Assassin Paintball

modern warfare quick scoping

FN FAL - Induction Coil - Water Valves

History
In 1947, the first FN FAL prototype was completed. It was designed to fire the intermediate 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge developed and used by the forces of Nazi Germany during World War II (see StG44 assault rifle). After testing this prototype in 1948, the British Army urged FN to build additional prototypes, including one in bullpup configuration, chambered for their new .280 British caliber intermediate cartridge. After evaluating the single bullpup prototype, FN decided to return instead to their original, conventional design for future production.
In 1950, the United Kingdom presented the redesigned FN rifle and the British EM-2, both in .280 British calibre, to the United States for comparison testing against the favoured United States Army design of the time - Earle Harvey's T25. It was hoped that a common cartridge and rifle could be standardized for issue to the armies of all NATO member countries. After this testing was completed, U.S. Army officials suggested that FN should redesign their rifle to fire the U.S. prototype '.30 Light Rifle' cartridge. FN decided to hedge their bets with the U.S., given that the UK appeared to be favouring their own EM-2.
In 1951, FN even made a deal with the U.S. that they could produce the FAL royalty-free in the U.S. This decision appeared to be correct when the British Army decided to adopt the EM-2 and .280 British cartridge in the very same month. This decision was later rescinded after the Labour Party lost the General Election, was ousted from control of Parliament and Winston Churchill returned as Prime Minister. It is believed that there was a quid-pro-quo agreement between Churchill and U.S. President Harry Truman in 1952 that the British accept the .30 Light Rifle cartridge as NATO standard in return for U.S. acceptance of the FN FAL as NATO standard. The .30 Light Rifle cartridge was in fact later standardized as the 7.62 mm NATO; however, the U.S. insisted on continued rifle tests. The FAL chambered for the .30 Light Rifle went up against the redesigned T25 (now redesignated as the T47), and an M1 Garand variant, the T44. Eventually, the T44 won out, becoming the M14. However, in the meantime, most other NATO countries were evaluating and selecting the FAL.
FN created what is possibly the classic post-war battle rifle. Formally introduced by its designers Dieudonne Saive and Ernest Vervier in 1951, and produced two years later, it has been described as the "right arm of the Free World." The FAL battle rifle has its Warsaw Pact counterpart in the AK-47, each being fielded by dozens of countries and produced in many of them. A few, such as Israel and South Africa, manufactured and issued both designs at various times. Unlike the Russian AK-47 assault rifle, the FAL utilized a heavier full-power rifle cartridge. In the West, FAL's primary competitor was the German Heckler & Koch G3. Design details
The FAL operates by means of a gas-operated action very similar to that of the Russian SVT-40. The gas system is driven by a short-stroke, spring-loaded piston housed above the barrel, and the locking mechanism is what is known as a tilting breechblock. To lock, it drops down into a solid shoulder of metal in the heavy receiver much like the bolts of the Russian SKS carbine and French MAS-49 series of semi-automatic rifles. The gas system is fitted with a gas regulator behind the front sight base, allowing adjustment of the gas system in response to environmental conditions, and can be closed completely to allow for the firing of rifle grenades. The FAL's magazine capacity ranges from 5 to 30 rounds, with most magazines holding 20 rounds. In fixed stock versions of the FAL, the recoil spring is housed in the stock, while in folding-stock versions it is housed in the receiver cover, necessitating a slightly different receiver cover, recoil spring, and bolt carrier, and a modified lower receiver for the stock.
FAL rifles have also been manufactured in both light and heavy-barrel configurations, with the heavy barrel intended for automatic fire as a section or squad light support weapon. Most heavy barrel FALs are equipped with bipods, although some light barrel models were equipped with bipods, such as the Austrian StG58 and the German G1, and a bipod was later made available as an accessory.
Among other 7.62x51mm NATO battle rifles at the time, the FN FAL had relatively light recoil, due to the gas system being able to be tuned via regulator in fore-end of the rifle, which allowed for excess gas which would simply increase recoil to bleed off. In fully-automatic mode, however, the shooter receives considerable abuse from recoil, and the weapon climbs off-target quickly, making automatic fire only of marginal effectiveness. Many military forces using the FAL eventually eliminated full-automatic firearms training in the light-barrel FAL. Production and use
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2009)
The FAL was made by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal (FN) in Lige, Belgium and under license in a number of countries. A distinct sub-family was the Commonwealth inch-dimensioned versions that were manufactured in the United Kingdom and Australia (as the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle or SLR), and in Canada as the C1. The standard metric-dimensioned FAL was manufactured in South Africa (where it was known as the R1), Brazil, Israel, Austria and Argentina. Mexico assembled FN-made components into complete rifles at its national arsenal in Mexico City. The FAL was also exported to many other countries, such as Venezuela, where a small-arms industry produces some basically unchanged variants, as well as ammunition. By modern standards, one disadvantage of the FAL is the amount of work which goes into machining the complex receiver, bolt and bolt carrier. Additionally, the movement of the tilting bolt mechanism tends to return differently with each shot, affecting inherent accuracy of the weapon. The FAL's receiver is machined, whilst most other modern military rifles use quicker stamping or casting techniques. Modern FALs have many improvements over those produced by FN and others in the mid-20th-century (for comparison, see a photo of a modern Para-style FAL).
While no production numbers are known, it is estimated that FAL production (in all of its variants) has exceeded 1,000,000 units. Argentina
The Argentine Armed Forces officially adopted the FN FAL in 1955, but the first FN made examples did not arrive in Argentina until the autumn of 1958. Subsequently, in 1960, licensed production of FALs began and continued until the mid to late 1990s, when production ceased.
Argentine FALs were produced by the government-owned arsenal FM (Fabricaciones Militares) at the Fabrica Militar de Armas Portatiles "Domingo Matheu" (FMAP "DM") in Fray Luis Beltrn, located a few miles north of Rosario. The acronym "FAL" was kept, its translation being "Fusil Automatico Liviano", (Light Automatic Rifle). Production weapons included "Standard" and "Para" (folding buttstock) versions. Military rifles were produced with the full auto fire option. The rifles were usually known as the FM FAL, for the "Fabricaciones Militares" brand name (FN and FM have a long standing licensing and manufacturing agreement). A heavy barrel version, known as the FAP (Fusil Automatico Pesado, or heavy automatic rifle) was also produced for the armed forces, to be used as a squad automatic weapon. The Argentine 'heavy barrel' FAL, also used by several other nations, was found to frequently experience a failure to feed after firing two rounds from a full magazine when in automatic mode.
An FAL offspring chambering the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge was developed in the early 1980s; it was dubbed the FARA 83 (Fusil Automatico Republica Argentina). The design borrowed features from the FAL such as the gas system and folding stock. It seems to have been also influenced to some degree by other Western rifles (the Beretta AR70/223, M16, and the Galil). An estimated quantity of between 2,500 and 3,000 examples were produced for field testing, but military spending cuts killed the project in the mid 1980s.
There was also a semi-automaticnly version, the FSL, intended for the civilian market. Legislation changes in 1995 (namely, the enactment of Presidential Decree N 64/95) imposed a de facto ban on "semi-automatic assault weapons". Today, it can take up to two years to obtain a permit for the ownership of an FSL. The FSL was offered with full or folding stocks, plastic furniture and orthoptic sights.
Argentine FALs saw action during the Falklands War (Falklands-Malvinas/South Atlantic War), and in different peace-keeping operations such as in Cyprus and the former Yugoslavia. Rosario-made FALs are known to have been exported to Bolivia (in 1971), Colombia, Croatia (during the wars in former Yugoslavia during the 1990s), Honduras, Nigeria (this is unconfirmed, most Nigerian FALs are from FN in Belgium or are British-made L1A1s), Peru, and Uruguay (which reportedly took delivery of some Brazilian IMBEL-made FALs as well). Deactivated ex-Argentinean FALs from the many thousands captured during the Falklands War are used by UK forces as part of the soldier's load on some training courses run over public land in the UK.
The Argentine Marine Corps, a branch of the Argentine Navy, has replaced the FN/FM FAL in front line units, adopting the U.S. M16A2. The Argentine Army has expressed its desire to acquire at least 1,500 new rifles chambered for the 5.56x45mm NATO SS109/U.S. M855 (.223 Remington) cartridge, to be used primarily by its peacekeeping troops on overseas deployments.
Soldiers from the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) fire their FN FALs on a range while taking part as the opposing force (OPFOR) during the Tradewinds 2002 Field Training Exercise (FTX), on the island of Antigua. Australia
The Australian Army, as a late member of the allied rifle committee along with the United Kingdom and Canada adopted the committee's improved version of the FAL rifle, designated the L1A1 rifle by Australia and Great Britain, and C1 by Canada. The Australian L1A1 is also known as the Self-Loading Rifle (SLR), and in full auto form, the Automatic Rifle (AR). The Australian L1A1 features are almost identical to the British L1A1 version of FAL, however the Australian L1A1 differs from its British counterpart in the design of the Main Body (Upper Receiver) lightening cuts. The lightening cuts of the Australian L1A1 most closely duplicate the later Canadian C1 pattern, rather than the simplified and markedly unique British L1A1 cuts. The Australian L1A1 FAL rifle was in service with Australian forces until it was superseded by the F88 Austeyr (a licence-built version of the Steyr AUG ) in 1988, though some remained in service with Reserve units until late 1990. The British and Australian L1A1s, and Canadian C1A1 SLRs were semi-automatic only, unless battlefield conditions mandated that modifications be made.
The Australians, in co-ordination with Canada, developed a heavy-barrel version of the L1A1 as an Automatic Rifle variant, designated L2A1. The Australian heavy-barrel L2A1 was also known as the Automatic Rifle (AR). The L2A1 was similar to the FN FAL 50.41/42, but with a unique combined bipod/hand-guard and a receiver dust-cover mounted tangent rear sight from Canada. The L2A1 was intended to serve a role as a light automatic rifle or quasi-Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). The role of the L2A1 and other heavy barrel FAL variants is essentially the same in concept as the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) or Bren, but the Bren is far better suited to the role of a fire support base for a section, being designed for the role from the start. In practice many considered the L2A1 inferior to the Bren, as the Bren had a barrel that can be changed, so could deliver a better continuous rate of fire, and was more accurate in the role due to its greater weight and better stock configuration. It is noteworthy that most countries that adopted the FAL rejected the Heavy Barrel FAL, presumably because it did not perform well as either a light rifle, or a SAW. Countries that did embrace the Heavy Barrel FAL included Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, and Israel.
Unique 30 round magazines were developed for the L2A1 rifles. These 30-round magazines were essentially a lengthened version of the standard 20-round L1A1 magazines, perfectly straight in design. Curved 30-round magazines from the L4A1 7.62 NATO conversion of the Bren are interchangeable with the 30-round L2A1 magazines, however they reputedly gave feeding difficulties due to the additional friction from the curved design as they must be inserted "upside down" in the L2A1. The L4A1 Bren magazines were developed as a top-mounted gravity-assisted feed magazine, opposite of what is required for the L2A1 FAL.
The Australian L1A1/L2A1 rifles were produced by the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow, with approximately 220,000 L1A1 rifles produced between 1959 and 1986. L2A1 production was approximately 10,000 rifles produced between 1962 and 1982. Lithgow exported a large number of L1A1 rifles to many countries in the region. Notable users were New Zealand, Singapore, and Papua New Guinea.
Many Australian soldiers used the SLR rifle during the Vietnam War. Many Australian soldiers preferred the larger calibre weapon over the American M16 because they felt the SLR was more reliable and they could trust the NATO 7.62 round to kill an enemy soldier outright. Australian jungle warfare tactics during the Vietnam War were far more successful than those employed by U.S. troops[citation needed], and often determined by the strengths and limitations of the SLR and its heavy ammunition load.
Another interesting product of Australian participation in the conflict in South-East Asia was the field modification of L1A1 and L2A1 rifles by the Australian Special Air Service Regiment SASR for better handling. Nicknamed "The Bitch", these rifles were field modified, often from heavy barrel L2A1 automatic rifles, with their barrels cut off immediately in front of the gas block, and often with the L2A1 bipods removed and a XM148 40 mm grenade launcher mounted below the barrel. The XM148 40 mm grenade launchers were obtained from U.S. forces. For the L1A1, the lack of fully-automatic fire resulted in the unofficial conversion of the L1A1 to full-auto capability by simply filing down the selector as it works by restricting trigger movement.If pulled only slightly, which semi-auto position allows, the disconnector is caught by the notch on the hammer, and upon releasing the trigger, it pushes the disconnector over the edge of the top of the trigger, giving it the necessary clearance to disengage the hammer and release upon pulling it again.l.
Australia produced a shortened version of the L1A1 designated the L1A1-F1. It was intended for easier use by soldiers of smaller stature in jungle combat, as the standard L1A1 is a long, heavy weapon. The reduction in length was achieved by installing the shortest butt length (there were 3 available, short, standard and long), and a flash suppressor that resembled the standard version except it projected a much smaller distance beyond the end of the rifling, and had correspondingly shorter flash eliminator slots. The effect was to reduce the length of the weapon by 2 1/4 inches. Trials revealed that, despite no reduction in barrel length, accuracy was slightly reduced. The L1A1-F1 was provided to Papua New Guinea, and a number were sold to the Royal Hong Kong Police in 1984. They were also issued to female Staff Cadets at the Royal Military College Duntroon and some other Australian personnel. Austria
After evaluating both the Spanish CETME and American Armalite AR-10, the Austrian Army adopted a variant of the FAL under the designation Sturmgewehr 58 (StG 58) until it was replaced by the Steyr AUG in 1977. Produced locally by Steyr Mannlicher, the StG 58 was outwardly similar to the German G1, featuring the same slimmer horizontally-ribbed sheet metal handguard and bipod, but using a different combination flash suppressor/grenade launcher spigot that is ribbed and longer than the Argentine and Belgian type. Belgium
Belgium was the first country to adopt both the FAL and FALO (heavy barrel FAL) for its armed forces in the 1950s. Both rifles were kept in service until the FN FNC was introduced into combat units in the late 1980s. The FAL finally disappeared from inventory around 1995. Bolivia
The Bolivian military currently uses the FN FAL as its main service rifle, having purchased large numbers of surplus FN FALs from the Argentine military. Brazil
Brazil took delivery of a small quantity of FN-made FAL rifles for evaluation as early as 1954. Troop field testing was performed with FN made FALs between 1958 and 1962. Then, in 1964, Brazil officially adopted the rifle, designating the rifle M964 for 1964. Licensed production started shortly thereafter at the Indstria de Material Blico do Brasil, or IMBEL, in Itajub in the state of Minas Gerais. The folding stock version was designated M969A1. By the late 1980s/ early 1990s, IMBEL had manufactured some 200,000 M964 rifles. Later Brazilian made FALs have Type 3, investment-cast receivers, a feature that simplifies production and lowers cost. Early FN made FALs for Brazil are typical FN 1964 models with Type 1 or Type 2 receivers, plastic stock, handguard, and pistol grip, 22 mm cylindrical flash hider for grenade launching, and plastic model "D" carrying handle. Brazilian-made FALs are thought to have been exported to Uruguay. A heavy barrel version, known as the FAP (Fuzil Automtico Pesado, or heavy automatic rifle) was also produced for the armed forces, to be used as a squad automatic weapon.
Main article: IMBEL MD2
Brazil's current service weapon is a development of the FAL in 5.56x45mm. Known as the MD-2 and MD-3 assault rifles, it is also manufactured by IMBEL. The first prototype, the MD-1, came out around 1983. In 1985, the MD-2 was presented and adopted by the Brazilian Armed Forces and Military Police. Its new 5.56x45mm NATO chambering aside, the MD-2/MD-3 is still very similar to the FAL and externally resembles it, changes include a change in the locking system, which was replaced by an M16-type rotating bolt. The MD-2 and MD-3 use M16-compatible magazines, but have different buttstocks. The MD-2 features a FN 50.63 'para' side-folding stock, while the MD-3 uses the same fixed polymer stock of the standard FAL.
IMBEL also produced a semi-automatic version of the FAL for Springfield Armory, Inc. (not to be confused with the US military Springfield Armory), which was marketed in the US as the SAR-48 (standard model) and SAR-4800 (with some military features removed to comply with new legislation), starting in the mid-1980s. IMBEL-made receivers have been much in demand among American gunsmiths building FALs from "parts kits." Cambodia
Used by the Khmer Republic during the Cambodian Civil War since 1963-1975 and in limited use by the Royal Cambodian Army special forces. Canada
The C1A1.
Canadian soldier with C2 light machine gun. The C2 is the Canadian version of the FN FAL, with a heavier barrel than the regular FN FAL and C1.
The Canadian Forces operated a number of versions, the most common being the FN C1A1, similar to the British L1A1 (which became more or less a Commonwealth standard), the main difference being that rotating disc rear sight graduated from 200 to 600 yards. The trigger guard was able to be folded into the pistol grip, this allowed the user to wear mitts when using the weapon. It was manufactured under license by the Canadian Arsenals Limited company. Canada was the first country to use the FAL. It served as Canada's standard battle rifle from the early 1950s to 1984, when it began to be phased out in favor of the lighter Diemaco C7, a licence-built version of the US M16. The Canadians also operated an automatic variant, the FN C2A1, as a section support weapon, which was very similar to the Australian L2A1. It was similar to the FN FAL 50.41/42, but with wooden attachments to the bipod legs that work as a handguard when the legs are folded. The C2A1 used a tangent rear sight attached to the receiver cover with ranges from 200 to 1000 meters. The C1 was equipped with a 20-round magazine and the C2 with a 30-round magazine, although the two were interchangeable. Variants of the initial FN C1 and the product improved C1A1 were also made for the Royal Canadian Navy, which was capable of automatic fire, under the designations C1D and C1A1D. These weapons are identifiable by a "A" for automatic, carved or stamped into the buttstock. Boarding parties for domestic and international searches used these models. Germany
A West German soldier on a joint exercise with American troops. The Germans used the FAL briefly in the late 1950s and early 1960s under the designation Gewehr G1.
The first German FALs were from an order placed in late 1955/early 1956, for several thousand FN FAL so-called "Canada" models with wood furniture and the prong flash hider. These weapons were intended for the Bundesgrenzschutz (border guard) and not the nascent Bundeswehr (army), which at the time used M1 Garands and M1/M2 carbines. In November 1956, however, West Germany ordered 100,000 additional FALs, designated the G1, for the army. FN made the rifles between April 1957 and May 1958. G1s served in the West German Bundeswehr for a relatively short time in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before they were replaced by the Spanish CETME Modelo 58 rifle in 1959 (which was extensively reworked into the later G3 rifle). The G1 featured a pressed metal handguard identical to the ones used on the Austrian Stg. 58, as well as the Dutch and Greek FALs, this being slightly slimmer than the standard wood or plastic handguards, and featuring horizontal lines running almost their entire length. G1s were also fitted with a unique removable prong flash hider, adding another external distinction. It has been alleged that the main reason for the replacement of the G1 in Germany centred around bitterness stemming from World War II and the refusal of the Belgians to grant a license for production of the weapon in Germany. Many G1 FALs were passed on to Turkey after their withdrawal from German service. Of note is the fact that the G1 was the first FAL variant with the 3mm lower sights specifically requested by Germany, previous versions having the taller Commonwealth-type sights also seen on Israeli models. Greece
Adopted the FAL and FALO under license by the Pyrkal factories before using Hellenic Arms Industry-made G3A3s. This move was due to lack of support by the Greek government on Pyrkal. It was in use with the Greek special forces and the IV Army Corps in the Evros region from 1973 to 1999. From 2000, the FAL was replaced by the M16A2 and M4 series in the special forces. At this time, the use of the FAL is reserved to the Greek national guard, Police and Coast Guard. India
Since the late 1950s, the Indian armed forces had been equipped with a FAL variant alleged to be reverse-engineered, which is designated the 1A SLR (Self Loading Rifle). This copy is considered to be a distinct weapon (although certainly not an original design) which has features from both Commonwealth inch-dimensioned versions as well as metric FALs. It was the mainstay rifle of the Indian Army for almost 45 years, and first saw combat use during the 1965 war with Pakistan. The variant manufactured in India is restricted to semi-automatic fire. The replacement for the 1A is the INSAS family of rifles, carbines and light machine guns - partially derived from the SLR but also with AK features, but in 5.56 mm. Considerable number of SLRs continue to be used by paramilitary, constabulary and police forces of India. Indian 1A SLRs have been provided to Nepal. Israel
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) had to overcome several logistical problems (the supply of ammunition, repairs, spare parts and so on), which were a result of the wide variety of old firearms that were in service. In 1955 the IDF adopted the IMI-produced Uzi submachine gun. To replace the Mauser Kar 98k and some British Lee-Enfield rifles, the IDF decided in the same year to adopt the FN FAL as its standard-issue infantry rifle, under the name Romat ("), an abbreviation of "self-loading rifle". The FAL version ordered by the IDF came in two basic variants, both regular and heavy-barrel (automatic rifle), and were chambered for 7.62 mm NATO ammunition. In common with heavy-barrel FALs used by several other nations, the Israeli 'heavy barrel' FAL (Makleon), , was found to frequently experience a failure to feed after firing two rounds from a full magazine when in automatic mode. The Israeli FALs were originally produced as selective-fire rifles, though later light-barrel rifle versions were altered to semi-automatic fire only. The Israeli versions are distinguished by a distinctive handguard with a forward perforated sheet metal section, and a rear wood section unlike most other FALs in shape, and their higher 'Commonwealth'-type sights.
The Israeli FAL first saw action in relatively small quantities during the Suez Crisis of 1956, and by the Six-Day War in June 1967, it was the standard Israeli rifle. During the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 it was still in front-line service as the standard Israeli rifle, though increasing criticism eventually led to the phasing-out of the weapon. Israeli forces were primarily mechanized in nature; the long, heavy FAL slowed deployment drills, and proved exceedingly difficult to manouvre within the confines of a vehicle. Additionally, Israeli forces experienced repeated jamming of the FAL due to heavy sand and dust ingress endemic to Middle Eastern desert warfare, requiring repeated field-stripping and cleaning of the rifle, sometimes while under fire, though the reasons for the reputed performance issues are still debated. During the later stages of the Yom Kippur War, it was noted that some Israeli soldiers had informally exchanged their FALs for Soviet Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles taken from dead and captured Arab soldiers. Though the IDF evaluated a few modified FAL rifles with 'sand clearance' slots in the bolt carrier and receiver (which were already part of the Commonwealth L1A1/C1A1 design), malfunction rates did not significantly improve. The Israeli FAL was eventually replaced by the M16 and the Galil (a weapon using the Soviet Kalashnikov operating system, and chambered in either 5.56x45 or 7.62 NATO), though the FAL remained in production in Israel until at least 1981. Ireland
The Irish Defence Forces used it as the main rifle from the 1960s until 1988 where it was replaced by the Steyr AUG for use by Permanent Defence Forces, however it was not until 2000/2001 that the FN FAL was retired by the Reserve Forces. It is currently in storage for use as an emergency national reserve. Kuwait
The Kuwaiti Army used the FN FAL including para and HBAR models and L1A1 rifles from 1957 until 1995. Used by many Kuwaiti soldiers. After the Liberation of Kuwait in 1991 FN FAL rifles were slowly withdrawn from service until 1996, with most of them being given to museums for display or ending up in storage. Kuwaiti Military announced that the FN FAL and L1A1 rifles are to be replaced by the FAMAS[citation needed]. Malaysia
The Malaysian Army adopted the L1A1 SLR rifle from the British Commonwealth circa 1970 to replace the elderly bolt action Lee Enfield rifle and Sten sub-machinegun. It was also adopted by Royal Malaysian Police for its Paramilitary Field Force (Pasukan Polis Hutan/GOF). Communist Party of Malaya cadres had been found with the FN FAL as well, most of them looted from dead or wounded Malaysian soldiers. This rifle was used until in the 1990s with the adoption of the HK 33, Beretta AR70 and M16A1 rifles before FALs were withdrawn from service and transferred to second line units (Rejimen Askar Wataniah). Many Malaysian Army veterans said it was one of the finest battle rifles, rugged and easy to maintain as they found the 7.62x51 NATO calibre to be effective in combat with Communist Party of Malaya cadres armed with Type 56 assault rifles and older weapons like the Lee Enfield. Netherlands
Dutch FN FAL with an infrared light and scope, exhibited at the Legermuseum in Delft.
The Royal Netherlands Army adopted the Belgian rifle with bipod but without fully-automatic capability in 1961, being called Het licht automatisch geweer , but usually known as the 'FAL' in Dutch service. They had unique sights (hooded at the front) and the German style sheet metal front handguard. A sniper version, Geweer Lange Afstand, also existed and was standard with a scope of Dutch origin produced by the Artillerie Inrichtingen and without the bipod. The scope was introduced as Kijker Richt Recht AI 62. The heavy-barrel FAL 50.42 version was also adopted later as a squad automatic weapon as the Het zwaar automatisch geweer. This rifle was replaced in the 1990s by the Diemaco C7. New Zealand
The New Zealand Army used the L1A1 Rifle (see United Kingdom below) as its standard service rifle for just under 30 years. The Labour government of Walter Nash approved the purchase of the L1A1 as a replacement for the No. 4 Mk 1 Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle in September 1958. An order for a total of 15,000 L1A1 rifles was subsequently placed with the Lithgow Arsenal in Australia which had been granted a license to produce the L1A1. However the first batch of 500 rifles from this order was not actually delivered to the New Zealand Army until 1960. Thereafter deliveries continued at an increasing pace until the order for all 15,000 rifles was completed in 1965. After its adoption by the Army, the Royal New Zealand Air Force and the Royal New Zealand Navy also eventually acquired it. Unlike L1A1s in Australian service, New Zealand L1A1s later used British black plastic furniture, and some rifles even had a mixture of the two. The carrying handles were frequently removed . The British SUIT (Sight Unit Infantry Trilux) optical sight was issued to some users in infantry units. The L2A1 heavy barrel was also issued as a limited standard, but was not popular due to the problems also encountered by other users of heavy barrel FAL variants. The L4A1 7.62mm conversion of the Bren was much-preferred in New Zealand service. The New Zealand Defence Force began replacing the L1A1 Rifle with the Steyr AUG assault rifle in 1988. The Steyr AUG is currently in use across all three services of the New Zealand Defence Force. Nigeria
Nigerian troops in Somalia with FALs.
The Nigerian Army uses FN FAL assault rifles under license by DICON (Defence Industries Corporation) as the NR-1 (Nigerian Rifle 1) in 1989. Philippines
It is known that Libya has shipped over a thousand FN FAL's to the Moro National Liberation Front and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Portugal
Though Portugal eventually adopted the G3 rifle (Espingarda Automtica m/961) as its primary infantry weapon, the country had a long history of issuing substitute standard weapons to its elite combat units, and this practice continued during Portugal's conflict with guerilla forces in its colonies of Angola, Portuguese Guinea-Bissau, and Mozambique. In 1960, the country's airborne battalions adopted the Artillerie Inrichtingen ArmaLite AR-10, and the Army issued quantities of light-barrel FN and West German G1 FAL rifles to several of its elite commando forces, including the Companhias de Caadores Especiais (Special Hunter [Ranger] companies). The latter often expressed a preference for the lighter FAL over the Portuguese-manufactured version of the H&K G3 rifle when on ambush or patrol. In Portuguese service, the FN FAL was designated Espingarda Automtica 7,62 mm FN m/962. Rhodesia
Rhodesian soldiers on patrol with FAL rifles during the 1970s.
Like most British colonies and Commonwealth Nations of the time, the colony of Southern Rhodesia's military forces were issued the British semi-automatic version of the FAL, the L1A1. However after the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Great Britain in 1965, the new country of Rhodesia was unable to obtain further supplies of L1A1 SLRs. Instead, numbers of South African R1 rifles were procured from that country. These two rifles would be the primary infantry small arm of the Rhodesian Security Forces during the Rhodesian Bush War of 1965-80. As the SLR L1A1 is inch-dimensioned, the metric FAL (including the R1) is not fully interchangeable with it. However, the international arms export embargo on Rhodesia and the eventual loss of support from the South African government meant that the supply of FALs would dry up. To make up for this shortage of arms, numbers of G3 rifles were procured from Portuguese colonies. The FAL, however, remained far more popular with the Rhodesian "Troopie" and G3s were generally restricted to police, Guard Force, and other paramilitary units. South Africa
After a competition between the German G3 rifle, the Armalite AR-10, and the FN FAL, the South African Defence Force adopted three variants of the FAL: a rifle with the designation R1, a "lightweight" variant of the FN FAL 50.64 fabricated locally under the designation R2, and a model designed for police use not capable of automatic fire under the designation R3. The R2 was built by Lyttleton Engineering Works and Armscor. The FN FAL also formed the basis of the 7.62 mm LMG, with a heavy barrel and hence unanimously known as the "swaarloop". The R1 rifle in South African service was superseded around the mid-1980s with the locally built 5.56 mm R4 assault rifle, a license-built version of the Israeli Galil. Sri Lanka
The Sri Lankan Army adopted the L1A1 SLR rifle in the 1970s to replace the elderly bolt action Lee Enfield rifle and Sten sub-machinegun. It was widely used in the early stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War before being replaced by the AK 47 and Type 56 assault rifles. It was also used by the Sri Lanka Police. Thailand
FAL was used by Royal Thai Police Forces since the 1960s and designation as "Rifle Type 05" (1962). The FN FAL had been seen with limited use due to the availability of lighter rifles like the M16 and HK 33. Turkey
The Turkish Armed Forces used the FAL as the main rifle until the late 1960s when it was replaced by the H&K G3. (Many of Turkey's FAL were former West German G1, which had been replaced by the G3.) However, the FAL remains in use as a training rifle by the Turkish Army, Turkish Air Forces Infantry Brigade, Turkish Navy Infantry Brigade, and Turkish Police Commanders. United Kingdom
British L1A1 SLR
The United Kingdom developed its own variant of the FN FAL, designating it the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR). While in production it was manufactured by the Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield, Birmingham Small Arms and the Royal Ordnance Factory. Replacement components were made by Parker Hale Limited. The SLR was fitted with a lug so that it could facilitate a bayonet, and a rifle grenade launcher. The L1A1 SLR served the British Armed Forces from 1954 until 1985, being replaced by the L85A1.
The British SLR was graduated using Imperial measurements and included several changes from the original Belgian FN FAL. The most prominent change from the original FAL, was that the L1A1 operated in the semi-automatic mode only. Other changes included the introduction of a fold-flat cocking handle, an enclosed flash suppressor and a folding rear sight. Minor changes included sand-clearing modifications to the body, breechblock and the breechblock carrier, a gas regulator, an integral fold-away trigger guard and pistol grip, strengthened butt-stock and an enlarged fire selector and magazine catch along with a modified take-down release lever to prevent unintended activation and top-cover retainer tabs to prevent forward movement.
Later production SLRs were produced with synthetic handguards, such as the pistol grip, forward hand grip, carrying handle and buttstock. The synthetic material was produced from Maranyl pastic, a nylon 6-6 and fiberglass composite. The SLR's synthetic furniture was of an anti-slip texture, and the buttstock included the feature of a replaceable butt-pad, depending on an individual user's "length of pull". The wooden furniture was present in early production SLRs, and was available in two different patterns of forward hand grip, the first being solid wood similar to the Belgian original with flat faces and two oval shaped cooling apertures, with the second having two and of a more rounded profile. Some of the modifications reflected those on the Canadian C1 and C2 Rifle, Australian L1A1 and L2A1, and to a lesser extent the Indian 1A SLR.
The SLR was produced so the fire selector featured two settings, being safety and semi-automatic, rather than the original Belgian FN which featured automatic fire. The magazine from the 7.62 mm L4 light machine gun was able to fit the L1A1 SLR. However, the L4s system was designed for gravity assisted downwards feeding, and were unreliable on the upwards feeding system of the SLR. Commonwealth magazines were produced with a lug brazed onto the front to engage the recess in the receiver, in the place of a smaller pressed dimple of the metric FAL magazine. Meaning, that FAL magazines can be used with the Commonwealth SLR, but SLR magazines will not fit the metric FAL.
Despite the British, Australian and Canadian versions of the FN being manufactured using machine tools which utilised the Imperial measurement system, they are all of the same basic dimensions. Incompatibility between the original FAL and the L1A1 are due to pattern differences, not due to the different dimensions as incorrectly thought. Confusions over the differences has given rise to the terminology of "metric" and "inch" FAL rifles, which originated as a reference to the machine tools which produced them. Despite this, virtually all FAL rifles are of the same basic dimensions, true to the original Belgian FN FAL. Due to this, the term of "metric FAL" refers to the original Belgian FAL, whereas "inch FAL" refers to one produced with the modified, British, Australian and Canadian L1A1 pattern.
United States Marine with a British L1A1 SLR, during a training exercise as part of the Gulf War's Operation Desert Shield.
Late production SLRs were produced to accommodate two additional sighting systems. The first being the "Hythe Sight" which featured a dual-aperture day and night sight, and was developed for use at close range and in poor lighting conditions such as during dusk or the night. The sight incorporated two overlapping rear sight aperture leaves and a permanently glowing tritium insert for improved night visibility, which had to be replaced after a period of time due to radioactive decay. The second sight being the L2A1 "Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux" (SUIT) was attached to the modified receiver cover. The SUIT featured a fixed-focus scope and had a four-times magnification setting. The SUIT featured a prismatic offset and inverted tapered sight, the prismatic offset design reduced the length of the site and improved clearance around the action. Also, the SUIT helped to reduce parallax errors and heat mirage from the barrel, if it were to get hot during firing. The inverted sight post allowed rapid target re-acquisition after the recoil of the firearm raised the rifle barrel. Despite the SUITs weight, the scope was durable and robust. During the Cold War, the UK SUIT scope was copied by the Soviet Union and designated the 1P29 telescopic sight.
The L1A1 SLR was replaced in 1987 by the introduction of the bullpup L85A1, firing the 5.56 mm cartridge. Between 1987 and 1991, L1A1 rifles were phased out either being destroyed or sold on, with some going to Sierra Leone. United States
A T48 rifle made by FN for trials in the United States.
The USA tested the FAL in several forms; initially as manufactured by FN in experimental configurations, and later in the final T48 configuration as an official competitor for the new US Light Self-Loading Rifle intended to replace the M1 Garand. The US Army procured T48 rifles from three firms for testing, including two US based companies in an effort to assess the manufacturability of the FN design in the USA. The T48 was manufactured for testing by Fabrique Nationale (FN), of Herstal, Belgium; Harrington & Richardson (H&R) of Worcester, Massachusetts; and the High Standard Company of Hartford, Connecticut. The United States also received a small number of FAL Heavy Barrel Rifles (HBAR) (either 50.41 or pre-50.41) for testing, under the designation T48E1, though none of these rifles were adopted by US.
The T48 competed against the T44 rifle. The T44 was a heavily modified version of the earlier M1 Garand. Testing proved the T48 and the T44 comparable in performance, with no clear winner. However, the supposed ease of production of the T44 upon machinery already in place for the M1 Garand and the similarity in the manual of arms for the T44 and M1 ultimately swayed the decision in the direction of the T44, which was adopted as the M14 rifle.
In the wake of World War II, the NATO "Rifle Steering Committee" was formed to encourage the adoption of a standardized NATO rifle. The Committee and the US interest in the FAL proved to be a turning point in the direction of the FAL's development. The US and NATO interest in small arms standardization was the primary reason why the FAL was redesigned to use the newly developed 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, instead of the intermediate cartridge designs originally tested by FN. Two political factors are worth noting: the US Government tacitly indicated to NATO, and specifically to the United Kingdom, that if the FAL were redesigned for the new US 7.62x51mm cartridge, then the FAL would become acceptable to the US, and the US would presumably adopt the FAL rifle. Secondly, FN had indicated that it would allow former WWII Allied countries to produce the FAL design with no licensing or royalty costs as a gift to the Allies for the liberation of Belgium. Ultimately, the US chose to part with the other NATO members and adopt the M14 rifle, while the majority of NATO countries immediately adopted the FAL.
Century Arms FN-FAL rifle from a parts kit
During the late 1980s and 1990s, many countries decommissioned the FAL from their armories and sold them en masse to United States importers as surplus. The rifles were imported to the United States as fully-automatic guns. Once in the U.S., the FAL's were "de-militarized" (upper receiver destroyed) to eliminate the rifles' character as an automatic rifle, as stipulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68 currently prohibits the importation of foreign-made full-automatic assault rifles prior to the enactment of the Gun Control Act; semiautomatic versions of the same firearm were legal to import until the Semiautomatic Assault Rifle Ban of 1989). Thousands of the resulting "parts kits" were sold at generally low prices ($90 $250) to hobbyists. The hobbyists rebuilt the parts kits to legal and functional semi-automatic rifles on new semi-automatic upper receivers. FAL rifles are still commercially available from a few domestic firms in semi-auto configuration: Entreprise Arms, DSArms, and Century Arms. Most notably Century Arms created a semi-automatic version L1A1 with an IMBEL upper receiver and surplus British Enfield inch-pattern parts. Venezuela
Venezuela was the first country after Belgium to adopt the FN FAL in 1954 and until recently it was the main assault rifle of the Venezuelan army. The first batch of rifles to arrive in Venezuela were chambered in 7x49mm (also known as 7 mm Liviano or 7 mm Venezuelan). Essentially a 7x57mm round shortened to intermediate length, this caliber was jointly developed by Venezuelan and Belgian engineers motivated by a global move towards intermediate calibers. The Venezuelans, who had been exclusively using the 7x57mm round in their light and medium weapons since the turn of the century, felt it was a perfect platform on which to base a caliber tailored to the particular rigors of the Venezuelan terrain.
Eventually the plan was dropped despite having ordered millions of rounds and thousands of weapons of this caliber. The decision was not based on the attributes of the round, which was actually quite good, but in fact to political motivation. As the Cold War escalated, the military command felt it necessary to align with NATO despite not being a member, resulting in the adoption of the 7.62x51mm cartridge and the rechambering of the 5,000 or so FAL rifles that had already arrived in 7x49mm by 1955-56.
The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, recently bought 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles from Russia in order to replace the old FALs. Although the full shipment arrived by the end of 2006, the FAL will remain in service with the Venezuelan Reserve Forces and the Territorial Guard. Variants FN Production Variants FAL 50.41 & 50.42
Also known as FALO;
Heavy barrel for sustained fire with 30-round magazine as a squad automatic weapon;
Known in Canada as the C2A1, it was their primary squad automatic weapon until it was phased out during the 1980s in favor of the C9, which has better accuracy and better ammunition capacity than the C2;
Known to the Australian Army as the L2A1, it was replaced by the FN Minimi. The L2A1 or 'heavy barrel' FAL was used by several Commonwealth nations and was found to frequently experience a failure to feed after firing two rounds from a full magazine when in automatic mode.
The 50.41 is fitted with a plastic buttstock, while the 50.42's buttstock is made from wood. FAL 50.61
Folding-stock, standard barrel length FAL 50.63
Folding-stock, shorter-barrel paratrooper version;
Two variants with differing barrel lengths: 458 mm versus 436 mm. The shorter version was requested by Belgian paratroopers. This allowed the folded-stock rifle to fit through the doorway of their C-119 Flying Boxcar when worn horizontally across the chest. FAL 50.64
Folding-stock, standard barrel length, 'Hiduminium' aluminum alloy lower receiver See also
Sturmgewehr 57
Heckler & Koch G3
RFB Carbine
GRAM 63 battle rifle
FM 1957 battle rifle
M14 rifle
AR-10
AR-18
MAS-54 rifle series
Howa Type 64
SVT-40
IMBEL MD2 References
^ Hogg, Ian (2002). Jane's Guns Recognition Guide. Jane's Information Group. ISBN 0-00-712760-X.
^ Popeneker, Maxim & Williams, Anthony. Assault Rifle The Crowood Press Ltd. (2005) ISBN 1-86126-700-2.
^ FN-FAL pictorial
^ http://www.mg0815.com/FALinfo.htm
^ Service Rifles. Retrieved on May 13, 2008.
^ Ezell, 1988, p. 83
^ South African Military History Society Newsletter (June 2006) http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/06junnl.html
^ a b c Bodinson, Holt, Century Golani Sporter: The Israeli-designed AK Hybrid is a Solid Performer, Guns Magazine, July 2007
^ a b Weapons Wizard Israeli Galili, Soldier of Fortune Magazine, March 1982
^ Ezell, 1988, p. 276
^ Multiplying the Sources. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ Nigeria: Arms Procurement and Defense Industries. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ DOSSIER - The Question of Arms in Africa. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ Dead on Time - arms transportation, brokering and the threat of human rights. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ Nigeria Arms Procurement and Defense Industries. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ Afonso, Aniceto and Gomes, Carlos de Matos, Guerra Colonial (2000), ISBN 972-46-1192-2, pp. 183-184, 358-359
^ Afonso, Aniceto and Gomes, Carlos de Matos, Guerra Colonial (2000), ISBN 972-46-1192-2, pp. 358-359
^ Ezell, 1988, p. 328
Afonso, Aniceto and Gomes, Carlos de Matos, Guerra Colonial, 2000
Ezell, Clinton, Small Arms of the World, Stackpole Books (1983)
Pikula, Maj. Sam, The Armalite AR-10, 1998
Stevens, R. Blake, The FAL Rifle, Collector Grade Publications (1993) External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: FN FAL
FNforum - FN Resource
Additional information, including pictures at Modern Firearms
Remtek FN FAL Info
The FAL Files
Stefan Janson's FAL involvement
The FN/FAL & L1A1 FAQ
DSA Inc.
Buddy Hinton FAL Manual Collection
FN FAL Rifle Ejector Photos
FAL Pictorial
Metric and Inch FAL Comparison
Video of operation at YouTube (Japanese) Video links
Nazarian`s Gun Recognition Guide (FILM) FN FAL "Paratrooper" model Presentation (.MPEG)
v  d  e
Current UK individual weapons and cartridges
Pistols
L9A1 L106A1 L117A2
Assault rifles
carbines
Designated marksman rifles
L85A2 IW L86A2 LSW L22A2 L129A1 L119A1 HK 417
Sniper rifles
L96A1, L118A1 L115A1, L115A3 L82A1 L121A1 Arctic Warfare Covert
Submachine guns
L80A1 (MP5K), L90A1 (MP5K A1) L91A1 (MP5 A2/A3), L92A1 (MP5 SD2/SD3)
Shotguns
L74A1 L128A1
Machine guns
L108A1, L110A1 L7A2 L2A1 (M2HB), L111A1 (M2HB-QCB)
Grenade
less-lethal launchers
L17A1/A2 L67A1 L134A1
Rockets
LASM LAW 80 M3 Carl Gustav L2A1 (ILAW) L142A1 (AT4CS HP)
Guided missiles
MILAN FGM-148 Javelin Starstreak SAM (shoulder launched or 3-shot mutiple launcher)
Mortars
L9A1 M6-640 L16A2
Modern cartridges used
5.56x45mm NATO 7.62x51mm NATO 12.7x99mm NATO .338 Lapua 9x19mm Parabellum 12 gauge
v  d  e
Weapons of the British Empire & Commonwealth of Nations 17221965
Handguns
Beaumont-Adams Revolver  Webley Revolver Mk. II  Enfield No. 1 & No. 2 Revolvers  Browning Hi-Power
Rifles and carbines
Brown Bess Musket  Ferguson rifle  Baker Infantry Rifle  Brunswick rifle  Enfield 1853 Rifled Musket  Snider-Enfield  Martini-Henry  Martini-Enfield  Lee-Metford  Lee-Enfield  L1A1 SLR  Lee-Enfield No.5 Mk.I "Jungle Carbine"  De Lisle Commando Carbine
Submachine guns
Lanchester  Sten  Owen gun  Sterling L2  F1 submachine gun
Rapid-fire weapons
Nordenfelt gun  Gatling gun  Gardner gun  Maxim gun  QF 2 pdr "Pom-Pom"  Vickers Gun  Lewis Gun  Charlton Automatic Rifle  Bren gun
Anti-tank weapons
2 pdr Anti-Tank Gun  6 pdr Anti-Tank Gun  PIAT  Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55 in, Boys  L6 Wombat
Field guns
and other weapons
25 pdr Field Gun  Congreve rocket  SBML 2-inch Mortar  Ordnance ML 3 inch Mortar  No.2 "Lifebuoy" Flamethrower  Stokes Mortar Categories: Assault rifles | Battle rifles | Cold War rifles | Semi-automatic rifles | Fabrique Nationale de Herstal firearms | Weapons of Belgium | Military equipment of the British Empire | Modern weapons of Canada | 7.62 mm firearms | Cold War infantry weapons | Falklands War infantry weapons | Vietnam War infantry weapons of AustraliaHidden categories: Articles needing additional references from July 2009 | All articles needing additional references | Self-contradictory articles from July 2009 | All self-contradictory articles | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from November 2009
About the Author

