Introduction

More than a decade ago, scholars began to question the established views on the zeugitai and the landholding requirement as high as 8.7 hectares, subsequently increased to a minimum of 13.8 hectares, by applying the measures provided by the Athenaion Politeia.¹ Together with Julián Gallego, we have argued against the proposed elite status for the zeugitai and suggested that their class corresponded to those with an estate considered to be of ‘hoplite rank’, that is, in possession of land of at least between 3.6 and 5.4 hectares. Other scholars have rejected the application of measures attested in the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians (7.3-4) and Pollux’s Onomasticon (8.130), which seem to rely on the same tradition,² to the Solonian census classes (except for pentakosiomedimnoi),³ but failed to fully explain why these specific measures appear in the Constitution of the Athenians in the first place. This paper intends to build on our theory and revisit the criteria and property requirements for inclusion in the zeugitai. Hence, before I begin, the presentation of the two texts and a summary of the theory are essential.

In our 2010 paper, we link the production measures (500, 300 and 200) of the different census classes, assuming that Aristotle or his school did not invent them, to the late fifth-century revision of the Athenian law code, which led to a redefinition of property sizes for census classes. The objective would have been to determine who should pay the eisphora. At that time, these comprised a somewhat broader group than the first two census classes but did not fully correspond to the first three census classes either. Therefore, the Athenians redefined the census classes to adapt them to the eisphora system. This system seems to have been in force – possibly in relation to the census classes, as may be inferred from the passage in Pollux – at least until the reforms of Callistratos in 378, when the proeisphora and other changes were introduced (also probably including a broader taxpayer base).⁴ According to this interpretation, when Aristotle and the members of his school produced their writings, that new system was no longer in force, so they assumed that those measures⁵ dated back to the time of Solon. Hence, the argument goes, the economic definition of the census classes in Solon’s time would have been more in line with what our two main sources record in this respect.⁶ Namely, hippeis would have been those citizens in possession of material wealth sufficient to support horse-owning/horse-breeding, and the zeugitai those who owned at least a couple of oxen, which was the equivalent to landed property between at least 4 and 6 hectares, according to recent studies.⁷ Pentakosiomedimnoi were apparently defined in terms of their production in medimnoi, with the legislator taking special care to ensure that the class included the richest of Athenians, since they were the only ones who could serve as tamiai (treasurers), perhaps to avoid the temptation of misappropriating public funds.⁸ The last census class, thētes,⁹ would have comprised citizens in possession of property less than 4 to 5 hectares and a pair of oxen. In Solon’s time, it seems possible that an equivalence between land-based and non-land-based wealth had already been established so that people with assets equivalent to a certain amount of land (for zeugitai, c. 4 hectares at a minimum) would have been included in the respective census class.¹⁰ Hence, we argue, citizens would have been assigned to a census class probably based on their own declaration in the phratries (phratērikon grammateion) or before the naukraroi, at a time when the small population meant that people’s possessions were common knowledge.¹¹ Although those entering the zeugitai census class could purchase hoplite weaponry, it is not clear whether it was a mandatory obligation under Solon’s law.¹² However, it seems that Solon did indeed regulate the citizenry’s involvement in civil conflicts (staseis): without exception, all had an obligation to take up arms. Thētes, who, by and large, would not have possessed a hoplite panoply, were undoubtedly also expected to become involved, each with the weapons available to him.¹³ According to this hypothesis, the zeugitai population at the time might have been much larger than the figure proposed by van Wees.¹⁴

This paper aims to build on this theory to gain further insight into the identification of the zeugitai in financial terms during the fifth century, after the time of Cleisthenes. I will argue that the census classes were defined in monetary terms at the beginning of the isonomy, when a drastic reconstruction of the army took place with the introduction of the recruitment of hoplites ek katalogou in Athens. At the same time, the obligation to fight and to possess hoplite weaponry would have been regulated for those belonging to the zeugitai census class, who thenceforth would have been registered on the newly established rolls for recruiting hoplites by tribes (as reflected in the Salamis decree: IG I3 1). This form of recruitment would have been employed for at least a century, until the end of the fifth century, a time of significant changes with the economic redefinition of the census classes, especially that of the zeugitai to adapt them to the eisphora system in force until the 370s. The redefinition of the census classes at the end of the fifth century might have been one of the factors behind the transformation of the recruitment system and the fact that they were ignored systematically when appointing magistrates or council members during that century.¹⁵ Accordingly, in Section Two, I review the evidence on the zeugitai in the fifth century (archonship, cleruchies and census class promotion) and the scholarly discussion on the military use of the census classes at the time. In Section Three, I consider the demographics of the hoplites and zeugitai, as well as the sources of wealth (land and non-land properties) of the hoplitic class. Finally, in Section Four, I defend the hypothesis of establishing monetary equivalences for the zeugitai census class in the context of Cleisthenes’ military reforms.

Evidence on Zeugitai in the Fifth Century and the Scholarly Debate on the Use of the Census Classes in the Military Organization

The validity and importance of the census classes in the fifth century notwithstanding, only a limited number of testimonies on their use has been preserved to us, perhaps because this was common knowledge for our mainly Athenocentric sources. Being a member of the first two census classes seems to have been a requirement for holding a magistracy (except for minor offices).¹⁶ This is no trivial matter because the archons held sway over the polis, albeit with less power than in archaic times. After completing their terms in office, they were responsible for all facets of life and were automatically enrolled as life-long members of the Areopagus, which seems to have played an important role in Athenian politics, especially after the Persian Wars up until the reforms of Ephialtes.¹⁷ The census requirement was verified in the dokimasia. On that occasion, the citizen in question had to declare and prove, among other aspects, that he belonged to the appropriate census class.¹⁸

The opening of the archonship to the third census class did not occur until after the reforms of Ephialtes ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 26.2) in 457. This rather drastic turn to what can be described as radical democracy contrasts, in my view, with van Wees’ theory that the zeugitai were a leisured class of owners of at least c. 12-14 hectares, and therefore a very small and exclusive part of the population. This change makes much more sense if they actually owned the amount of land wherewithal to purchase their own weapons so that archonship would be open to a much larger number of citizens, given the new trends of radical democracy.¹⁹

An inscription from the colony of Brea records the use of census classes as a selection criterion for participating in the expedition: ἐς δὲ [B]ρέαν ἐχ θετον καὶ ζε[υ]γιτον ἰέναι τὸς ἀπο[ί]κος (IG I3 46, lin. 43-46, dated to 445).²⁰ Several authors have suggested, without clear evidence, that this class criterion for selecting cleruchs might have favoured thētes in particular.²¹ The criterion would have probably been broader for the colonies (‘whoever wishes’: ho boulomenos). Still, in this case too, it might have sometimes been restricted to zeugitai and thētes (as in the amendment in the Brea inscription quoted above). The ‘whoever wishes’ clause in the case of the colonies would have also ensured the (minority) presence of wealthy individuals necessary to perform liturgies and other services.²² In any case, those thētes who were allotted with land in colonies and cleruchies would have joined, in my view, the zeugitai census class since it seems that they remained Athenian citizens – certainly in the case of cleruchs.²³ This might explain, in part, the increase in the size of the Athenian military during the Pentecontaetia (a point that will be discussed in further detail below).

A change in census class for individuals was not unusual, and such changes are recorded in our sources as a result of amassing a great fortune, as was the case with Anthemion, who from a thēs became a hippeus ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 7.4). In this case, what is extraordinary was not the promotion itself, which in all likelihood was not that infrequent (at least for cleruchs), but that Anthemion had climbed two rungs rather than one.²⁴

According to several authors, the census classes could be used as a criterion for military recruitment. Thucydides records that in the emergency of 428 metics and citizens of all census classes were drafted into the navy, except for the first two.²⁵ In other words, it was the zeugitai and thētes who manned the triremes. Even though the voluntary or compulsory enrolment of thētes (alongside foreigners and, perhaps already at that time, slaves)²⁶ in the navy was a matter of course, it is striking, to say the least, on this occasion that zeugitai embarked as regular crew members. This was possibly a choice to secure the fleet’s operational capacity as a response to population decline after the plague, and it may have occurred in response to other emergencies during the war,²⁷ above all after the disaster at Sicily, where thētes served as epibatai (Thuc. 6.43.1).²⁸ Scholars who are sceptical of the employment of the census classes for recruiting purposes interpret the thētes to mean salaried workers. However, the attestation of the census classes concerning military enlistment in Thucydides (3.16.1) makes it more plausible that in this passage, too, the term thētes refers to the census class.²⁹ A fragment of Aristophanes’ The Banqueters (Daitaleis; 428/7),³⁰ transmits additional information on the relationship between the census classes and military service: the lexicographer notes that thētes do not ‘fight’ (strateuonto): ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐστρατεύοντο εἴρηκε καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Δαιταλεῦσιν.³¹ As van Wees has pointed out, thētes were indeed conscripted to fight wars,³² especially in the fleet as rowers, as archers on a voluntary basis, and possibly as epibatai.³³ Hence, the implicit meaning in οὐκ ἐστρατεύοντο must refer to the fact that they were not obliged to serve in the infantry or listed in the hoplite muster rolls. A fragment of Antiphon cited in the same entry of Harpocration contains the phrase τούς τε θῆτας ἅπαντας ὁπλίτας ποιῆσαι, possibly in the context of the expedition to Sicily.³⁴ This excerpt indicates that thētes (or their vast majority) did not regularly fight (at least not en masse) as hoplites.³⁵

The fragments preserved in Harpocration and the passages of Thucydides evince that thētes, as a census class, were related in some way to military life in the fifth century. They testify that they were enrolled in the navy, served occasionally as epibatai, were not called up as hoplites ek katalogou (at least in Sicily),³⁶ and did not usually fight as such. They also indicate that the zeugitai did not usually embark on ships (except to be transported as land troops),³⁷ nor did the pentakosiomedimnoi or hippeis, except in emergencies and close to the end of the Peloponnesian war (after the Sicilian expedition)³⁸ in times of pressing demographic and economic problems.³⁹

Several scholars have postulated a relationship between the census classes and military service based on this meagre information relating to the fifth century, particularly regarding the Athenian army.⁴⁰ Using the census classes for recruitment purposes does not necessarily render them ‘military classes’, as Whitehead contended.⁴¹ Instead, they were financially defined classes whose aim was to allocate political roles and privileges depending on wealth. Before the Cleisthenic isonomy, this was probably Solon’s objective, at a time when a timocracy replaced the aristocracy.⁴²

