The Peisistratids, The Fall of the Tyranny

The Peisistratids, and the Fall of the Tyranny

It doth transpire from the primary sources that there exist conflicting accounts concerning whether Hippias or Hipparchus succeeded Peisistratus in the year 528/7 B.C., and respecting the overthrow of the tyranny.

One account doth commend the Alcmaeonidae for orchestrating the resistance to Hippias and for facilitating the fall of the tyranny in 511/0 B.C. Another account attributes the glory for terminating the tyranny to the 'Tyrannicides', Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who did assassinate Hipparchus at the festival of the Great Panathenaea in 514/3 B.C. The principal element in this latter version is the assertion that Hipparchus, and not Hippias, was the ruling tyrant. Furthermore, it doth conveniently disregard the matter that the tyranny persisted for a further three to four years under Hippias until his expulsion in 511/0 B.C.; the compiler of the Marmor Parium, a third-century inscription, doth even go so far as to date the assassination of Hipparchus to 511/0 B.C. This disagreement regarding the effective cessation of the tyranny – whether it be Hipparchus' assassination or Hippias' expulsion – and consequently, concerning the true 'heroes', doth likely reflect the propaganda of the dissenting political factions, particularly the second version, the objective whereof appears to be the depreciation of the accomplishments of the Alcmaeonidae by accentuating the fame of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.

This second version did gain increasing acceptance in the fifth century B.C., to the extent that there were annual sacrifices to the Tyrannicides as heroes by the 'polemarch' on behalf of the state (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 58.1), and their descendants were maintained at public expense (IG I3 131). It was Thucydides' desire to rectify this (in his estimation) erroneous tradition that prompted him to compose a digression on the fall of the Peisistratidae (6.53–59), which bears little relation to the main theme of that volume; and the trenchant tone of his digression doth reveal his chagrin that the second version, likely stated by the esteemed Atthidographer, Hellanicus of Lesbos, had been generally embraced by the Athenians. He doth emphatically assert that Hippias was the eldest of all Peisistratus' sons, and thus his successor as tyrant (6.54.2), a viewpoint with which Herodotus concurs (5.55.1). Aristotle, conversely, was the first authority to proffer a compromise between the conflicting accounts by suggesting a joint rule by the sons, though even he doth concede that Hippias was the elder and effectively in charge of governing Athens (Ath. Pol. 18.2). However, there is ample reason to believe that the existence and widespread acceptance of these two divergent accounts were attributable to the Athenians' predilection to overlook one decidedly unpalatable truth: the lion's share of the commendation for the overthrow of the tyranny at Athens belonged to the Spartans.

Notwithstanding, there is accord amongst the three principal literary sources that the tyranny did become more oppressive following the murder of Hipparchus – vide Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 19, Herodotus 5.62.2, and Thucydides:

Thucydides 6.59.2

The most comprehensive account of the final years of the tyranny is furnished by Herodotus (5.62–65). Albeit in error with his assertion that the Alcmaeonidae had been in continuous exile throughout the tyranny of the Peisistratidae, he is correct that the focus of resistance to the tyranny was the Alcmaeonidae, who must have been exiled anew at some juncture after Cleisthenes' archonship in 525/4 B.C. Philochorus, a third-century Atthidographer, doth state that they were exiled by the sons and not by Peisistratus himself (FGrH 3B 328 F115), and the ruthlessness of Hippias' rule, together with the fearful distrust of his veritable or imagined enemies following his brother's assassination, may well have furnished the political context for their exile.

The Alcmaeonidae and other exiled families, possibly in 513 B.C., did endeavour to liberate Athens from tyranny by force; they seized a fort at Leipsydrion in north Attica, but were soundly defeated by Hippias. Consequently, they resolved to secure the support of the Spartans, which they accomplished with the aid of the Delphic oracle. Having undertaken the contract to rebuild the temple at Delphi, which had been consumed by fire in 548/7 B.C., they did earn the goodwill of the oracle by employing marble on its facade, rather than the limestone as stipulated in the contract. As a result, every Spartan consultation of the oracle was met with the priestess's command to liberate Athens. The first attempt by the Spartans under Anchimolios in 512/1 B.C. ended in failure owing to the superiority of the Thessalian cavalry, which had been summoned by Hippias pursuant to their alliance. Finally, the Spartans dispatched a larger force under King Cleomenes, which on this occasion defeated the Thessalian cavalry and besieged Hippias and his adherents within the Acropolis. The siege was brought to a conclusion by the capture of the Peisistratidae's sons, as they attempted to escape to safety; in exchange for the safe return of the children, Hippias did consent to depart Athens within five days. Thus did end the Peisistratid tyranny at Athens, albeit it would not be the last occasion that either Hippias or Cleomenes set foot upon Attic soil.