The Peloponnesian War Focus on the Melian Dialogue
Thucydides Thucydides (c. 460 400 bce) is widely considered the father of realism Athenian elite who lived during Athens greatest age Author of History of the Peloponnesian War - one of the foundations books for the study of international relations
The Book Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War is divided into eight books that together cover twentyone of the twenty-seven years of the Peloponnesian war the war fought between Athens, and its empire, and the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta at the end of the 5th century BC. Thucydides died before the History could be completed.
Short Version of a Long Story Peloponnesian War, (431 404 BCE) Athens and Sparta were allies that had cooperated to defeat the Persian Empire in 480 bce. Sparta was a conservative, land-oriented state that turned inward after the victory over Persia; Athens was a commercial, sea-oriented state that turned outward Athens formed the Delian League an alliance of states around the Aegean Sea, for mutual protection against the Persians. Thucydides explains the background to the conflict and points to Sparta s fear of Athens power and Athens aggressive expansion as the cause of the conflict
The Melian Dialogue The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Melian Seige The Siege of Melos occurred in 416 BC Melos is an island in the Aegean Sea roughly 110 km (68 mi) east of mainland Greece. They chose to remain neutral in the war. Athens invaded Melos and demanded that the Melians surrender and pay tribute to Athens or face annihilation. The Dialogue shows how futile it is for smaller powers to stand up to those stronger than them. Watch
Summary of The Melian Dialogue The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".[a] The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone because they were not strong enough to conquer it. The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the islands in the Aegean Sea that are more likely to take up arms against Athens. (see below) The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one has a reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an overwhelmingly superior opponent like Athens.
Summary of The Melian Dialogue The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is at least a slim chance that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. The Athenians counter that this argument is emotional and short-sighted. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolish optimism. The Melians believe that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak. The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter that the Spartans are a pragmatic people who never put themselves at risk when their interests are not at stake, and rescuing Melos would be especially risky since Athens has the stronger navy. The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They reiterate that there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms. They also argue that it is sensible to submit to one's superiors, stand firm against one's equals, and be moderate to one's inferiors. The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismiss the envoys.
Primary Motives The primary motive of the Athenians in conquering Melos, as explained by Thucydides, was to demonstrate the strength of Athens so as to discourage rebellions in its island territories The mercilessness which the Athenian invaders showed the Melians shocked many Greeks, even in Athens Interesting note: It is uncertain whether the fate of Melos was decided by the government of Athens or the Athenian generals on Melos.
What the Text Says
Debate before the war Perhaps the Athenians were carried away by emotional patriotism or anger that clouded their reason. But there is a more interesting possibility: Perhaps the Athenians acted rationally but were caught in a security dilemma. Due to the anarchical system, If one state builds its strength to make sure that another cannot threaten it, the other, seeing the first getting stronger, may build its strength to protect itself against the first.
Debate before the war The belief that war is inevitable is so corrosive in international politics The immediate or precipitating causes of the war, were more important than Thucydides theory of inevitability Karl Marx observed that men make history, but not in conditions of their own choosing. The ancient Greeks made flawed choices because they were caught in the situation well described by the Prisoner s Dilemma.
The Prisoners Dilemma Watch
That s it for now