lived under the constant threat of prosecution by the people. Aristotle thought the unlimited acquisition of wealth made for a social gulf destructive of harmony, as it does today. Extreme poverty unrelieved by the state caused civic dissension and crime, also as it would do or does today. A political career depended on having the leisure to pursue it and the surest way to success was to have oratorical skills. The failure of Athens to maintain primacy was down to the hold an imperialist impulse and propensity to war had on the Athenian psyche.
July 18, 2025
This is a detailed biography of the Athenian experience with direct democracy. It is a dense book, both physically and historically. The retelling of facts and opinions through three centuries consumes time and space. But if you get through it, the patterns emerge. It is an informative reconstruction. It feels a bit old-fashioned, sufficiently so that I briefly suspected that the publication date was somewhere in the 1960s. But it isn’t, this is quite recent historiography, published in 2019. However, the author was born in 1939 and started his academic career in the sixties.
Athenian democracy was grounded on a core set of principles that included the equality of (male) citizens before the law, the practice of systematically holding office holders to account, the active participation by all citizens (not only by voting but by encouraging them to take responsibility in one of the many rotating offices), and the careful parcelling out of power over different classes, social groups and regions. As Mitchell recounts it, there was nothing accidental about it; it was a carefully designed constitution that was repeatedly adjusted to ensure its optimal functioning. Despite very major setbacks, such as the defeat in the Peloponnesian war, it proved itself robust. It’s a convincing analysis.
Foreign policy was its weakness. If the system worked well in the “polis” of Athens because office holders were held accountable by the people, then it may have failed in the expanding Athenian empire because those holding power there were not accountable to the people they tried to rule. Again and again, Athenians abused their power, showed themselves too arrogant, too rash, too cruel. In the popular assembly, the “demos” proved jingoistic and vulnerable to populist rhetoric and conspiracy theories. A history of repeated failure did nothing to discourage them.
There are some points in Mitchell’s account that I find dubious. For example, he argues that nobody challenged the political and social structures that disenfranchised women and excluded them from public life. He manages to do so while making frequent references to the plays of Aristophanes — whose repeated takedown of exactly that social structure was comedy, of course, but makes it absurd to suggest that this did not reflect a living thought. (After all, this was a city named after a warrior goddess.)
Mitchell concludes with a profoundly pessimistic epilogue in which he laments the present state of democracy. I found it hard to read because it is so depressing. (The author is Irish, not American.)
Personally I think that if there is one lesson to be drawn from Athens, it is the importance of holding officials to account for what they did in office. Admittedly, this resulted in a number of politically motivated and unjust trials. But on the whole the boundaries of the law ensured that Athens was well served, even if many positions were filled by sortition. Those who are delegated power by the people should not be allowed extra leeway, they should be held to a higher standard.
Exactly as I type this, I am bus R42 from Brussels to the lovely Castle of Gaasbeek. The bus stop we are passing is called “Democracy”. No kidding. Is this an omen?
Athenian democracy was grounded on a core set of principles that included the equality of (male) citizens before the law, the practice of systematically holding office holders to account, the active participation by all citizens (not only by voting but by encouraging them to take responsibility in one of the many rotating offices), and the careful parcelling out of power over different classes, social groups and regions. As Mitchell recounts it, there was nothing accidental about it; it was a carefully designed constitution that was repeatedly adjusted to ensure its optimal functioning. Despite very major setbacks, such as the defeat in the Peloponnesian war, it proved itself robust. It’s a convincing analysis.
Foreign policy was its weakness. If the system worked well in the “polis” of Athens because office holders were held accountable by the people, then it may have failed in the expanding Athenian empire because those holding power there were not accountable to the people they tried to rule. Again and again, Athenians abused their power, showed themselves too arrogant, too rash, too cruel. In the popular assembly, the “demos” proved jingoistic and vulnerable to populist rhetoric and conspiracy theories. A history of repeated failure did nothing to discourage them.