The e-commerce company in China offers quality products such as Induction Coil , Water Valves, and more. For more , please visit pneumatic equipments suppliers today!

modern warfare quick scoping
Modern Warfare 2 Quick Scope Tutorial

Modern Warfare $6.99 Modern Warfare - Poster

Modern Warfare (6 Disc) - $59.99 Modern Warfare (6 Disc) -

Modern Warfare (6pc) - $24.99 Modern Warfare (6pc) -

---

Democracy -- When did the process begin

Tahirir Square, Cairo, Egypt is presumably the place where the latest field work is going on, a carryover, apparently, of the experiment that started in Tunisia. But the experiment is not exactly new, it had begun long ago in a land washed by a Homeric wine-dark sea, over the sun-drenched expanse of which, says Henry Miller sightless statues in ancient ruins keep on gazing.  

 

Believed to be one of the very first and most important ancient democracies in the world, Athenian democracy or classical democracy was the system of governance in the city – state of Athens and its surrounding area of Attica in ancient Greece. There were other city – state democracies in Greece as well, modeled to some extent after Athens, but none were as powerful and as firmly settled as Athens. Nor were their surviving records as numerous. People in Athens did not vote to elect representatives who would frame on their behalf legislations and executive bills, they voted to create such instruments of governance themselves on their own right. It was an astonishing and bewildering devlopment in an age, when very few people had a clear idea of what a purposeful life was. Not all the people in Attica took part in this direct democratic process, but those who did were so chosen not for any economic consideration, and their numbers were staggering. It was indeed a matter of wonder that so many people worked together so far away in time to give a shape to their future.

The word democracy is derived by combining the Greek words demos meaning people and kratia meaning rule or power. Kratia apparently is not a polite word, and instead of using the conventional word "arche" the detractors of the system used this pejorative. Anyway, it won the approval of the Athenians as would be seen in the attestation (ca 440 – 430 BCE) of Herodotus, author of some of the earliest surviving Greek prose. It is not certain that the word was used before the beginning of democracy, but around 460 BCE a child was named Democrates.

Such a name was quite common in Aeolian Temnus, not quite a democratic state.

