It is difficult to address the reasons for an empire to attack a growing threat.
However, the increasing differences between powers facilitate the use of a new strategy to deal with growing diversity and subsequent threats. The Corinthian speech to the Spartans reveals the reasons for an empire to preemptively attack. Initially, the Corinthians demonstrate Sparta’s failure to uphold peace. The Corinthians proceed to depict the consequences of Spartan inactivity. In conclusion, the Corinthians employ the differences between Spartans and Athens to justify an empire’s reason to attack a potential antagonist. An empire’s decision to preemptively attack is justified because the strategy deters a growing antagonist from attacking the empire and its allies.
The Spartan inability to acknowledge Athenian aggression threatens the peace of the Peloponnesian alliance. The Corinthains initiate their position by addressing the ignorance of Sparta.
“Time after time was our voice raised to warn you of the blows about to be dealt us by Athens, and time after time, instead of taking trouble to ascertain the worth of our warnings, you contended yourselves with suspecting the speakers of being inspired by public interest” (Thucydides, Book I.68).
The repetitive word choice of “time after time” reflects the enduring failure of Spartan ignorance. Through the repetition, the Corinthians assert the duration of Spartan ignorance must reflect the strategy of appeasement. The Spartans allowed Athens to expand their empire without repercussions, which demonstrates a policy of appeasement. Athenian appeasement justifies their aggression, due to the absence of punishment for their belligerence. The repetition of words also reflects the growing uneasiness...
... middle of paper ...
...s. Through the definition of Athenian nature, the Corinthian anticipate the inevitable conquest of Sparta. The differences between Spartan and Athenian character is meant to facilitate a new approach by Sparta for defending peace. The Corinthians argue that the Athenians by nature are dangerous and the Spartans must attack first. The Corinthians address the differences in Athenian and Spartan natures to depict the inevitable dominance of a single one. According the Corinthians, the “use [of] their power” invokes a preemptive attack. The preemptive attack is capable of deterring the Athenian interest in the Peloponnesus. The Corinthians imply an initial attack against Athens is capable of preventing the growth of Athenian confidence. The Corinthians imply preemptive attacks are justified if they prevent an aggressor from posing a threat to an empire or alliance.
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
The French Revolution, the American Civil War, the constant civil conflicts in certain parts of Africa in recent history and even today; these are all historical clashes of countrymen. They all also contain stories of immense atrocities. The violence, bloodshed, and ruthlessness that were seen throughout these events were appalling. They were made perhaps even more so by the fact that theses horrors were inflicted upon one another by countrymen, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers. The civil war or stasis at Corcyra during the Peloponnesian War was no different. This paper will detail the events surrounding the conflict and attempt to give scope to it as a mirror into the rest of the conflict.
Hellenic culture in the Spartan community was that of a humble elite. True Spartan culture is well captured in Xenophon’s work, Spartan Society, as he wrote of how this elitist society viewed not only themselves, but the other countries around them. This work shines light into the three-part worldview of the ancient, Hellenic Spartans of: humanism, idealism, and rationalism. As Xenophon begins to write over the whole of the Spartan society it can be seen how the Spartans lived out the worldview of this Hellenistic society. This living out of the worldview recorded in Xenophon’s, Spartan Society, illustrates their worldview through the noting of Lycurgus’ accomplishments and the contrast of the “other.”
We have now examined Thucydides' strongest arguments for Athenian rule. It is clear that Athens had a stronger claim to rule than the Melians had to remain sovereign. We also know that Athens' claims hold up when we examine them for validity. Thucydides beliefs in Athens' claims were therefore well founded.
Spartan culture is a great example of how a society’s infrastructure will directly affect both, its social structure and superstructure. It also serves as a warning that any society that becomes too rigid in its structure and too static in its values will not last long when confronted with more agile and adaptable cultures. This paper will explore why Sparta became the Hellenic army par excellence, how this worked to create a very specific social structure founded on martial values, and, finally, how that social structure would ultimately be the undoing of the culture.
Athens government and military is considerably different from their neighbors. According to Pericles, Athens government is not a copy of our neighbors...