There are some points in Mitchell’s account that I find dubious. For example, he argues that nobody challenged the political and social structures that disenfranchised women and excluded them from public life. He manages to do so while making frequent references to the plays of Aristophanes — whose repeated takedown of exactly that social structure was comedy, of course, but makes it absurd to suggest that this did not reflect a living thought. (After all, this was a city named after a warrior goddess.)
Mitchell concludes with a profoundly pessimistic epilogue in which he laments the present state of democracy. I found it hard to read because it is so depressing. (The author is Irish, not American.)
Personally I think that if there is one lesson to be drawn from Athens, it is the importance of holding officials to account for what they did in office. Admittedly, this resulted in a number of politically motivated and unjust trials. But on the whole the boundaries of the law ensured that Athens was well served, even if many positions were filled by sortition. Those who are delegated power by the people should not be allowed extra leeway, they should be held to a higher standard.
Exactly as I type this, I am bus R42 from Brussels to the lovely Castle of Gaasbeek. The bus stop we are passing is called “Democracy”. No kidding. Is this an omen?
May 30, 2021
A very nice, detailed examination of the origins and practice of Athenian democracy. Mitchell’s work includes insights about political philosophy, economics and demography. Cleisthenes, Aristides, Themistocles, Cimon, Pericles, Thucydides, Alcibiades, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes and Lycurgus are given comprehensive treatments, along with lesser-known figures like Ephialtes, Cleon, Cleophon, Thrasybulus, and Eubulus.
The book is largely sympathetic to Athenian democracy, but certainly acknowledges that the purity of Athens’ democracy may have led it to consistently make poor decisions in the sphere of foreign policy, as citizens were entranced by demagogues, populists and imperialists who advocated for war, first against the Spartans and then the Macedonians.
Indeed, one can’t help but be reminded of the United States when reading about the military adventures of classical Athens, with the pretext often being the export of democracy across the Hellenic world. That it was such a confident advocate for its own model is, however, testament to its domestic success and the social harmony brought about by its broad-based participatory and deliberative structures.
My only criticism is that the author could have described the political and democratic structures of Athens in more detail from the outset, before embarking on the rest of his narrative. This detail is provided in bursts as the book progresses, however, and overall the level of detail and argument is exemplary.
December 28, 2025
Every citizen of a democracy should be filled with pride when they read about the accomplishments of Athens. This is not a fairytale however-their “hybris” and sophistic imperialism serve as a warning for a more restrained and idealistic foreign policy grounded in morals. I recommend the author include diagrams and schematics to enhance the descriptions of the Athenian governmental structure.
December 1, 2019
Enjoyable book.
April 19, 2023
The writing style was very boring and the book could have been edited to make less boring.
February 25, 2024
Too repetitive
July 13, 2024
When it comes to discussing Athenian democracy, this guy Pnyx all the relevant topics to cover.
February 26, 2025
Good introduction to Athens and its political development and history. Don't expect anything more than that.
August 27, 2023
This book is a truly insightful analysis of Athenian democracy in the 5th and 4th centuries. Mitchell charts how and why democracy arose and traces the events of these two centuries to investigate both the strengths and the flaws in the Athenian model. In the end, he finds he needs to spend most of his energy explaining the features which made democracy in Athens so robust and long-lived, given all the challenges it faced. He does not look at Athens through rose tinted glasses, but truly examines the flaws in Athenian democracy and their consequences as well. The book ends with an analysis of the potential lessons we could learn today from the Athenians and once again, this is an insightful analysis, not idealistic dreaming.
It is extremely well written and the arguments are easy to follow even if you are not already familiar with he history of Athens or concepts of democracy.
It is extremely well written and the arguments are easy to follow even if you are not already familiar with he history of Athens or concepts of democracy.
July 22, 2023
A solid overview of Ancient Athenian Democracy coupled with philosophical rigor, and features modern political philosophy. Has a Liberal Democratic bias to it, seems also American-centric. But overall, it's a good read.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews