Alcibiades And Critias Analysis

680 Words2 Pages

Alcibiades and Critias were both largely responsible for their own anti-democratic movements in Athens. Their history as former students of Socrates put a bad reputation on the philosopher, and attributed to his being called to trial in 399 B.C.E. The conditions surrounding Socrates’ trial raises a lot of questions, like why put Socrates to death when he was an old man, and why try to silence him when free speech is so vital to democracy? At the very least, evidence appears to point to the notion that Socrates was content with his death sentence after the trial. When Socrates was brought to trial he was an old man past seventy; and although he had a reputation as an eccentric he had not been brought to court previously until then. He was brought to trial partially under the charge that he had been corrupting the youth of Athens. This charge likely was alluding to his relationship with young aristocrats who liked to hear him speak. The problem was that several of these young men were later responsible for crimes against Athens. Alcibiades was guilty of fleeing to Sparta after defacing religious pillars, and later plotted an attempt to overthrow Athens’ democracy in 411 B.C.E. that lasted for several …show more content…

Socrates could not be charged for any wrongs before or during their reign, but his anti-democratic beliefs were much less tolerated. In addition the people were no doubt suspicious of the fact that throughout the Thirty’s reign of terror Socrates stayed in Athens all 8 months, while others suffered or fought to retake the city. Socrates’ trial came soon after yet another failed uprising in 401. While he could not be charged for any crimes before the Thirty, nor did he ever take part in any takeovers, Socrates made many enemies among supporters of democracy, and was considered responsible for the various rebellions by his

Open Document