Hansen⁴³ postulated a tripartition of the Athenian army in the fifth century: first, the cavalry, composed of members of the first two census classes (hippeis and pentakosiomedimnoi); second, hoplites, roughly coinciding with the zeugitai; and, thirdly, light infantry composed of thētes, the lowest census class economically speaking (and presumably the largest), whose members served, according to Hansen, in the fleet as epibatai and rowers. As evidence, Hansen adduces Thucydides (3.87.3) on the fatalities of the plague between 430 and 426, which uses the phrase ‘the multitude’ (ochlos):

Hansen stresses that by this ‘multitude’ Thucydides referred to thētes, and I would add that, in addition to thētes, the term included foreigners and slaves employed in the fleet. Hansen further reads a similar term in Thucydides (2.31.2): ἄλλος ὅμιλος ψιλῶν (‘a multitude of light troops’), as referring to the rowers of the 100 ships who, from their base in Aegina, joined the hoplites led by Pericles in Megaris (more than 10,000 hoplites and 3,000 metics). The interpretation of these terms as references to light troops should be treated with caution for, as Thucydides observes, the Athenians did not deploy citizens as light infantry at the Battle of Delion (Thuc. 4.94.1), and psilloi do not feature in the list of troops at the beginning of the war (Thuc. 2.13.6-8). The absence of trained light troops conscripted among the citizenry (Thuc. 4.94.1: ψιλοί ὡπλισμένοι) can be explained by assuming that non-hoplite citizens were mostly employed in the fleet. This does not imply that Athenian rowers could not disembark and serve as light troops when needed be (e.g. Thuc. 2.31.2).⁴⁵ Hansen also interprets the hyperesiai (ὑπηρεσίας ταῖς ναυσίν) as thētes who, together with knights and hoplites, appear in Thuc. 8.1.2.⁴⁶ Thucydides does not use census-class terminology but prefers military terms because there would be men of the first two census classes among the cavalrymen. Similarly, members of the three higher census classes would be among the hoplites. Finally, there would be thētes in large numbers among the rowers, but also metics and slaves.

De Ste. Croix suggested a relationship between the census classes and military categories, although he believed that the classes were never precisely defined in economic terms.⁴⁷ Pritchard notes that the group of knights (hippeis) in general did not strictly coincide with the hippeis census class because cavalry members would generally be young and in good physical condition.⁴⁸ However, this does not imply that the cavalry members were not drawn primarily from the first two census classes, as Hansen suggests. The cavalry was obviously smaller in number than the two upper classes combined. This would have also been the case with the zeugitai, who, together with hoplites from the first two census classes, may have coincided with those listed in the catalogues as regular hoplites ek katalogou.⁴⁹ It is even possible that compulsory enrolment as a hoplite in the regular infantry required belonging, at a minimum, to the zeugitai. At the same time, enrolment was voluntary for thētes, some of whom would have possessed hoplite weaponry (specifically, those who served as epibatai). Therefore, a significant majority of thētes would not have fought as regular hoplites, but as rowers in the fleet, as light troops, as epibatai, or as archers, usually on a voluntarily, but in case of emergencies, on a mandatory basis.⁵⁰ Moreover, van Wees posits that only the first three census classes enlisted on the hoplite muster rolls.⁵¹ Nevertheless, as he also believes that the zeugitai were a leisured class and owned a considerable amount of land, he subsequently suggests that a significant proportion of thētes (30%) regularly fought as hoplites (as epibatai, as volunteers and in general levies), and distinguishes between ‘leisured-class hoplites’ and ‘working-class hoplites’.⁵²

Other scholars have disassociated census classes from recruitment.⁵³ Pritchard, for example, holds that when citizens enlisted in their deme register at the age of 18, they decided whether they wanted to serve as horsemen, hoplites, or in the navy. However, he ultimately recognises that their choice depended on their financial means. This was the case with cavalrymen, who belonged to one of the first two census classes as wealthy young men. The hoplites were equipped with expensive weapons whose cost they defrayed themselves and who, in many cases, albeit not always, were accompanied by a servant. Only a cushion was required to serve as a rower (which was appropriate for the thētes).⁵⁴

The recruitment of hoplites ek katalogou relied on the ten Cleisthenic tribes from the lists of demesmen drawn up by the demarchs (lēxiarchika grammateia), which were then given to the strategoi and the taxiarchoi.⁵⁵ These lists included citizens who were compulsorily recruited as hoplites, were drawn up especially for each campaign and were placed under the statue of the eponymous hero of each of the tribes in the agora. There would have been similar lists of demesmen for recruiting cavalrymen.⁵⁶ If required, the demarchs might have drawn up lists of citizens to be recruited as rowers, but this does not seem to have occurred very frequently in the fifth century.⁵⁷

The earliest indication that these lists were drawn up by the demarchs, on the basis of the lēxiarchika grammateia, is an inscription from 440 regulating the payment of a fee for training hoplites, cavalrymen, and archers in the gymnasium of the Lyceum.⁵⁸ According to Jameson, the inscription only refers to the army, so presumably, the fleet’s rowers, epibatai, and archers would not have been trained there.⁵⁹ However, if the so-called Decree of Themistocles (SEG 22.274; fourth/third century) was a copy of the original from the beginning of the fifth century (a controversial issue), then the first mention of such lists goes back to the dawn of the classical period.⁶⁰

