Take a look at Solon in ancient Greece.
Persia debased it’s coinage in order to fight the wars against Alexander the Great. And they lost. Come to think of it, how much of Alexander’s victory could be attributed to Persian debasement of their coinage?
Source?
All I know is that the Persians were much stingier with their gold than the Macedonians ever were, and in general Hellenistic kingdoms would be considered spenders compared to the Achaemenid dynasty, this would hold particularly true after the Alexander conquests.
In fact, and I unfortunately do not remember my source off hand for this, it was when Alexander actually got his hands on Persian gold that the entire economic system of the world radically changed due to the vast outpouring of gold, this was a situation that was perhaps unparalleled to anything the world have ever known before.
That said, nothing I mentioned actually covers Darius’ currency situation in the war, as I know of nothing off hand that indicates it was an issue.
Not sure the Satrap system fits in with your modern professional politician angle.
Maybe not, I wasn’t too sure of the definitions, so I just threw it out there as it was a revolutionary system of government. That said, I was also trying to point out that I would consider any government that had complex bearucracies to have some claim to having “professional politicians”; these would include civs like the Minoans, Babylonians, etc. I was just trying to get a better feel for what definitions were trying to be used.
One of the major limits of the Roman Dictator’s power was that he had no power over the public treasury, and could only make use of the money granted to him by the Senate. That means none of the dictators, included Sulla or Caesar, had the imperium to debase the coinage. And given the structure of Roman society, to suggest such a thing would be akin to claiming the title of kingship.
Well that clears that up. I thought Sulla may have been a special case.
It depends what you intend for “professional politician”. If we take out of the picture the various men who reached power through wealth, birth right and strength of arms the earliest known example is probably the Athenian system.
Up until the age of Pericles, voting in the Pnyx or even holding a position in the Council or Boulè didn’t carry any monetary benefits. Athenian citizens wanting to take part in politics had to provide their own livelihood. This changed in 462 BC when Pericles (who else?) introduced pay for citizens who were part of the Courts (Graphè and Dìke). While pay was low (two obols, later raised to three), it was a turning point in Athenian politics. Aristophanes made fun of the old men who flocked to the courts to draw pay and destroy people out of spite or simple schadenfreude. Upon restoration of democracy (403 BC) pay was also introduced for Pnyx attendance. Bear in mind that the Courts had much more power than the name implied: it served as a “Upper House” of sort, as well as ordinary courts of justice. Also while members of Boulè could be indicted or censored, judges were pretty much above the law. And since there were so many judges (the pool was about 6000 men for all of Attica) we are led to believe that perhaps Aristophanes wasn’t exaggerating that much.
Thanks everybody for the great replies.
@Kagugo
Why was politics a full time job? I guess this indicates that the society was large enough to (appear to) require full-time “government administration”. I’ve never really thought of ancient Greece as a large and complex (?) society–or at least one large enough and complex enough to (apparently) need a full time staff of volunteer civil servants.
What percentage of the (male) population would you say were eligible for civil service (i.e. because they were wealthy enough to support themselves as volunteers)?
edit: Well, I guess they needed to deal with the administration of the army/soldiers. Were their armies full time?
Was this the beginning of the end of the great ancient Greece?
Every adult male citizen (often they also had the requirement of being over 30) was eligible for the deme councils - in fact it was done by lot and therefore one was not only eligible but had somewhat of a duty to serve. Assembly attendance/voting (by raised hand) was also open for all adult males and theoretically compulsory (Scythian slaves went around the city to round people up for the Assembly, marking them with paint for non-attendance). The magistracies did, however, have wealth requirements (there were four tiers, including the bottom one). If you look up Solon, Cleisthenes and Ephialtes on Wikipedia it should mention all of this and the changes to the system over time. The Greeks were quite fond of choosing people by lot (this is clear even in Homer), not only in the political realm but also for certain religious positions.
I wouldn’t say paying the courts had anything to do with Greek demise. The city-states were still important for another century - it was ultimately the power of the Macedonians which ended their independence. Even so, Athens was still a great cultural centre well into the 1st century BCE.
EDIT: Armies of the Greek city-states were almost wholly volunteer citizens (who paid for and kept their arms at significant personal expense). The Romans operated on the same principle until the end of the 2nd century BCE. The exception to this amongst the Greeks was of course Sparta, the citizens of which were essentially a military caste (who had the helots as serfs). This was still a citizen army, but in this case the citizens were greatly devoted to war. Mercenaries also existed as professional soldiers, becoming common in the period after the Peloponnesian War. The most important professional Greek army was created by Philip II of Macedon in the mid-4th century BCE and became the model for the subsequent Hellenistic armies (which nevertheless underwent many changes).
As for their command, the leadership of the Athenian army was technically held by the Polemarchos (‘war magistrate’), but over the course of the 5th century BCE, the 10 elected strategoi (generals) became the most important military figures.
In Athens all males born free in Attica were eligible to become part of the Courts or the Boulè and could vote in the Pnyx. This is estimated to be about 20% of the total population of Attica. It is also extimated that a quarter of these men held at some point of their life some office in the Boulè. It must be stressed that this was not a full time job, like modern civil service. For example a group of men could be charged with hiring the actors for the plays performed at the Dionisia and Lenaia festivals. Once the festival was over and the actors paid (with city funds) their work was done. While Athens had a large population of liberated slaves and foreigners (most of them wealthy), they had very little part in public life.
As for the army, differently from Sparta, pre “Imperial” Athens didn’t have a full time military. Citizens were called up when their services were needed and expected to be paid: even oarsmen were freemen and were entitled to two drachma for each day of service. This pay required to be handled (as taxation needed to fund it) but again it was not a full-time job: once the war was over, so was the job.
I remember from AP World History that the Roman Republic had a different consul every year, so the current consul would try to start wars in order to maintain fame for their time in office. I’m not sure if that is of any help.
Wars were not quite so easy to simply start and end for purely political reasons in ancient times. An army could take months or years to mobilize for a campaign, and would always, in the case fo conscripts, feel the need to leave in order to harvest crops before winter. If the Consuls were to start a war, they had to make sure they could win it fast.
The Roman Republic had the right idea about how to control corruption. Its founders assumed that a certain level of corruption was inevitable, so a Consul’s term was limited to ne year and checked by another, often opposing Consul of equal power. The Patricians even decided that this was not enough to keep executive power in check, so they also imposed a law forbidding a Consul for running for consecutive terms. The longest total term of executive office in the days of the Republic was only seven years, with Titus Quinctius and Gaius Marius being elected Consul for seven, non-consecutive terms of office.
During the days of the Roman Republic, we also find numerous examples of good citizenship. Being a good citizen in Rome meant doing your duty, then leaving your post as soon as possible. The story of Cincinnatus epitomizes the ideal of how a citizen should leave office quickly after doing his duty, and no more than that. In fact, virtually every Roman Dictator made it a point to leave his position as early as he could, generally giving a long speech at the end about how they were resigning their “now useless office.” It is not until the Punic Wars that we see anyone actually serving out a full six-month term as Dictator. Not only can we find good citizens among the public servants of ancient Rome, we find them competing for posterity as to what good citizens they were. Thus the natural greed that comes with men seeking political office was often turned upon itself in the endless quest for personal glory.
The system in Rome was designed specifically not to get anything done, and so politicians fought with each other more than they could possibly think of oppressing the people. This kind of controlled anarchy lasted for four hundred years. Public office of any kind in Rome would often end in one’s violent death or suicide. If only this were the case today, we might be looking forward to another two hundred years of freedom instead of wondering where that freedom went.