Something I'd like to add: Why was it necessary to sentence a, then 70 year old man, to death just a couple of years before he would've probably died anyway?

I always figured it was because he went around being a gadfly(i.e. asshole) and so they got rid of him.

Did he do anything to them? — NocturnalRuminator

a primary cause of the execution is Socrates’ relationship with two violent oligarchic tyrants. Moreover, Socrates’ constant criticism of Athens’ civic structure and the city’s prominent citizens leads to growing animosity towards his public presence. Finally, the instability of Athens in the wake of the oligarchic coup of 404 B.C.E. amplifies the desire to eliminate sources of dissent, such as Socrates.

He'd had a number of run-ins with these guys over policy decisions while he was a member of the Assembly. He was smarter than they, had much influence over two generations of intelligentsia and could have made himself more popular.
The charge of impiety was so vague - as indeed was the state religion itself - as to be both unprosecutable and indefensible. The charge of corrupting the youth was refuted in his defense.

Why was it necessary to sentence a, then 70 year old man, to death just a couple of years before he would've probably died anyway? — NocturnalRuminator

It wasn't. They would have been happy to exile him - out of sight, out of mind. He insisted on making a stand, effectively turning a criminal record into a martyrdom for truth.

Thanks for the reply! Makes sense, need this (possibly) for my exam next week.

Worth reading that whole essay. There is other material available, and he may give you footnotes and references.

Quite simply, they are censors. They’ll abuse power to silence views they do not like.

If we can believe Plato's account (which I doubt we can fully) then he was threatened under the assumption he would flee Athens. Socrates called their bluff though and refused to leave on principle. If he had left he would have been shown to be a hypocrite.

In general, I believe Plato wrote what he wrote because he was against Democracy. I doubt Socrates was against Democracy (if he was the kind of person we generally think of him as) because he always questioned everything rather than reaching specific conclusions about broader political matters.

Everything that I say here is from memory. I believe it is true, but it is worth checking in the encyclopedias.

We all know (I guess) that Sokrates was charged with asebia and for corrupting the young.
My question is: why did his accusers (as shown in the title) accuse him. Did he do anything to them? Did he make them lose face? I can't really seem to find a good answer anywhere — NocturnalRuminator

The story of his divine mission in Plato's Apology and the reaction of people whose ignorance he exposed is, presumably, meant to refute the charge of asebeia. Despite much experience, he never worked out that people get very cross when their ignorance is exposed. Poor misunderstood Socrates!

I realize that you haven't much time. But you should try to get a look at Xenophon's version of his defence - also called Apology - and Aristophanes' play The Clouds. See Perseus Digital Library. These views will also be partial, but they at least offer an alternative to Plato's hagiography.

Something I'd like to add: Why was it necessary to sentence a, then 70 year old man, to death just a couple of years before he would've probably died anyway? — NocturnalRuminator

That suggests that it wasn't just about what he did - his mission. It must have been about something that was going on at the time.

1. Aristophanes' Clouds lampoons "the sophists" but takes Socrates as a paradigm sophist (!). Plato, of course, is at great pains to distinguish Socrates from sophists. They do seem to have been very unpopular. No doubt because they trained most of the politicians who led them to defeat in the war with Sparta.

2. In 403 BCE, Athens lost her war against Sparta and was occupied; the Spartans installed a puppet right-wing regime. In 401 BCE, they were killed or driven out. You can imagine that right-wing, mostly aristocratic, anti-democratic people were not in good odour. Plato, Xenophon and many of that circle were aristocrats and anti-democrats. Is it surprising that Socrates was seen in that context?