The demarchs’ task of drawing up the lists and handing them over to the strategoi and the taxiarchoi would have been much simpler if the zeugitai census class had coincided with that of the hoplite class, namely, if the vast majority of hoplites had been zeugitai, except a minority who belonged to the first two census classes. Registration in a census class was mandatory when citizens enrolled in their deme register at the age of 18. This system thus avoided duplicate enrolments (in Pritchard’s theory) in the deme register, such as ‘hoplite and zeugitēs’, ‘hoplite and thēs’, or ‘hoplite and hippeus’. All zeugitai were, by default, hoplites, but not all hoplites were zeugitai,⁶¹ albeit the vast majority were. The deme register was mandatory to include the citizen’s name and age or the date of enrolment of citizens aged 18, which made it easy to know their age. So, if the zeugitai were those whose wealth was considered to be equivalent to that of a hoplite, it would have been a simple matter for the demarchs to provide the strategoi and the taxiarchoi with lists to compile the katalogos. As possible candidates, they would have only had to include those belonging in a certain age group (decided on and stipulated for each campaign separately) and in one of the first three census classes, while removing those enrolled as cavalrymen (no more than perhaps seven to ten young men per deme, given the approximate number of demes and number of cavalrymen)⁶² and those who were known to be performing a liturgy, also a minority in each deme. The demarchs might have also indicated who was unable to perform a liturgy.

Hoplites and Zeugitai: Numbers, Wealth, and Land Ownership in Fifth-Century Athens

Scholars who dismiss the hypothesis of a close relationship between the zeugitai and hoplites argue that if the zeugitai included all citizens who owned a team of oxen to work their land,⁶³ there would not have been enough arable land in Attica to accommodate such the vast number of zeugitai⁶⁴ attested on the eve of the Peloponnesian War: 13,000 hoplites and over 1,000 cavalrymen, plus a reserve of 16,000 men, including ‘hoplite rank’ metics.⁶⁵ Nevertheless, this view does not consider that membership of the census classes in the fifth century was probably calculated based on both movable and immovable assets (this had perhaps already been the case since Solon) and in monetary terms.⁶⁶ Then, it is not a question of sufficient land in Attica to accommodate the 13,000 active hoplites – whether or not they were zeugitai – on the eve of the Peloponnesian War. Both hoplites and zeugitai (in my opinion, largely one and the same) might have had sources of income other than land, with total assets equivalent to the land requirements for hoplite status – namely, a minimum of between 3.6 and 5.4 hectares. Moreover, wealth requirements were stipulated in monetary terms (drachmas) when Antipater disenfranchised those who did not possess a timēma equivalent to at least 2,000 drachmas at the end of the fourth century.⁶⁷ In the fourth century, when a plethron of land was worth around 50 drachmas, 2,000 drachmas were equivalent to only 40 plethra (3.6 hectares).⁶⁸ This was not necessarily inclusive of the total estate value in drachmas of hoplites/zeugitai in fifth-century Athens, as the value of a plethron of land at the time is unknown. The possibility that the standard of living rose between the fifth and fourth centuries should also be borne in mind,⁶⁹ and, consequently, that the equivalent of 3.6 hectares (the minimum requirement, in my opinion, for the zeugitai) in drachmas was lower in the fifth century than in the fourth century.

The inclusion of citizens with non-monetary assets in the first three classes can be deduced from the aforementioned case of Anthemion, who became rich enough to move up two census classes.⁷⁰ He may have been the father of Anytus (Socrates’ accuser), a tanner by trade who amassed considerable wealth from activities unrelated to land use or ownership in the fifth century.⁷¹ It does not seem probable that well-known and prominent political figures in the latter part of the fifth century, such as Cleon, even elected as generals, who also obtained their wealth mainly from similar activities, were enrolled in the thētes census class rather than the upper two ones, as was the case with Demosthenes in the fourth century, who belonged to the liturgical class.⁷² In this sense, Iasos of Kollytos, a wealthy businessman in the tombstone trade, who would come to perform liturgies at the beginning of the fourth century, was surely not enrolled in the thētes census class, but in one of the two top ones.⁷³ As Harris observes in his study of artisan workshops, there were workshop owners with assets equivalent to 500, 700, 1,000, 2,000, 2,400, 4,000 drachmas and up to three talents.⁷⁴ In the fifth century, those with (movable or immovable) assets equivalent in drachmas to 3.6 hectares (or 2,000 drachmas according to the fourth-century criterion or its equivalent in the fifth century) would have probably been zeugitai, whether they owned land or not.

Just as there were landless zeugitai (and landless members of other census classes), evidence suggests that landless citizens owned hoplite weapons. This might have been the case with Socrates and his father, Sophroniscos.⁷⁵ Socrates was born around 470/69 and therefore should have enrolled in his deme register on his 18th birthday in 452/1. The sources indicate that he was a sculptor.⁷⁶ Before abandoning this profession for philosophy, he might have owned, like his father, a workshop (inherited from his father) employing several workers (hired labourers or slaves), so his estate might have amounted to more than 2,000 drachmas (or the equivalent of 3.6 hectares in drachmas in the fifth century), since sculpting was one of the best-paid crafts.⁷⁷ However, his decision to abandon the trade for philosophy – probably after gradually selling or renting out his properties – impoverished him. Although he was already depicted as poor in The Clouds (422 BCE), this was not always the case.⁷⁸ Socrates probably did not fight as a volunteer at Potidaea, Delion, or Amphipolis, for he himself admitted that he was not enticed by public life or politics.⁷⁹ He was called up three times, perhaps four (including Samos in 440), the last time in 422.⁸⁰ On those occasions, he was recruited presumably because he had enrolled in his deme register as a zeugitēs, notwithstanding the gradual diminishing of his income to the point of him owing, at the end of his days (probably c. 399), an estate worth no more than 500 drachmas, appropriate for a rather poor thēs.⁸¹ There is no evidence to suggest demotion to the thētes census class in the last years of his life due to his impoverishment; as Mavrogordatos notes, this was not the case due to the Athenian system’s inherent inertia.⁸²

Moreover, less well-off zeugitai could normally enlist as volunteers to earn a salary before being recruited from the lists. In particular, this would have been the case for single young men.⁸³ In this way, they offered their families financial support alleviating financial burdens at dire moments or when it was necessary to consider dividing the family property because there was more than one child in the oikos.

