I will be adding the comments this morning, Sunday, but thought it best to get the report posted earlier. Check back around noon.

TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, ONE NEEDS TO DEFINE THE CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING A TYRANNY. CONSIDER LEGITIMACY / USE OF FORCE; AND IN WHOSE INTEREST THE DOMINANT POWER RULING?

ALSO: THE LEAGUE DID BEGIN WITH CONSENSUS OF THE FIGHTING STATES (JUST AS MANY TYRANTS DID IN THE CITIES; THE TRANSITION WAS SLOW, BUT LEGITIMACY AFTER 450 AND THE PEACE OF CALLIAS WAS INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO CLAIM.

REVOLTS LED TO EVER MORE INTIMIDATION, AND AT THE SAME TIME, READINESS TO USE THE INCOME OF THE LEAGUE TO SUPPORT PUBLIC PROJECTS AT ATHENS.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Group : Amy H., Rachel R., Natalie S., Steven P.

To say that Athens was a tyrant state would be to say that they controlled their subjects with force and imposed their own forms of government on the respecting city-states and the evidence to support this claim is ample. Through fear of the return of the Persians, the Athenians started the Delian league in 478 out of fear of a third invasion BY FORCE OR CONSENSUS? and because they were in control of the treasury the city's wealth increased CAREFUL THIS WOULD ONLY BE TRUE AFTER THE PEACE OF KALLIAS WHEN WAR WITH PERSIA ENDED. They became a tyrant state because they did not allow other members of their union to secede. Aristotle said, "seizing empire, they treated their allies more like subjects." The allies were taxed to pay for public services in Athens, supporting poorer citizens and allowing more to participate in the Athenian government. This is a form of Classical Imperialism in which the power (with materials and resources) of a nation is relative to the power of another nation - Athens was simply more powerful than the other city-states in the Delian league? The Greek city-states in the Aegaean sought to protect themselves from outside control, and Athens was able to provide this protection through naval strength.

Out of the 900 city-states in the Delian League, only three maintained their autonomy and still provided ships and rowers after 460. All the remaining 897 contributed through taxes rather than the goods and men themselves. This phoros was considered a contribution and continued to be considered as such even after Athens began collecting it by force. Through this sacrifice, those 897 lost their autonomy and their constitutions, while Athens maintained complete control over them.

Once Athens was given this great power through money and resources, what was once consensual NOT ESTABLISHED became forced. With power in its hands, Athens transformed from league to empire with great ease.

Group : Armand, Brandon, Josh W, Lindsay

To state that Athens was a tyrant state would assert that it ruled its own people, and others, solely in its own interest. There is evidence both to support and refute this claim. LEGITIMACY / RULE BY FORCE RATHER THAN CONSENSUS?

Eviidence for Athens acting as a tyrant can be found in the Delian League. While the group originally served the purpose of pushing the Perisans out of the Aegean and securing the sea for trade, the legitimacy of the league's purpose came into question when peace was established with the Callias treaty between Persia and Greece, yet Athens continued to exploit the benefits of taxation from its neighbors in order to better itself. As Plutarch stated, "Greece was seen suffering a grievous insult to be ruled by an open tyranny as it watched the Athenians gilding their polis with monies that it (the allies) had been compelled to contribute for war..." Additionally, evidence for Athens acting tyrannically can be seen in the map illustrating revolts across Greece against Athens. The widespread nature of these revolts illustrates, at the very least, general discontent with the political system of the time. Other evidence for Athenian tyranny lies in the "phoros," or monetary contribution. The phoros did not provide the contributer with any benefits of voting on how the funds would be used. Athens furthered this act by moving the treasury from Delos to Athens in 450 BC.

However, there is also evidence that Athens was not acting tyrannically. For example, although it demanded a phoros from other Greek states, these states were, in theory at least, offered protection from piracy for trade. In addition, the massive amount of revolts did not necessarily signify widespread discontent with Athens. They could have, in fact, signified discontent with local oligarchies rather than the system of tribute. GOOD

The allies of Athens were unable to prevent the transformation from league to empire because initially, after the Battle of Salamis, Greek states would have looked up to Athens as a natural leader. In the midst of war against Persia, Greek states had been willing to unify against a common enemy, but when the war came to an end, the majority of Greek states had the power or resources to contest Athenian hegemony.
VERY GOOD ON MOST POINTS BUT MISSING THE TRANSITION FROM LEADERSHIP BY CONSENT TO TYRANNY AND RULE BY FORCE.

