Ostracism

[Mythos_Ruler]

In Athens a politician or any citizen for that matter could be "voted off the island" Survivor-style for a period of ten years. The citizenry can revoke this banishment at a later date if they so choose. This was done to Aristides before the Greco-Persian War and he was recalled once hostilities broke out.

My question is what exactly happens to the person's estate when they are banished? Aristides was part of the "noble" class, so what happened to his home, slaves, and commercial interests while he was gone? Did the state confiscate them? Were they placed under management of close relatives and friends to guard until his return? And what about immediate family members? Do wives, children, and manservants also receive banishment? If not, do they stay behind or voluntarily go with the ostracized?

EDIT: 200th post! woohoo

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Ostracism must not be seen as a form of punishment. It was not typical banishment like for traitors. It was a form of self protection of democracy against civil wars and undecided situations before difficult times. You must see it like this. Two parties were formed for a specific matter in a particular period,both based around a particular "inspired" leader. The citizens were divided in lets say those two(could be more) parties,so they accepted that one of the two opinions had to be put in action. And because there was always the possibility that even after an election,half of the citizens would continue to act against the decided action,under the leadership of that man,they believed it was safer to send that leader abroad. Another occasion was the one when one man was becoming so popular that the democrats themselves started being suspicious against him,yet not having any proof of any bad actions. So they sent him in exile to protect Democracy.
So when one was banished by the ostracism,his property remained in his hands. I'm not sure who took control of it,but most probably the exiled man could manage his property himself through his family and servants.
When one was punished in exile we are informed if his property was transfered to the state. There is no indication that his close family was banished,too. But it's interesting that the ostracised man had relatively little time until he left his city.
Khaire
Giannis

[Mythos_Ruler]

Ostracism must not be seen as a form of punishment. It was not typical banishment like for traitors. It was a form of self protection of democracy against civil wars and undecided situations before difficult times. You must see it like this. Two parties were formed for a specific matter in a particular period,both based around a particular "inspired" leader. The citizens were divided in lets say those two(could be more) parties,so they accepted that one of the two opinions had to be put in action. And because there was always the possibility that even after an election,half of the citizens would continue to act against the decided action,under the leadership of that man,they believed it was safer to send that leader abroad. Another occasion was the one when one man was becoming so popular that the democrats themselves started being suspicious against him,yet not having any proof of any bad actions. So they sent him in exile to protect Democracy.
So when one was banished by the ostracism,his property remained in his hands. I'm not sure who took control of it,but most probably the exiled man could manage his property himself through his family and servants.
When one was punished in exile we are informed if his property was transfered to the state. There is no indication that his close family was banished,too. But it's interesting that the ostracised man had relatively little time until he left his city.
Khaire
Giannis

Yes, I was aware that Ostracism was used in order to protect the fledgling democracy. However my main concern was the actual details in what happened to the Ostracized, namely the relationship between he and his property and family members.

[Mythos_Ruler]

No one has any other thoughts or insight?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Having strayed to the dark side sometime back, i am afraid I have not kept up my reading on Greek history......I do recall the mention of ostracism in the sources, but the details are a bit hazy, otherwise I would be jumping right in here with both feet...... only the judicious use of the delete key has saved me so far..... :oops:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

In order for a person to be ostricied it had to gather more than 6000 votes. The person had to leave Attica in ten days. No other punishment was forced on the person,just because astracism was not a court.
Is your question answered?

[Mythos_Ruler]

In order for a person to be ostricied it had to gather more than 6000 votes. The person had to leave Attica in ten days. No other punishment was forced on the person,just because astracism was not a court.
Is your question answered?

Well that answers the question about the state seizing the property. I assume then that the property would be left under the auspices of family or trusted friends.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

It remained to his family. Or in fact whoever the person trusted. In any case in ten years he would return anyway and as it happened in some cases,he could be recalled much sooner. Aristeides was recalled because the state needed him in the crisis of the Persian wars. I now wonder if he was recalled because the state needed the ultimate number of men or because they feared he would support the Perisans in order to be in favorable condition when the Persians would have won? Or perhaps both? It is also interesting that as soon as he returned,he had a leading role in the war. He even commanded a portion of the army after the battle of Marathon. He was the one left to guard the battlefield when the rest ran back in town. Again suspicious,since the Persians rushed to find the town unguarded.
Khaire
Giannis