(Alcibiades was also part of that group, though perhaps in the younger set. You should look him up (Wikipedia again) to see why he was so desperately unpopular at that time. Hence the charge of corrupting the youth. His defence doesn't address the issue and plays games with the definition of "corrupt". )

3. Almost the only feature of Plato's account that I take more or less seriously is his answer to the question why he refused to take advantage of the ways to game the system and escape death. It is helpful to look at the Crito for that.
A. If you look at Socrates' biography, will see, I think, someone who respected the law and the status quo and had no intention of undermining it.
B. His mission kept him in Athens, and there's little doubt that if he tried the same thing in other cities, he would meet the same fate.
C. He argues, very plausibly in my view, that life as an exile would not be worth living.

Xenophon reports that Socrates was afraid of old age. That is a bit odd. 70 years was definitely old age in that time. Perhaps it was more that he was feeling his age.

Quite simply, they are censors. They’ll abuse power to silence views they do not like. — NOS4A2

Is there any group in power who doesn't?

My question is: why did his accusers (as shown in the title) accuse him. — NocturnalRuminator

It is a matter of political expediency. In many ways analogous to politicians today who are beholden to the Religious Right attacking "woke culture", a term that is used so broadly as to apply to such things as the National Weather Service and their attempt to dismantle it, equal rights, and reproductive rights.

The story of his divine mission in Plato's Apology and the reaction of people whose ignorance he exposed is, presumably, meant to refute the charge of asebeia. — Ludwig V

The irony of this should not be missed. In heeding his daimonion the question arises as to the extent to which Socrates was guided by the gods of the city. On the porch of the court before his trail he has a chance encounter with Euthyphro, a self-professed expert on piety. Socrates questions him about what piety is. Euthyphro says that by doing what the gods do he is acting piously. He assumed that by imitating Zeus, “the best and most just of the gods” (5e) that he too will be doing what is best and most just. The question of what is pious is then connected to the question of what is best and just.

As the dialogue progresses two things become clear: the actions of the gods as told in the myths are often unjust, and, to be just is to be pious. The first is an impious truth in so far as claiming that the gods could be unjust is impious. The second places justice above the gods. So, in one sense Socrates was guilty of impiety, but if being pious requires being just then Socrates, by heeding his daimonion, was just.

This relates to the change of corrupting the youth. Socrates undermines the authority of the gods and the ancient ways. In doing so, he leaves the youth adrift. This is a key to his obedience to the law. By his actions, rather than by argument, he acknowledges the authority of the laws of the city. This serves as a guide to the youth. It leaves open, however, the question of whether the law is in all cases just. This is the question of the Crito. What is at issue is larger than what one old man should do. One might flee, but there is a lesson here for the next generation of law-makers, both those involved in politics and those interested political philosophy, that is, those who preserve the law and who make and uphold just laws. The latter is not possible without the former.

In regard to political expediency, the parting words of Anytus in the Meno show a thug side to the business of the people:

an. Socrates, I consider you are too apt to speak ill of people. I, for one, if you will take my advice, would warn you to be careful: in most cities it is probably easier to do people harm than good, and particularly in this one; I think you know that yourself.

soc. Meno, I think Anytus is angry, and I am not at all surprised: for he conceives, in the first place, that I am speaking ill of these gentlemen; and in the second place, he considers he is one of them himself. Yet, should the day come when he knows what “speaking ill” means, his anger will cease; at present he does not know. — Plato, Meno, 94e, translated by Lamb

Imagining himself slandered leads Anytus to slander. That also speaks to Ludwig V's point about the effects of exposing ignorance. Personal grievance is revenged through the power of the City.

So, in one sense Socrates was guilty of impiety, but if being pious requires being just then Socrates, by heeding his daimonion, was just. — Fooloso4

Yes, I'm sure that is what Plato wanted us to draw from the Euthyphro. Though Euthyphro's account of his just action in prosecuting his father seems odd to me. I don't understand it, and I think there's a big metaphor going on there.

One might flee, but there is a lesson here for the next generation of law-makers, — Fooloso4

Yes, the Crito is certainly a warning to law-makers, and enforcers. It does seem a bit odd that Socrates doesn't show any sign of concluding that rebellion against unjust laws is justified. It wasn't till much, much later (I'm not sure when, but at least 1,000 years later) that the doctrine that rebellion against an unjust tyrant was justified was developed.