Group : Ava G, Cameron B, Drue E, Markie M

To say that Athens was a tyrannical state is to say that they 1) lacked legitimacy and 2) taxed foreign entities for personal gain, AND USED THOSE TAXES FOR.. Through consensus, the Greeks formed the Delian League GOOD BUT EXPLAIN. Taxes collected from League members were given to Athens, and in return Athens built and manned ships in their mutual defense. Athens was not the only Greek polis to build ships, as Chios, Lesbos, and Samos also contributed to ship building. Notably, as Athens later began systematically undermining their allies autonomy, these ship-building states were treated better than the rest.

After the war with the Persians ended, many questioned whether paying taxes to the Athenians was still necessary and/or justified. The polis that questioned Athens legitimacy were still forced to pay taxes, as the Athenians sent military/naval fleets for collection. These taxes, once justified for the defense of all Greeks, were also used for the benefit of Athenians, to the exclusion of other Greeks. One example provided in lecture were the subsidized festivities that enabled poor Athenians to participate in state entertainment functions; taxes were also used in the creation of state jobs and for citizen clothing. Athens also restricted currency exchange to Athenian coinage, on threat of "penal retribution" - in 450 BC the League's treasury moved from Delos to Athens, further centralizing the money and power within Athens. GOOD

However, the question of whether Athens was truly a tyrannical power is somewhat ambiguous. As another student pointed out, even though the war with the Persians had come to an end, given the length of the war (100 Years), a return to violence seems plausible. The relative peace brought about through Athens military power ensured trade to flourish, and many other Greek states to flourish.

The first element that needs be examined is the question of what an Athenian tyranny actually is. The term tyranny is now used more often to describe authoritarian governments and is generally applied by the west onto governments with which it has moral differences.

In Greece, the term tyrant/tyranny is used to describe instead the way in which an individual or a group takes/exercises power. The issue for the Greeks is one of legitimacy--that is, was the power taken contrary to custom, and is the government ruling in the interests of the ruled or in their own? VERY WELL PUT

The beginning of the "Athenian tyranny" was the formation of the Delian league, and in this respect Athens was given power legitimately. The other members of the league contributed money to the league willingly and consented to Athens' greater share of leadership. During the conflicts with Persia, the Delian League's agenda was anti-Persian, which supported the interests of all Greece. After 448, however, the Athenians moved the treasury of the League to Athens but continued to demand contributions even though the wars were over. Moreover, Athens began to use those funds for Athenian improvements. NOTE THAT THE WAR WITH PERSIA ENDED; HOW MIGHT THAT AFFECT LEGITIMACY OF THE LEAGUE?

For those states which contributed ships and men to the Delian league (Chios, Lesbos, and Samos), they retained some modicum of influence over Athenian policy. Most city-states, however, had too few resources to contribute anything other than money, and when the Athenians stopped acting in those small states' interests, many attempted to leave the Delian League. The Athenians intimidated and occasionally used force to compel continued contributions from those states. The oaths Athens asked its allies to swear, and the fact that Athens refused to let states mint their own coin suggest an abnormal amount of control with regard to individual state affairs. EVIDENCE OF REVOLTS...THE MAP??

The fact that Athens acted so frequently in its self-interests, and the way that Athens manipulated, even crushed, dissenting opinions, seem to suggest that Athens was a tyranny, ruling solely in its own interests. SLOCIN

A tyrant state is defined as a regime that gains power by illegitimate means i.e. not by election or monarchic succession. It is also defined by Aristotle as a regime that rules its own people or others in its own interest. Keeping this in mind, many have claimed Athens' appropriation of the Delian League to be a tyranical or imperial move. AN EXCELLENT START

The Delian League began as a coalition of Greek city-states in opposition to the Persian military threat. It was put into action to defend against the Persian Empire with each state giving either military support in the form of men and ships or by giving monetary support. ARE YOU SUGGESTING CONSENSUS AND LEGITIMACY?? When peace with Persia became a reality with the Treaty of Calias in 448 BCE, Athens gained control and moved the Treasury from Delos to Athens. Evidence for the claim that Athens became a tyrant state can be found in the use of taxes from the city-states for Athens own interest rather than the interest of the other states. According to Aristotle, Pericles used the money from the taxation of the League to fund state service in Athens. The money from the League also went to the funding of the Periclean building and sculptural program at the Athenian Acropolis.