The   Pioneers

Historians are divided over who contributed which institution towards the inception and growth of Athenian Democracy, the path – breakers being Solon (594 BCE), Cleisthenes (508) and Ephialtes (462). It seems Solon started the democratic movement, and his constitution was discarded by the tyrant Peisistratos. Quite a darling of the aristocratic opponents of democracy, Peisistratos and his sons Hippias and Hipparchus let loose a reign of increasing severity thereby undermining their authoritative hold over the Athenian society. Hipparchus was assassinated by Harmonius and Aristogeiton, and a revolution four years later brought about the end of the tyranny. In the relatively peaceful conditions which followed, Ephialtes revised the constitution Cleisthenes had prepared and kept in abeyance due to the tyrannical conditions. For this reason, Athenian democracy is considered to have began in the time of Cleisthenes. Many years later Athenians honoured Harmonius and Aristogeiton  for their roles in the restoration of Athenian freedom.  To Pericles goes the honour of being the greatest and longest-lasting democratic leader of Athens. Following his death, there were two brief oligarchic revolutions towards the end of the Peloponnesian war when the democratic institutions were suspended. The restoration was brought about by Eucleides along with some modifications in the constitution. This fourth century BCE account is recorded in much greater detail than that of the Periclean system. The Macedonians in 322 BCE put an end to the Athenian institutions which were later restored. In what measure the revived institutions reflected the democratic spirit was, however, not quite clear.          .

Participants  and  outsiders

Only informed guesses could be made about the population, as no reliable census figures were available in the Athenian records, and there were wide rise and fall in the numbers of metics or resident aliens and slaves. There were perhaps some 250,000-300,000 people in Athens during the 4th century BCE, out of which citizen families probably amounted to 100,000 people and some 30,000 among them would have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. Apparently, this number of adult male citizens rose to 60,000 in the mid-5th century, but fell steeply during the Peloponnesian war. It was a permanent loss due to the adoption of a stricter definition of citizen. Viewed at present the figures seem woefully small, but at that point of time Athens was a huge Greek city – state. Most of its thousand or so contemporaries could only gather 1000-1500 adult male citizens and Corinth, a major power, had 15,000 at the most. Metics and slaves constituted the non-citizen component of the population, the slaves apparently being more in numbers.  According to the orator Hyperides,  there were 150,000 slaves in Attica, an impressionistic figure making slaves more numerous than citizens. Slaves did outnumber citizens, but never did they overwhelm the latter.

Athenian citizens

Eighteen year old or above in age male Athenians, having done their military service as ephebes, were entitled to vote in Athens, thus excluding a majority of the population, such as, slaves, children, women and resident foreigners or metics.  Citizens whose rights were under suspension due to failure to pay a debt to the city were not allowed to vote.This disqualification for some Athenians amounted to a permanent and inheritable liability. Even then, as in oligarchical societies, there were no real property requirements limiting access. In Solon's constitution, there were indeed provisions limiting voting power to propertied classes only, but such stipulations remained a dead letter for all practical purposes. Having regard to the exclusionary and ancestral conception of citizenship in Greek city – states, it was significant that quite a relatively large portion of the population took part in the government of Athens and of other radical democracies like it. No doubt, in Athens some citizens were far more active than others.  Still, vast numbers of people were required just for the system to work. That in itself was a testimony to a degree of participation among those eligible, and their numbers greatly exceeded the numbers of people actively taking part in any present day democracy.

As per the reforms introduced by Pericles in 450 BCE, Athenian citizenship was granted only to legitimate offsprings of  Athenian men and women.  Children born to Athenian men and foreign – born women were not eligible for citizenship. Upon receipt of a gift of grains from the Egyptian king in  445 BCE, some 5,000 people were deprived of their citizenship (presumably, for a fair and substantial share for the rest). The assembly granted citizenship, and at times extended it to large groups. Thus Plateans and Samians were granted citizenship in  427 and  405 BCE respectively. From 4th century, however, such privileges were granted to individuals only, and for that a special vote with at least 6,000 citizens participating was necessary. Normally, this was done as an award to the person concerned for some act in the interest of the state. In the next hundred years, the process was carried out for hundreds of people if not thousands. Thus polis or the Greek word for a city was regarded more or less as a community, in line with the concept of an extended family.

The  power  structure

Governance was shared between three political bodies constituting of citzens numbering 500 in the council or boule, the courts (minimum 200 and maximum, occasionally, 6,000) and the assembly requiring a quorum of 6,000 at times.  It was Solon who introduced the boule with a special advisory task. Consisting of 400 people, 100 each from the four tribes of Athens, its manner of working at that time was not quite clear. It was enlarged later to accommodate 50 members each from a total of 10 Cleisthenic tribes (apparently the initial number of four had swelled to that figure meanwhile).  Subsequently, known as the council of 500 (the largest body of officeholders),  the boule framed preparatory legislation for consideration by the assembly, supervised  the meetings of the assembly, and at times executed the legislation as directed by the assembly. Those 500 members were selected by drawing lots, carried out annually among men over thirty years of age.  The members were allowed to serve on the council only twice in their lifetime. The process of  drafting legislation for the assembly to consider was called proboleumatic or the preparation of  the agenda for a meeting of the assembly. Common citizens were allowed to suggest topics for inclusion in the agenda, but each such proposal had to be endorsed by a member of the boule. The assembly on its own could direct the boule  to prepare a proboleuma (agenda) on a topic it wanted to discuss. It was, however,  forbidden to take a final decision on any matter that had not been previously considered by the council. The assembly had only the power to approve or reject a topic in the agenda, but circa the 5th century BCE  it had acquired the power to alter and rework the proposals as it deemed necessary. Anyway, even during the peak period of radical democracy, complex proposals from the boule were accepted by the assembly without any alteration, indicating the cardinal role of the council (boule) in making laws.

The  Boule

The boule was presided over  each month by one among the ten prytanies, delegations from the ten Cleisthenic tribes. (At that time the Greek state calendar had ten months in a year.) Lastly, there was the epitastes, an official selected by lot for a single day from among the currently presiding prytany who chaired that day's meeting of the boule. He also presided over the assembly, if there was a meeting of that body on that day. In addition, he held (for the day) the keys to the treasury and the seal to the city, and was designated to receive credentials of foreign ambassadors and welcome them to the city.  In this manner (by rotation), the city ensured that one quarter of all its citizens at one time in their lives hold this coveted post, and limited it to only once in a lifetime. As an executive committee of the assembly, the boule supervised the activities of a section of the magistracy, coordinated the functions of  various boards and officials who carried out the administrative work of Athens and provided from its own membership randomly selected sub – committees of ten people looking after departments like naval affairs, religious observances and so on. It would be seen that the boule was responsible for a great portion of the administration of the state, but had relatively little elbow – room for initiative. The proboleumatic or drafting of the agenda for discussion in the assembly was the boule's trump card, beyond that, in the execution of the policy, it just did what the assembly asked it to do. Excepting the days for festivities and the days of ill – omen, the boule used to meet every day.

Assembly

Athenian democracy kind of centred around the meetings of the assembly. It was not a parliament, and its members were not elected. They attended the meetings if and when they felt like doing so to exercise their right. Athenian democracy was a direct democracy. Unlike the present day representative democracy, it was a duty of male citizens above 18 years in age to participate in it. Most of the officials of the assembly were selected by lottery, while the rest were chosen from among the members. The assembly was called ekklesia, and apparently had four major functions  : Announcement of decrees, like decision to go to war or grant of citizenship to a foreigner; Selection of officials; Legislation; and Trial for political crimes. The law courts were assigned the last two tasks as the system matured. Generally, speakers made statements for or against a position, which was accepted or rejected after a general vote by show of hands indicating yes or no. There were occasionally differing opinions on matters of crucial interest, but as such, there were no political parties, nor any opposition or government. Actually, the government position was whatever the speakers agreed to on a particular day on the basis of majority votes.  There were no curbs on the power exercised by the assembly, at least in the 5th century.  If any law was broken, at the most the proponents of the measure would be punished for misleading the assembly to commit such a mistake. As was customary in ancient democracies, one had to be physically present in the assembly so as to vote. Absence was generally due to distance or engagement in military service elsewhere. The method was normally by show of hands or cheirotonia, while officials made informed guesses. Naturally, counting was out of question when thousands of people took part in the voting process. For matters like granting of citizenship, etc., a quorum of 6000 was prescribed. In such instances, black and white balls were used; white for yes and black for no. It seems the voters dropped one ball in a large clay jar to register their views on the matter under consideration. The jar was broken at the end of the process for counting and the result declared. Anyone found writing his name on the ball was debarred (ostracised), a penalty rarely imposed.

One assembly meeting was held in each month, thus a total of 10 meetings were held in the state calendar of one year during the 5th century BCE. A century later this was increased to four meetings per month making a total of forty in a state calendar year, out of which one was called the main meeting or kyria ekklesia. Additional meetings were not uncommon, especially as up until 355 BCE there were still political trials that were conducted in the assembly rather than in court. There were no fixed dates for the assembly meetings because annual festivals held as per the12 month lunar calendar year fell on different days (when no meetings could be held). Frequently, for this reason, all the four scheduled meetings were held together at the end of the state month.

There was no compulsion to attend the assembly meeting; it was entirely voluntary. Slaves formed a cordon or closed area with red – stained ropes forming its boundaries and shepherded citizens from the agora (seat of the government) into the assembly meeting. Those who got their clothes stained red were made to pay a fine. This was not the same as compulsory voting practiced in some present day democracies, but rather an effective way to build up a crowd.  In  403 BCE, after restoration of democracy, a scheme of payment for attending assembly meetings was introduced.  There was then enthusiastic crowds to get inside, and the red rope cordon was used to keep late comers at bay. Aristophanes mentioned these two kinds of use of the red rope in his comedies Acharnians for guiding in, and Ekklesiazousai  for guiding out.