That there were both landless infantrymen and cavalrymen – but possessing the equivalent in movable assets – is evidenced by Lysias. When criticising Phormisios’ proposal to expel the landless, the speaker offers, doubtless exaggerating the situation, as a rhetorical device, that many citizens would have to leave the city.⁸⁴ At any rate, the vast majority of the landless at the end of the fifth century would have been thētes without means. Nonetheless, land ownership was probably still essential and the main way of gauging wealth in Athens. However, during the Pentecontaetia, in the golden years of the Empire, the possibilities for diversification would have opened up new sources of income and enrichment (for all census classes). In Xenophon, Aristotle and Socrates observed that the craft trade was highly profitable,⁸⁵ while the slave trade and the renting out of slaves were also very lucrative.⁸⁶ Certain influential fifth-century individuals, such as Cleon, Cleophon, Hyperbolus and the father of Isocrates, who surely did not belong to the thētes census class, obtained their wealth and economic position from their craft and trade.⁸⁷

Therefore, the timēma of both hoplites and zeugitai in the fifth century was measured in movable and immovable assets, in the same way as for the eisphora.⁸⁸ In addition, there would probably have been equivalences between the size of landholdings and/or production in medimnoi and drachmas. All zeugitai would have been hoplites, but not vice versa because the hoplite ranks would have also included a minority formed by members of the first two census classes and a very small proportion of thētes. Although they had no obligation to serve as such, the latter possessed the necessary weaponry and could serve voluntarily as epibatai in the fleet.⁸⁹

Regarding the number of hoplites, most scholars estimate that at the beginning of the fifth century and during the Persian Wars, there would have been c. 30,000 adult male citizens (over 18), of which around 9,000 or 10,000 would have possessed hoplite weaponry, which means that approximately 30% of the population would have been hoplites.⁹⁰ Before Antipater’s disenfranchisements in the fourth century, the population would have been roughly the same.⁹¹ It seems that Antipater disenfranchised around 21,000 people with assets amounting to less than 2,000 drachmas. This should have left 9,000 citizens who still met the requirements – 3.6 hectares or 2,000 drachmas during that period – for the ‘hoplite class’,⁹² which is similar to the number of hoplites at the beginning of the fifth century. The rest of the population (around 70%) would have belonged to the thētes census class both at the beginning of the fifth century and at the end of the following one.

However, the population of Athens likely doubled during the Pentecontaetia; on the eve of the Peloponnesian War, the number of Athenian citizens exceeded 60,000.⁹³ If the proportion of citizens of hoplite rank was the same as that at the beginning of the fifth or the end of the fourth century (around 30%), it stands to reason that there must have been 18,000 citizens of hoplite rank in 431. However, it appears that the proportion of hoplites increased possibly to 40% due to cleruchies and colonies. Scholars who base their calculations on the figures for hoplites and knights provided by Thucydides and Diodorus before the Peloponnesian War prefer a number between 18,000 and 24,000 (40% of 60,000), including the young, the elderly, the disabled, but not counting the metics, for citizens of hoplite rank in Athens at the time. As I have argued earlier, these (a number equivalent to 40% of a total citizen population of 60,000) would have all belonged to the first three census classes. If we assume that the richest citizens – the first two classes – did not account for more than 5% of the total citizen population, that is around 3,000 during that period (when the economic position of many of them would have derived from movable assets), then the number of zeugitai would have been c. 21,000. This means that the number of wealthy citizens or those belonging to the first two census classes had doubled since the Persian Wars and that the number of zeugitai had possibly almost tripled.⁹⁴ As has been argued elsewhere, this was because landholdings in colonies or cleruchies⁹⁵ and the economic prosperity resulting from the Empire allowed many citizens to ascend the social ladder. Of this large number of zeugitai/hoplites (c. 21,000, excluding the first two census classes) on the eve of the Peloponnesian War, possibly just over a third had landholdings in Attica. In contrast, the remainder would have owned property in colonies or cleruchies or an artisan’s workshop or other movable assets in Attica.⁹⁶

Some studies on fifth-century cleruchs, especially those on Lesbos, highlight that the minimum monetary requirement for inclusion into the zeugitai census class was an income of 200 drachmas or two mnae a year.⁹⁷ This could be equivalent to around a minimum of 40 plethra or 3.6 hectares and perhaps a production of around 50 medimnoi per year.⁹⁸ This does not mean that the lots distributed to the Athenian cleruchs in Lesbos were 40 plethra, but that the cleruchs received income equivalent to the production of c. 40 plethra. Possibly the lots were larger, and the Lesbian families who worked them would have had to provide a fixed income, which hypothetically might have been half of the harvest/production – but converted into drachmas – in a regime of dependency similar to that of the helots (Tyrtaeus fr. 6 West).⁹⁹ In the fifth century, the minimum income (and therefore the minimum requirement for inclusion into the hoplite/zeugitai census class) for cleruchs might have been calculated not only in drachmas (Lesbos), but also perhaps in medimnoi. This is evidenced by a passage from Aristophanes alluding to two different realities that he comically intermingles, namely, the grain production (of wheat) of a plot in a cleruchy and grain distribution in Athens:

The price of a medimnos of wheat during that period (fifth century) is unknown, but it might have been slightly lower (c. 4 drachmas) than in the fourth century when a medimnos of wheat cost 5-6 drachmas and that of barley 3-4 drachmas.¹⁰¹ Thus, if membership to the hoplite/zeugitai census class was based on disposable income in cash, land, and production, this raises the question of when this change was introduced. In my view, this would have most likely occurred in the time of Cleisthenes, insofar as it was then that the army was reformed and recruitment by the ten Cleisthenic tribes was implemented. It also roughly coincides with the minting of the first owls (which were possibly slightly earlier), the Athenian currency that would remain in circulation throughout the democratic period.

Cleisthenes’ Measures: Monetary Requirements for Inclusion into the Zeugitai Census Class and Military Reforms

There are several reasons to argue that the division of the census classes based on disposable income in cash occurred as part of the Cleisthenic reforms.¹⁰² First and foremost, the introduction of a stable currency, the owls. Second, the growing importance of citizens whose wealth was produced by activities unrelated to land use or ownership in the time of the Peisistratids (or perhaps since Solon or earlier), especially potters but also other trades.¹⁰³ And, third, the fact that the Cleisthenic period was a time of major military reforms to accommodate the new 10-tribe system. I argue that Cleisthenes leveraged the census classes to gain a better knowledge of the citizenry’s assets (through the new local units in which the citizen body of Athens was reorganised, i.e., the demes and the lēxiarchikon grammateion) and, therefore, to ascertain who was eligible to be recruited, henceforth on a mandatory basis, as a hoplite in Athens. The consequences were swift: two victories in Boiotia and Chalcis and, shortly afterwards, in Marathon and Plataea.¹⁰⁴ Yet, an early interest in increasing the number of eligible hoplites through dispatches in colonies or cleruchies (Chalcis and Salamis) and, therefore, in enlarging the z eugitai census class, is plausible.¹⁰⁵

It seems that, albeit already structured, the Athenian army was not genuinely effective until after the Cleisthenic reforms.¹⁰⁶ A restored line from an inscription dated to the 430s seems to mention a customary nomos on the recruitment of hoplites from the lists, which might date back to the Cleisthenic period, as the task was conducted ‘by tribes’ (κατὰ φυλὰς), a system introduced by Cleisthenes himself:¹⁰⁷ h[εκατ]ὸν κα[τὰ τὸν νόμον καταλεχσάσθ]ον κατὰ φυλὰς ἐχς Ἀθ[εν]αίον. Although there is no clear evidence to credit Solon with the obligation for zeugitai to fight, there is evidence of the responsibility for all citizens to take up arms in a stasis. Cleisthenes introduced the recruitment system via the ten tribes, and it is likely that the conscription lists (katalogoi), one for each tribe, were also introduced at the same time. The use of the census classes, fully in force by that time, might have been an essential aspect for determining, after the income requirements in drachmas had been introduced, who were eligible for inclusion into the hoplite muster rolls. These requirements would have corresponded to an estate equivalent to that of the hoplitic class, that is a minimum of 3.6 hectares (which in the fourth century was equivalent to a timēma of 2,000 drachmas and, according to fifth-century criteria, perhaps a yearly income of around 200 drachmas or 50 medimnoi of wheat in cleruchies). These equivalences are hypothetical, but what is not speculative is the cleruchs’ obligation to fight, which appears in the Salamis decree at the end of the sixth century (IG I3 1, line 3: στρατ[εύεσθ]αι) and, therefore, to be enrolled on the hoplite katalogos. The economic status of these cleruchs is unknown, but it would not have been very high if the weapons they required could be purchased at a minimum of 30 drachmas according to IG I3 1 (lines 9-11; although they could cost between 75 and 100).¹⁰⁸ I assume that these cleruchs were thētes – as was usually the case in the fifth century – who had risen to the status of zeugitai and who, therefore, would have had the obligation, presumably established by a nomos on recruitment by tribes, to purchase weapons and to fight. The amount set in the Salamis decree was an affordable minimum for them and certainly an investment that, albeit expensive (15% of an annual income of 200 drachmas), was worthwhile and durable.¹⁰⁹

At the end of the sixth century, Cleisthenes reorganised the citizen body of Athens in demes and deme registers (lēxiarchica grammateia); the army was organised on the basis of the ten tribes; the new Athenian currency (the owl tetradrachm) was introduced or consolidated; and political life was rationalised with isonomy. It is logical to assume that the military conscription by katalogos, organised by the new Cleisthenic tribes and based on information provided by the new political units, the demes, began then and that, at a time when the census classes were fully in force, these were used to determine who was wealthy enough – after converting their assets into drachmas – to serve as a hoplite from the lists. This economic capacity would have been equivalent to the ‘hoplite level’, which various scholars have estimated between 3.6 and 5.4 hectares and which was subsequently set, under Antipater, at a minimum timēma of 2,000 drachmas. This would have been equivalent to the timēma of the cleruchs on Salamis, who could only afford to spend 30 drachmas on weapons. This means that those landowning zeugitai – for there would have been other landless members of this census class, perhaps not many at the time but growing steadily in number and whose assets (and/or income) would have been measured in drachmas – did not produce 200 medimnoi of grain in the time of Cleisthenes (nor, for that matter, in Solon’s), but perhaps around 50 medimnoi at a minimum. This corresponds to a minimum landholding of 3.6 hectares or 40 plethra (or, in late-fourth-century monetary values, 2,000 drachmas).