Another aspect of the taxation that is evidence for the claim of tyranny is the fact that those who were taxed could not vote within the League. However, the members of the League had a choice in terms of support. They could give ships and military support and keep their "own constitution and rule over any subjects they happened to have," (Aristotle). They also had a vote within the League, for example Chios, Lesbos, and Samos. In the over 900 city-states in the League, only these three continued to give military support and remain autonomous, while the remaining states lost their vote and contributed monetary support. As evidenced by the map outlining revolts, many city-states attempted to leave League membership, but were ultimately unsuccessful as they could not organize together nor did they have the resources to fight the massive naval fleet of Athens. GOOD, BUT THE REVOLTS MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN DUE TO STATIS IN THE CITIES.

Although much of this can be taken as evidence of Athens acting as a tyrant state, the example of Chios, Lesbos, and Samos shows that the city-states had the option to choose how they supported the League. Those that chose to give monetary support exchanged their vote for security and protection. In reality this was a rational choice for the smaller city-states to make, one that was not forced upon them. Athens may have used the money for her own gains, but she gave peace and protection in return. VERY WELL DONE.

Athens started out as a hegemonic state, and overtime converted to an archae empire. The evidence for Athens as a tyrant state was that they forced other city states to be a part of their empire. The regime ruled it's own people and the people they brought into their empire. 50% of the population were slaves. THIS STATEMENT MIXES TOO MANY ELEMENTS; THE ISSUE WAS MORE THAT ATHENS WOULD NOT LET A STATE LEAVE THE ALLIANCE; THO DURING THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR THIS TOO CHANGED. THE SLAVE FIGURE REFERS TO ATHENS AND PROBABLY TO OTHER STATES AS WELL, BUT THE CONNECTION IS NOT EXPLAINED. BETTER TO DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE TYRANT STATE.

Athens forced other states to pay taxes in exchange for Athens protection because protecting them was in Athens own best interest. Athens had maritime power to protect them from piracy. They would not allow the other states to leave their empire. Used intimidation to keep states from attempting to leave the empire - sent large fleets of soldiers and ships to collect taxes by force. The states that didn't pay taxes lost the right to vote. BETTER HERE BUT COULD ME MORE COHERENT.

Despite this, Athens does not follow a tyrant state because they sought protection rather than influence of their empire. They expanded their control when their empire was threatened.

Athens' allies were unable to prevent the transformation from league to empire because Athens was more economically driven than the surrounding states that focused largely on argriculture. This allowed them to accumulate wealth and power. Athens also controlled the commerce between the other states. The Athenians, "made no allowances in their demands and were severe in applying pressure" - they were not forgiving with the other states. THIS IMPROVES AS YOU PROCEED.

Group : MattT, AlyssaG, CandiceH

Athens became a tyrannical state by serving their ITS own interests rather than the will of all the allies in the Delian League. They prevented poleis from leaving the league when they rebelled, such as Naxos and Samos, and then they also forced them to raze "their walls, give hostages, deliver up their ships, and arrange to pay the expenses of the war by instalments" as well as subjecting them to their rule and the tribute as before (Thucydides). Also after the battle of Eurymadon where the Persians were beaten back to the point where the allies felt they no longer needed to give tribute to the League, Athens enforced the tributes, but did not use them for battling the Persians, but rather used them for their own polis, to pay their own citizens and build temples. I SUGGEST BEGINNING BY DEFINING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A TYRANT STATE. IT IS IMPLICIT HERE

However, like the tyrants in Athens expanding the demos, earning their favor and support, some members of the League supported Athenian rule, namely the demos of the allied poleis. With Athenian rule came an expansion of the power of the demos, modeled after their own radical democracy. In the case of the Mytilene revolt the aristocracy of the polis revolted but when trying to enlist the demos to help, the demos "as soon as they got arms of their own motion surrendered the town" to the Athenians, showing they supported the empire over their own aristocratic government. RECALL THAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS FOR ATHENIAN LEADERSHIP AT FIRST.