Courts

The extensive legal system of Athens was based on the dikasteria, which in turn was under  heliaia, or the supreme court. Heliaia in ancient Greek meant congregation or a gathering of people. The term also could mean the great outdoors under the sun (helios) where the hearings took place. Yet another meaning was big ecclesia or the ultimate assembly. Anyway, there is not much confusion over the word dikasteria, a derivative of the word dikastes meaning judge / juror (also known  as heliasts). People serving in such jury courts were annually picked by lottery from a large pool of 6,000 citizens. In order to be a juror, a citizen had to be over 30 years of age and in possession of full citizen rights. As Athenians regarded older as wiser, the age limit for the jurors was set at a higher level than that required for participation in the assembly. In addition, the jurors were required to serve under oath, thereby further increasing their standing as opposed to participation in assembly. Nonetheless, authority of both the institutions was derived from the same source, expression of the direct will of the people. The jurors were not like magistrates who were office holders and therefore could be prosecuted and impeached for inappropriate conduct. Nor the jurors could be censured because they were the people and there could be no authority higher than that. In view of this, if the jurors had taken a wrong decision , it was concluded that they had done so having been misled by the false deposition of a litigant.

Lawsuits were of two kinds, suits of small causes or private suits (dike) and suits of important matters or public suits (graphe).  The jury size for private suits was a minimum of 201 (401 where the disputed amount was more than 1000 drachmas) and 501 for public suits. Jury size for important public suits was increased by adding 500, the increments depending on the seriousness of the matter. There was an instance, the first time a new kind of case was brought to court when all 6,000 members of the juror pool participated. The litigants themselves presented their cases in the form of an exchange of single speeches, first the plaintiff and then the defendant. Three hours by water hour glass was the time given to each litigant in public suits while in private suits it was much less and depended on the amount of money under dispute. There was no time for the deliberations over the verdict, the juries either voted yes or no as to the guilt and sentence of the defendant. They often talked among themselves, shouted their beliefs or disbeliefs on the statements of the litigants and created bedlam while working towards a consensus.

The prosecutor or plaintiff in a private suit was the wronged party or his family, while in public suit it could be anyone with full citizen rights since the matter was supposedly affecting the entire community. The trials were quick, completed in a day. If a prescrbed penalty was not there, the litgants suggested what it could be, and the juries voted on it. If a plaintiff used false witnesses, the judgement in his favour was cancelled. Apprently, Pericles introduced the system of paying the juries in 462 BCE which Aristotle described as a regular feature in a radical democracy in his book, Politics. The amount paid in the beginning is not known, but in the early years of the Peloponnesian war itwas increased from 2 to 3 obols. This was done more than half a century before payment for attendance to assembly was introduced. In fact, the  expenses of the justice system was a major drain on the Athenian exchequer and gave rise to occasional financial crisis in the fourth century leading to temporary suspension of private suits. 

Rank amateurism was the hallmark of the system. There were no judges, nor lawyers, nor anyone to give legal directions to the juries either. It seems the only experts in the whole scene were the people who drafted the appeals (logographos). Even they were an elusive species, never advertised their skills in the court areas and politicians known for their speechwriting ability used to downplay that quality. Actually, litgants normally charged each other of benefiting form the services of a logographos, so as to score a point in the debate.  Anyway, during the litigation, any act ever committed by the ‘Athenian people', such as battles fought before any of them were born or court decisions made by other juries far removed by time from those currently addressed, were referred to as if it was consequent to the deliberations of the court in session. Second to the assembly, the courts were looked up as a platform for the expression of people's sovereignty.

Usurpation  of  the  power  of  the  assembly  by  the  courts

With the passage of time, the courts or citizen jurors composed of people senior in age to people in the assembly (30 as opposed to 18) began to nibble at the powers of the assembly. Political trials were held in the courts instead of the assembly from 355 BCE. The court's power had previously been increased in 416 BCE with the resolution graphe paranomon (indictment against measures contrary to the laws). It gave the jurors the power to hold up for review anything passed by the assembly or even proposed but not yet voted on. The jurors had the discretion to annul it as also to punish the proposer, if deemed necessary. It would appear that a   measure voted for acceptance in the assembly but blocked thereafter in a court had no need to go back to the assembly if it survived the court challenge. The court was empowered to reinstate it. There was nothing like an impartial intervention by the state. For example, two men had clashed in the assembly about a proposal put by one of them, which was ultimately passed. It would be now open to the loser in the assembly to go to the court to bring both the law and its proposer for prosecution. There were plenty of cases of this nature giving the courts the power of the present day upper houses for legislation.  Actually, both executive decrees and laws were passed by the same processes in the assembly upto the closing years of 5th century BCE. There was a major change in 403 BCE, when special panels of 1000 citizens drawn from the annual jury pool of 6000 set the laws. They were called nomoethai or the lawmakers. Unlike a legislative commission sitting down to discuss the pros and cons and drafting proposals, it took the form of a trial, voting yes or no after the speeches for and against.

Proposals from the Citizens

The citizens were the prime mover of the entire system. Famously known as Hoboulomenos (he who wishes or any one who wishes), he symbolized  the right of citizens to take the initiative: to stand to speak in the assembly, to initiate a public law suit affecting the political community as a whole, to propose a law before the lawmakers or to approach the council with suggestions. He was not required to be vetted before his speech, nor he was reviewed after stepping down (like officeholders). It was a brief moment of action and glory, but this  stepping forward into the democratic limelight  had its pitfalls. If someone else callenged him and what he proposed was found wrong, he was liable to explain why he did that and to punishment for unsatisfactory reasons. Participation among citizens varied greatly, from wholehearted commitment to doing nothing at all. The words "whoever wishes" were considered an open invitation to every qualified free male Athenian citizen. In all, there were three functions: the officeholders organized and looked after the complex protocols; "whoever wishes" was the initiator and the proposer of content; and lastly the people, present in the assembly or in the courts convened as lawmakers, made the decisions, either yes or no, or selecting an alternative there from.

Office  bearers

They were responsible for administration and numbered over a thousand every year. Initially, they were chosen by lot, and then from among them a smaller, more prestigious group was elected. None of it was compulsory, citizens came forward and offered themselves as candidates.  They carried out limited, routine administrative work. Those who were chosen by lot had no particular administrative skills. This could not be avoided because a person was appointed for the office only once, and there was no scope for building of general competence by ongoing involvement. The exceptions were the ten annually elected generals or strategois who could be elected more than once. They were very prominent, especially in the 5th century, for their observations on matters of importance in the assembly and the respect given to them for that reason. Their official powers had nothing to do with it. Citizens particpating in the assembly were considered as representing people, and the consequences of their actions there were beyond reproach and punishment. However, when they held office they were considered as people's agents and not their representatives. Their actions were reviewed, and they were liable to be punished, severely if that was deemed necessary. Before selection, they were subjected to a qualifying test and another for performance in the office after they stepped down. Office bearers were selected by two methods, lottery and election. Annually, 1,000 members were chosen by holding lottery, including the members of the boule or the council of 500. Another 100 were added to the numbers by election.

Lotteries

It was the most common method for selection because of its democratic nature. In elections, factors like wealth, birth (in families with influence), speech – making abilities, etc. came to play while lotteries spread the work of governance among the entire citizenry. Everyone had a chance to acquire that essential democratic experience, which Aristotle described in his book, Politics as  "ruling and being ruled in turn". Lotteries ensured that the basis on which the individuals were selected was citizenship only, excluding all other considerations like personal popularity which could be purchased. Giving the citizens a unique form of political equality, the lotteries held in check the corrupt practice of purchasing votes, and provided everybody an equal chance of obtaining government office.

Those who wanted to become an office bearer had to nominate themselves as candidates one year before the selection (lotteries). They were paid a small sum to compensate for the loss of income, but it was more in form than in substance. Devoting the same time as they did in the assembly, people could earn much more. Apparently, the practice was started in the fifth century and discontinued in its closing years (403 BCE) when the oligarchs came to power. Whether it was resumed again upon restoration of democracy was not quite clear. Apparently, this indiscriminate assignment of responsibilities was not quite wise, but the system had its built – in checks and balances to prevent flagrant misuse of power. Normally, the Athenians worked in groups, boards, panels, teams and so on, where each member of the group kept watching what the others were doing. Then there was also the possibility of someone among them knowing the correct thing to do in a particular situation, and others would learn from him. The exceptions were the nine archons or magistrates. Although they formed a group, each individual member had different things to do. Anyway, the minimum age requirement of 30 years (40 years in some instances) set apart permanently about one – third of the population from joining  administration. Then quite a few were debarred from taking office due to various reasons. Ability was not the criterion for taking up office, but (in the 4th century BCE, specially) loyalty to democracy or oligarchy was. Then there was the process of "straightening" or euthunai after leaving office as a check on performance. This and the review before joining were more or less routine procedures, but there were instances when some one intervening and the matter going before a jury court. In that event, there was the risk of the office bearer being found guilty and subjected to heavy punishments. Even during his tenure, the office bearer was liable to impeachment and removal from the office by the assembly. In fact, whether the office bearers were doing their work properly or not was in the agenda of each of the ten annual meetings (kuriai ekklesiai) of the assembly. The lotteries did not permit any one to hold the same office more than once. The exception was the membership of boule or the council of 500, which one could serve twice for demographic reasons of unavailability of suitable candidates among a limited population. For the same reasons, the secretaries and underlings of the magistrates or the archons were allowed to serve twice. The Athenians were not so much concerned about incompetency, they were on guard against using the position of the office holder to build up a base of power. Nonetheless, the officials had precisely defined powers and had little room for taking any initiative. They were there only to administer, and not to govern. They could not impose a penalty exceeding fifty drachmas; anything above this amount had to be decided by the court.