The polis was undoubtedly interested in establishing the equivalence between wealth in land and drachmas for the census classes because an increasing number of citizens derived substantial income from activities other than agriculture. For instance, we know that in the second half of the sixth century, especially after 525, artisans began to make dedications on the Acropolis, some of which were very expensive. At that moment, this group – especially potters – started to be represented on Athenian vases.¹¹⁰ Studies of these dedications indicate that metalwork, among other trades, was more important than has been previously thought in sixth-century Athens.¹¹¹ Along these lines, the study by Makres and Scafuro on inscribed bronze aparchai and dekatai dedications for the period c. 525-480 has been essential to show the economic capacity of a ‘middle class’ in Athens. This middle class Athenian population comprised workers and artisans (without ruling out farmers) who possessed the wherewithal to make expensive dedications on the Acropolis, but without forming part of the more exclusive elite.¹¹² No doubt many of these dedicators would have been zeugitai.

The Cleisthenic reforms also coincided with the introduction or consolidation of the characteristic currency of Athens, the owl tetradrachm, which remained in circulation for centuries. Its rise might have been related to democratic and centralising measures implemented by the Athenian state without ruling out economic and tax reasons.¹¹³ Undoubtedly, this ‘conversion’ was not across the board, and the measurement of income in medimnoi and wealth in land assets was still in force, together with the measurement in cash (drachmas).¹¹⁴

The new registers of the demes, the lēxiarchika grammateia, were introduced by Cleisthenes at the same time as the demes became an essential unit in political life for the recognition of citizenship. Undoubtedly, the figure of the lēxiarchos may predate the reforms of Cleisthenes, since there were six of them, equal to the number of thesmothetai, thus suggesting its antiquity. On the face of it, this figure does not coincide with reality in Solon’s time,¹¹⁵ but possibly with conditions in the seventh century (such as the six thesmothetai), at a time when Athens might have had a council of state of 300 members chosen aristindēn (selected from the aristoi or ‘best-born’).¹¹⁶ Counting the aristoi made no sense in the new democracy (nor with Solon now with an established timocracy). The link between the lēxiarchikon grammateion and the new political and administrative unit, the demes, began with Cleisthenes. The demarchs kept a registry of citizens belonging to their demes, including their census class, age, and, probably, their property holdings. The demarchs replaced, in this role, the naukraroi.

The recruitment system was greatly simplified if we assume that the zeugitai – equated with the hoplite class and accounting for around 30% of the population at the beginning of the fifth century – were enrolled in the hoplite katalogos. The author of the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians rightly pointed out that ‘the multitude’ drawn from the lists perished miserably in fifth-century Athens:

In the fifth century, the zeugitai were predominantly members of the demos (τοὺς πολλοὺς) usually taken to mean the lower classes,¹¹⁸ although a small part of them could be more affluent, precisely those whose assets were just below the threshold of inclusion into the hippeis. Hence, the zeugitai would have been a multitude, many of whom died after being recruited ek katalogou. According to the theory articulated in Valdés Guía and Gallego (2010), however, the zeugitai were an elite in the fourth century, as of c. 403. It was then when the census classes ceased to be operational, and, therefore, these reforms did not have serious political or military consequences (coinciding, in addition, with the reform of the army). As I discussed previously, recruitment ek katalogou was perhaps employed before the battle of Salamis. On this particular occasion, and exceptionally for that period, it is possible that the fleet’s epibatai were not thētes, but, for the most part, zeugitai. The controversial Decree of Themistocles (SEG 22.274) records recruitment ek katalogou (line 23-24: καταλέξαι δὲ καὶ ἐ.π[ι]βάτας [δ]έκ.α [ἐφ’ ἑκάστη]ν ναῦν), 10 per ship, whereas Plutarch suggests 14.¹¹⁹ It seems plausible to assume that at the battle of Salamis, for which all the Athenians (except the elders) embarked on the ships,¹²⁰ thētes were not allowed to serve as marines (epibatai), although they could usually assume this role or would do so in the future. The young men (c. 33.3%)¹²¹ aged between 20 and 30 (line 24-25) of a population of c. 9,000 with hoplite rank work out at precisely 14 per ship (the number given by Plutarch). Therefore, these young men must surely have been recruited ek katalogou.