Allies of Athens were unable to prevent the transformation from league to empire because of the gradual shift in the tribute from supplying men and ships to providing money. The allies, as discussed by Thucydides, "agreed to contribute a regular sum of money instead of ships. Whereby the Athenian navy was proportionally increased, while they [the allied poleis] themselves were always untrained and unprepared for war when they revolted." The allies were unprepared to stop the Athenian empire because they had no means to resist them militarily. ALL THE BASICS ARE HERE, BUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT COULD BE IMPROVED.

Group : Nini, Sean, Marco, Todd

A tyrant rules in the interest of himself while protecting and appealing to the demos. This same concept is seen on a larger scale with the tyrant being a state, aka Athens, and the demos being the Delian League. A tyrannical action is taxation for personal gain or using the tax money for their personal interests. Athens taxed the members of the Delian League under the pretext of providing defence; however, the money was then used to raise the prosperity of the Athenian population. In Greek city states, those who fought had the right to vote. Most members of the Delian League, with the exception of Chios, Lesbos, and Samos, did not chose to continue to send men and ships to join the fighting force. One must note that in the beginning of league, there were about 600 city states that participated in the fighting force. However, that number dwindled down to 3 after about 50 years. If you support the idea that one must fight to vote, then the majority of the city states forfitted their right to have a say in what happened when they stopped sending men and ships. This point of view justifies the rational behind Athens mode of taxation. There were uprisings of many city states and some attempted to leave the league. These uprisings did not succeed becuase the individual city states did not have enough of a fighting force to defend themselves. VERY SUCCINCT. SOMETHING MORE ON HOW THE ATHENIANS BENEFITTED FROM THE EMPIRE WOULD NAIL IT.

Group : Zach B, Nat L, Gabe L, Andrew J., Kevin B

To accuse Athens of being a tyrant state would be to assert that she exerted her power primarily in her own interests and kept the Delian League in line by force and intimidation, as well as claiming authority in a manner that was not strictly legitimate. Opponents of this assertion would point out that Athens acted in the interests of all the League, and that any acts of force on her part were justified for the good of all. GOOD

The standardization of Athenian currency and the taxation of subject states in the League for social projects that directly benefited Athens alone could be used as evidence of the misuse of authority for Athens' own ends. Aristotle was quoted as saying that the Athenians treated her allies in the League more like subjects than allies, and used the tribute (phoros) leveraged almost exclusively for the public trough: "Obeying this advice and seizing empire, they treated their allies more like subjects." VERY GOOD

One could also argue that Athens behaved tyrannically by citing her use of the might of her fleet to exact taxes and punish defection. When the island of Thassos tried to leave the League, Athens was brutal and systematic in its retribution. It was the transition from providing ships for mutual defence to offering tribute (phoros), even in times of peace, that members of the League would also use as evidence of imperial behaviour.

Opponents of the assertion of Athenian tryanny might cite that Athens, at least initially, kept their word by securing the Aegean from a Persian threat and preventing piracy, thus fulfilling what the League was intended for. The Athenians had to make a fairly large commitment of men and finances to accomplish the goals of the League, which was why Sparta initially declined a leadership role in the League. Due to constant repairs and other expenditures, taxes (phoros) were necessary for the maintenance of the fleet and, thus, security of the Aegean. RECALL THERE WAS CONSENSUS FOR ATHENIAN LEADERSHIP AT FIRS.

The tragedy at Thassos, however brutal, could be seen as necessary, for were they to secede, rebellion might spread like wildfire and the League would fall apart, thus opening the Aegean to Persian influence.

The allies of Athens were unable to prevent this transformation of league to empire because they could not put up a military force to rival Athens when and if they decided to defect. Outside help was also difficult to come by short of Medizing, for the Spartans had their own internal struggles. By starting out as willing and ready to give tribute (phoros) to Athens and taking the Oath of the Allies, they would set themselves up for eventual domination.