Yet, should the day come when he knows what “speaking ill” means, his anger will cease; at present he does not know. — Plato, Meno, 94e, translated by Lamb

Yes. Anytus' attitude is still quite common, alas. People hate being corrected. Socrates thinks they should be grateful. That's a nice example of Socrates' total faith in his values and his astonishing naivete in the face of the situation he faced.

It's worth adding that the Phaedo concludes Plato's story. It shows him in his death cell, talking to his friends about the immortality of the soul, and finally drinking the hemlock and dying peacefully after remembering to ask one of his friends - I forget which - to pay Ascelpius the cock he owes him. This amplifies and justifies one of the prominent themes of the Apology, that he does not fear death, because no harm can touch a good person. It is a radical and new thesis in Greek times, and completely counter-intuitive in that culture (and pretty astonishing in this one). Aristotle takes a different view, in the Nicomachaean Ethics.
BTW, if you have not already taken on board that Plato is not writing history, look up the symptoms of hemlock poisoning and compare them to the picture he gives us of Socrates' death.

Though Euthyphro's account of his just action in prosecuting his father seems odd to me. — Ludwig V

The question of whether Euthyphro acted justly is not answered directly in the dialogue, but I think it is clear that he was not the expert on piety and the gods that he professed to be. Based on the stories of the quarrels between the gods it seems that they too are unable to distinguish between justice and injustice. The proper relationship between civic piety, familial piety, and piety to the gods, remains unresolved.

Yes, the Crito is certainly a warning to law-makers, and enforcers. It does seem a bit odd that Socrates doesn't show any sign of concluding that rebellion against unjust laws is justified. — Ludwig V

The political upheaval of that time casts a shadow over the question of one's allegiance to the city and its laws. With regime change the identity of the city becomes problematic. The regime of the Thirty Tyrants, installed into power after the defeat of the Athenians by the Spartans, although short-lived, made changes to the laws and constitution. During that time Athens was no longer a democracy. To what extent was it still Athens?

Socrates played the long game, he was not involved with active politics, and instead looked to the future, to the youth, to the reform of law, and more moderately phronesis. The question remains to this day, what is to be after rebellion.

This amplifies and justifies one of the prominent themes of the Apology, that he does not fear death, because no harm can touch a good person. It is a radical and new thesis in Greek times, and completely counter-intuitive in that culture (and pretty astonishing in this one). Aristotle takes a different view, in the Nicomachaean Ethics. — Ludwig V

I doubt a guarantee of "no harm" was given but there are certainly many who do read it that way. Apart from that, there are a number of ways that Socrates' theme of a person suffering the evil done to others was developed in traditional poetry and mythology.

Bear this in mind, kings, and straighten your discourses, you gift-eaters, and put crooked judgments quite out of your minds. A man contrives evil for himself when he contrives evil for someone else, and an evil plan is most evil for the planner. Zeus’ eye, which sees all things and knows all things, perceives this too, if he so wishes, and he is well aware just what kind of justice this is which the city has within it. Right now I myself would not want to be a just man among human beings, neither I nor a son of mine, since it is evil for a man to be just if the more unjust one will receive greater justice. But I do not anticipate that the counselor Zeus will let things end up this way. — Hesiod, Works and Days, 260, translated by Glenn W. Most

This can be applied directly to the designs of Antyus but also to the arrogance of Euthyphro, who would speak of knowing the intentions of the gods. Saying as much is not to deny that Plato was challenging traditional customs and means of education. Nonetheless, a lot of what is virtuous and villainous is baked into human life.