One of the consequences of the Cleisthenic military reforms was the mustering of a large number of hoplites to fight and defeat the enemy at Boiotia and Chalcis, Marathon and Plataea.¹²² At that time, many of them would have been agroikoi, among others plying other trades, as noted above. In the Pentecontaetia, the number of available hoplites/zeugitai grew, as did the variety of their backgrounds. A significant number of them would have been cleruchs/colonists and owners of workshops in Attica with minimum assets in drachmas equivalent to 3.6 hectares or 40 plethra.¹²³ To these should be added those who had landholdings in Attica, a relatively stable population between the fifth and fourth centuries.¹²⁴

It remains to be clarified what the equivalent of 3.6 hectares (40 plethra) in drachmas, supposedly the threshold for those thētes who aspired to join the zeugitai census class in the time of Cleisthenes, was. According to fourth-century evidence, best documented by the Rationes centesimarum from the second half of the fourth century¹²⁵ and the available information on Antipater’s and Demetrios of Phaleron’s disenfranchisements, the dividing line between the former thētes and zeugitai census classes in monetary terms was set at 2,000 drachmas (20 mnae). However, depreciation of money, an increase in the cost of living, or a rise of prices between the fifth and the fourth centuries should be considered probable, as Gallo and Loomis have observed, although there is no solid evidence in this regard either.¹²⁶ This could lead to the assumption that the value of land wealth in drachmas might have been lower in the fifth century than in the following one. Although it is impossible to venture a figure, the spurious Draconian constitution in The Constitution of the Athenians ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 4.2) may be useful in this respect, for everything points to the possibility that it was drafted (or at least its core content) in the context of an oligarchic coup in 411, in which the nomoi of Cleisthenes were closely reviewed. This theoretical constitution specifies that the minimum requirement for forming part of the politeia in the time of Draco was to own hoplite weaponry (ta hopla parechomenos), similar to what was postulated in the Constitution of the Five Hundred politeia.¹²⁷

All scholars agree that the Draconian Constitution outlined in the Aristotelian treatise is not historical but derivative of a political pamphlet. Still, it remains an integral part of the Constitution of the Athenians, probably elaborated with information borrowed, at convenience, from different sources. Two interesting aspects of this constitution refer to property requirement to hold office: 10 mnae (1,000 drachmas) for the Nine Archons and the Treasurers, 100 mnae or 1.6 talents (10 times more) to hold offices like the stratēgia or the hipparchia.¹²⁸ As Rhodes points out, ‘this invites suspicion first on account of the means of assessing a man’s wealth […] and secondly because it sets a higher qualification for generals and hipparchs than for archons and treasurers, and this, at any rate in the relative standing of archons and generals, reflects the political realities of the late fifth century […]’.¹²⁹ The last amount could correspond roughly to the assets of those who belonged to the hippeis (and the liturgical) census class. The first could refer to the requirements for zeugitai (3.6 ha or 40 plethra) defined in monetary terms, more or less equivalent to the 20 mnae in the time of Antipater. Both measures attributed to Draco’s legislation might have been consulted and borrowed by the oligarchs of 411 from the Cleisthenic politeia. Regardless, the text clearly shows that the hoplite census requirements were in the lower band, namely, around 3.6 hectares.¹³⁰

With such scant evidence, it would be unwise to venture a guess as to the requirement in drachmas for belonging to the zeugitai census class, introduced by Cleisthenes according to the theory set out above, which coincided with the introduction of new coinage (the owl tetradrachm) and the reorganisation of the army ek katalogou. Nor is it possible to know whether this census remained the same throughout the fifth century or varied at some point. In my view, the monetary requirements would have been between 1,000 drachmas (10 mnae) in the fifth century and 2,000 (20 mnae) in the time of Antipater.

Conclusion

In the period between Cleisthenes and the end of the fifth century, the zeugitai can be equated with those defined as belonging to the hoplite class, with an estate equivalent, either in land, movable assets, or drachmas, to 3.6 hectares at a minimum. During that period, this would probably have meant an income of 200 drachmas or between 50 and 100 medimnoi of grain production (at a minimum), which might have coincided with an estate amounting to a monetary equivalent of 1,000 to 2,000 drachmas (also at a minimum). In fifth-century Athens, this census class would have accounted for between 30% and 40% of the population (or somewhat less, when excluding the non-zeugitai hoplites, those hoplites belonging to the upper classes). I argue that the monetary requirements for belonging to this census class were probably set by Cleisthenes or shortly afterwards, given the existence of a part of the population whose income did not rely on agriculture and who could serve as hoplites in times of war. The objective was to regulate the citizenry’s military life (with the introduction of the lēxiarchika grammateia and the katalogoi) with the obligation to fight as hoplites with their own weapons (as seen in the Salamis decree) for those citizens belonging to the zeugitai census class, that is, those meeting the minimum monetary requirements. The reforms bore immediate fruit in both Chalcis and Boiotia, and shortly afterwards, in Marathon and Plataea.

The spectacular growth in the number of hoplites – and therefore, in my view, of the zeugitai census class – during the Pentecontaetia (around 24,000 out of an approximate total of 60,000 citizens in 431), was undoubtedly due, on the one hand, to landholdings in cleruchies and colonies, and, on the other, to the economic prosperity of Athens, deriving in part from the Hegemony, thus expanding the base of those capable of fighting with hoplite weapons onto non-landowners. To this census class, both collectives (colonists/cleruchs plus artisans/merchants) joined those who owned enough land in Attica (3.6 hectares at a minimum). This system was efficient and straightforward. Nevertheless, those belonging to the hoplite/zeugitai census class obviously did not possess identical estates since there were certainly significant differences between those who met the minimum requirements (3.6 hectares) and those who almost met those for inclusion into the hippeis census class.¹³¹ These economic differences and the obligations of the richest among them to pay the eisphora as of 428 would lead to the restructuring of the census classes at the end of the fifth century. This occurred at a time of the revision of Solon’s laws, probably resulting in the adaptation of those classes to the well-known Aristotelian measures of production, at a time when the criterion of land ownership was important (as was the case with Phormisios).