Elected   Officials

Just about 100 officials were elected as opposed to 1,000 selected by lotteries. They were composed of two groups: the ten generals and those who were required to handle large sums of money. The latter category had to be necessarily rich, so that any financial irregularity or embezzlement coming to light could be recovered from their properties. The ten generals, however, belonged to a special class of their own due to their expertise in warfare as also their knowledge and contacts in the Greek world beyond the borders of Athens where many of the wars were fought. At the time of Pericles in the 5th century BCE, the generals were the most important figures in the entire population. It would, however, be not correct to assume that Pericles acquired his powerful status from his long tenures as a general (which he shared annually with nine others). It was more due to his influence in the assembly, an influence which could be wielded by any citizen capable of standing up and speaking before the assembly. In the 4th century, the role of a powerful political speaker and that of a general became somewhat different because wars had by then became a very specialised matter. Like officials selcted by lottery, the elected ones were also subject to scrutiny before taking up and performance review after laying down office. They could also be impeached and removed from office by the assembly, and there was a particular instance when the punishment was exceedingly harsh. In the 5th century, ten accountants of the Delian league charged with embezzlement of funds were sentenced to death, and the executions were carried out one after the other. When the 9th member was put to death, it was found that the accounting method was faulty, and the men indeed were innocent. The tenth man was set free, and to rectify matters those who brought the charges of misappropriation of funds against the accountants were executed. One significant feature of Athenian democracy was that those who did not participate in politics were looked down with contempt. It seems the word idiot has its origins in the ancient Greek word idiotes, meaning an individual not actively interested in politics. Eventually, the word came to acquire its current usage.

Shortcomings  of  Athenian  democracy   

Athenian democracy was a direct democracy, in which (instead of representatives elected or selected by the people) the people themselves participated in making laws and policies. Political activity such as this not only educates people about governance, but also helps them to know their compatriots better. It can even be argued that direct democracy prevents powerful elites to take charge of governance and that people really do not rule themselves unless they frame laws and policies of the state. Despite all these virtues, the biggest shortcoming of Athenian democracy was, perhaps, its exclusivity. By excluding women, non – citizens (for various reasons) as also slaves, and by emphasizing that only male citizens were eligible for participation in the political process, Athenian democracy reduced the status of quite a considerable section of its polity. This narrow definition of eligibility (from a modern point of view) is in sharp contrast with the views of the ancient critics who regarded  the demos in democracy not as the whole people, but the people as opposed to the elite. They were of the opinion that the eligible citizens were from poor and uneducated sections of the society as well, and the political process gave them the power to dominate over their betters, the rich and the educated. It was not seen as a fair system in which everyone had equal rights, but as a patently unjust procedure. Aristotle defined it as the difference between and arithmetical and geometrical (proportional) equality. In other words, the state was seen as a company in which the poor and the uneducated were seen as single share holders while the elites possessed shares commensurate to their status. Athenian democracy (to them) was based on concepts which actually favoured the minority. The trial of the Delian league accountants is an illustration of this point, the precursor of a similar trial in 406 BCE in which Socrates was the citizen presiding over the assembly that day.

Having suffered a series of defeats (and large losses of men) in the invasion of Sicily, the Athenians in that year finally triumphed over the Spartans in a naval battle. Then there was a storm , and the eight commanding generals of the forces failed to rescue many drowning men . The Athenians put them on trial, and sentenced them to death. Socrates protested against and disassociated himself from this illegal decision. It had no effect on the verdict, and the sentences were carried out. As expected the decision was later considered a terrible mistake, and equally expectedly those who brought the charges were put to death. Seven years later, Socrates himself was put on trial on the charge that he believed in strange gods and thereby corrupted the minds of the young people whom he taught. He was sentenced to death, and though he could save himself by escaping from Athens, he refused to do so. Plato calls him the gadfly of Athens, who annoyed and irritated the Athenians to no end by questioning their beliefs and prejudices. His death made him an intellectual martyr and turned Plato, his disciple, into an enemy of direct democracy.  Long after the death of Socrates, Plato wrote in his Dialogues that Socrates actually contemplated a trial and compared it to that of a physician by a pastry cook before a jury of children.

Though the connection appeared to be tenuous, there was a perceptible link between Athenian democracy and imperialism. Athenian state was feeding off the spoils of subjugated places for quite a long time in the fifth century BCE. For opposing such policies, Thucydides, son of Milesias of aristrocratic origins was ostracised in  443 BCE. The imperialistic policies were extremely severe, as would be seen in the decision to kill the entire male population of Melos and sell off the women and children there because of their refusal to become Athenian subjects.

Athenian citizens generally served as rowers in the navy, and used the plunders from their forays overseas to improve their positions back home. They were also employed in the numerous administrative posts in the subject states, using the funds obtained therefrom to become office bearers in the Athenian state. This was stated in an anti – democratic pamphlet written by an anonymous author believed to be an old oligarch. As opposed to this the Athenian hold over other states almost disappeared in the fourth century, and it would not be correct to imply that the state was not viable without such possessions. At about that time the system of payment for attending assembly sessions was introduced. The same practice was resorted to before the Persian wars when the resources of the state was quite limited, and the state was a fledgling proposition.

There were two brief interregnums in democratic rule during the Peloponnesian war, named after the  numbers of people of the groups in control. The group of Four Hundred brought it in 411 BCE, to be followed by the Thirty Tyrants seven years later in 404. Both of these groups tried to reduce the size of the electorate by linking the franchise with property qualifications. Both of them ended up as rogue governments and did not follow through on their constitutional promises. These two coups started as responses from the Athenian elite to what they saw as the inherent arbitrariness of government by the masses. In his Seventh Epistle, Plato commented that the Infamous Thirty were so inept and corrupt they made the  democratic rule before their misadventure look like a Golden Age in Athenian chronicles. It would probably not be correct to regard the lapses of Athenian democracy as systemic failures or the results of extreme conditions of the long – drawn Peloponnesian war. Nevertheless, there was an attempt for course correction, and a new version of democracy was established from 403 BCE, which could be regarded as subsequent to the introduction of graphe parnomon (indictment against measures contrary to the laws) in 416 and the precursor of the end of the assembly trials in 355 BCE. That was the first time a conceptual and procedural distinction was made between laws and decrees. From then on,  responsibility was shifted from the assembly to the courts, with laws being made by jurors and all assembly decisions becoming reviewable by courts. In other words, mass meeting of all citizens lost quite a lot of ground to smaller gatherings (of only a thousand or the like) which were under oath and free of quite a number of unthiking men in their impetuous 20′s and having more time to focus on just one matter (though never more than a day). A drawback of the new democracy was that it needed some time for deliberations and thus the ability to response quickly to a situation was impaired. 

As regards the lowering of status of quite a considerable section of the population, male citiizenship became a newly valuable and quite profitable possession to be jealously guarded against all odds. Pericles, however, in 450 BC stipulated that a citizen had to be born from citizen parentage on both sides, thereby excluding those with foreign mothers or the metroxenoi.   The poorer citizens generally married locally while it was not uncommon among the elite to marry abroad as a part of aristocratic alliance building. Thus the custom of a group developed due to sheer necessity was thus codified as a law for the whole citizen body resulting in a loss of  openness and cultural diversity. Had this law been promulgated earlier, many Athenians prominent in the century preceding would have lost their citizenship. For instance, Cleisthenes the founder of democracy, had a non-Athenian mother while the mothers of Cimon and Themistocles were not Greek at all, but belonged to Thrace. As a prosperous and rich  city – state, Athens was the centre of attraction of an increasing number of resident aliens or metics. By introducing this change in the definition of citizen, the immigrant population were politically differentiated from the locals imore sharply and probably regarded themselves as unwelcome. 

Athenian women were undobtedly a deprived group as against their counterparts in Sparta, who could own properties as also participate in public sports. Aristophanes mentioned in Lysistrata that the Athenian women admired the graceful bodies of the sportswomen of Sparta. It is suggested that misogyny, not exactly confined to the ancient Athenians only, gave rise to a very strict gender discrimination, arising (once again) from the values cherished by the so – called commoners. It is also suggested that without the contribution of women's labour, the concept of democracy would not perhaps have taken roots. 

Athens had more slaves than any other Greek city state, and employed imported non – Greeks (whom they called barbarians) extensively as chattel slaves. It is not therefore unusual to raise the paradoxical question: Was slavery the main prop of democracy? No doubt, the poorer Athenians owned a few slaves and thus could find time to engage in political activities. It is, however, not clear that democracy was possible due to this free time otherwise needed to make a living. Slaves apparently made the minority of rich Athenians less dependent on the labour of their more numerous fellow citizens. Solon in his reforms in the 6th century BCE abolished debt servitude, but working for others on wages was clearly subjecting oneself to the will of someone else. The availability and employment of chattel slave could thus be imagined as the introduction of a new kind of equality, which in turn made particpation in democratic process easy. It is not possible to reach a conclusion on this point, but Cornelius Castoriadis (20th century Current Era Greek philosopher) pointed out that other societies also had slaves without being a democracy.

From Wikipedia and other sources

About the Author

chartered engineer(India), B.Sc., risk management consultant, blogger and layabout!

modern warfare quick scoping