BTW, if you have not already taken on board that Plato is not writing history, look up the symptoms of hemlock poisoning and compare them to the picture he gives us of Socrates' death. — Ludwig V

Yes, Plato wrote a hagiography of Socrates along with a context for his philosophy. It is interesting how he brings the responses to hemlock into the dialogue:

“What else, Socrates,” said Crito, “other than that the man who is going to give you the poison has been telling me for some time that you must be advised to talk as little as possible? You see he says that people get heated through talking too much and that you mustn’t do anything like this to affect the action of the poison. eIse not, those who do that kind of thing are sometimes forced to drink it two or three times.”

Socrates said: “Well, take no notice of him. Just let him be prepared to give me a second dose of his stuff, and a third if necessary.”

“Well I more or less knew you’d say something like that,” said Crito, “but he’s been pestering me for some time.” — Phaedo, 63e, Chris Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy

I doubt a guarantee of "no harm" was given — Paine

Oh, I think a guarantee was exactly the point. But the twist is that goodness or virtue was thought of as inherent in the good man and could not be affected by any external disaster. Which is not a stupid idea. But it is at variance with what common sense regards as suffering harm. Plato takes up the issue again in the Gorgias.

A man contrives evil for himself when he contrives evil for someone else, and an evil plan is most evil for the planner. — Hesiod, Works and Days, 260, translated by Glenn W. Most

A man contrives evil for himself when he contrives evil for someone else, and an evil plan is most evil for the planner. Zeus’ eye, which sees all things and knows all things, perceives this too, if he so wishes, and he is well aware just what kind of justice this is which the city has within it. Right now I myself would not want to be a just man among human beings, neither I nor a son of mine, since it is evil for a man to be just if the more unjust one will receive greater justice. But I do not anticipate that the counselor Zeus will let things end up this way. — Hesiod, Works and Days, 260, translated by Glenn W. Most

My knowledge of Hesiod is sadly lacking. The idea of sin as its own punishment is a most interesting idea and sits well alongside the idea that virtue is its own reward. The threat of Zeus' intervention spoils the effect, though the idea that there will be a divine accounting in the long run and evildoers will suffer for their sins.
The penultimate sentence - "Right now I myself would not want to be a just man among human beings, .... since it is evil for a man to be just if the more unjust one will receive greater justice." is fascinating because of the play on different meanings of justice. Or is it just a muddle?
Heraclitus' remarks about Eris are a different view - less about the individual and more about society. But still, there is an approach at work that identifies what is right or just with what wins out in struggle. If one is charitable, it is be a proto-dialectical view. More realistically, it seems like a "might is right" view.
I find it fascinating to see so many different views of virtue and vice, right and wrong, power and weakness playing out together. The modern world thinks it has got beyond all that, but I think it may have lost something in the process.

You see he says that people get heated through talking too much — Phaedo, 63e, Chris Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy

I suppose this could be a reference to some of the actual symptoms, with a false diagnosis of the cause. I wouldn't have minded if he had just drawn a veil over that actual death, but to represent him as calm and coherent throughout is simply incredible.

Hesiod does not speak in the language of intervention. He says humans are on their fifth iteration after previous attempts by Zeus. The anticipation for a better batch does not seem directed at Hesiod's immediate environment. The mythology is a kind of politeness in the face of deep ignorance. Being honest about ignorance is the connection between the old and the new. That connects with the often-raised objection that Socrates is just another player in the dialogues. Perhaps Thrasymachus is the most vivid example because it is so briefly given. Thrasymachus says Socrates uses his form of discourse to avoid saying what is the case. The matter is still being discussed.

It should also be noted that Hesiod is more concerned with means of life in the country and the sea than affairs in the city. Life is precarious. Holding on to it without becoming mere predators is difficult.

The modern world thinks it has got beyond all that, but I think it may have lost something in the process. — Ludwig V

I figure that there are many benefits of the modern world that are applicable to very old problems. But I also count the changes from the old to the new as a deep valley of ignorance. Hesiod, for all his prejudices, would arch his brow as sharply as anyone living today at the suggestion we live in the best of all possible worlds.