The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.
In the years following the Persian Wars in 479 B.C., Athens had come out on top being the most dominantly powerful of any Greek city with a navy that had superior strength that increased day by day. The Athenians “ruled with heavy-handed, even brutal force as well as with reason” (Kagan 2). This was due largely to the fact that Athens had a stable and effective government, which only increased their advantage in proving themselv...
In Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War the Athenian Empire started out with just intentions, but once they had a taste for power they did whatever it took to obtain more, even if they had to take it by force. Over time the Athenian Empire became ruled by individuals acting with the sole purpose of furthering their own self-interests at any cost, which led to the empire becoming more amenable to the use of force as a means to get what they desired. One such instance where someone in the Athenian Empire was more than willing to use force to get what he or she wanted was during the Mytilenenian dialogues. The Athenian colony of Mytilene attempted to rebel against Athenian rule but when they failed their fate rested on the outcome of the debate between Diodotus and Cleon. Thucydides refers to Cleon as the “most violent man in Athens” and he demonstrates how he earned that name when he suggests that the Athenians kill every man of fighting age and enslave the rest. Cleon then says, “Give these people the punishment they deserve… show them that the penalty for rebellion is death” (Thucydides, p. 70-71) because he believes that this show of power and force will dissuade other colonies under Athenian rule from thinking about rebellion. Fortunately for the Mytilenians Athens did not use force in this
Dating back to 449 B.C., Sparta and Athens always had an alliance, but as time grew that balance slowly began to fall as one felt threatened by another. Before any sight of unsteadiness the Spartans and Athenians had a bound partnership. Beginning after their domination of the Persian war, the two states slowly became aware of one another’s growing power. More time went by, and the Spartans began to grow conscious of the other states, feeling wary and paranoid around them (Fox, 170). No state was particularly to blame for the strain on their peace treaty, nor for the war, it came as the two states developed. Eventually the two states had clashed enough and declared war. Although the Spartans gave the Athenians a chance to back down and temporarily stall war, the two states would never be equal, their allies resented one another far too much. The growing urge for power was bound to take over sooner or later. Finally, after 7 years of uneasy tension, Sparta could wait no longer and declared war against Athens (Fox, 167). Although the Athenians and Spartans lived together in peace for so long, they existed in a fragile balance that was bound to eventually lead to war.
... weaker state will remain neutral from a military strength. Melians’ loss reaffirms the absolute power of imperial conquests and nationalism in theories of realism. Since the Melians were allied with the Spartans and failed to cooperate, it is justifiable that the Athenians had the right to want to rule and invade the Melians as means to protect their own strengths.
...edicted it would, and without a leader like him willing to direct them away from this mindset rather than pander to it to get votes, the political constitution of the city was doomed to dissolve. Speaking of the revolution in Corcyra, which occurred after the Athenian decision to spare Mytilene but before its destruction of Melos, Thucydides wrote, “In peace and prosperity states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants and so proves a rough master that brings most men’s characters to a level with their fortunes” (III.82.2). This was precisely the change Athens underwent, and the cause of its eventual demise.
One of those traits is that although Athenian citizens and soldiers live a more leisurely life and are not trained as rigorously as the Spartans in land warfare, Athenians’ natural courage makes up for that (Thucydides pg. 42). Athens was definitely the dominant naval power in Greece at the time, but the Athenians’ devaluing of land warfare led to a stalemate in the first phase of the Peloponnesian War before the Peace of Nicias in which Sparta ravaged Athens’ countryside and forced its citizens to be holed up in the city walls and to live in close quarters, making them susceptible to the plague. Another trait of Athens that can be argued as not a positive factor is its institution of democracy. Athenian democracy was quite limited in the modern sense since its citizenry only included ethnic Athenian males over the age of 20, but it was remarkable in the ancient world for the amount of civic participation it allowed of those that it considered citizens. The Athenians prided themselves on including people of lower economic status into the citizenry, but this trait may be not as positive as Pericles proclaimed (Thucydides pg. 40). In an oligarchic system such as Sparta’s, if the city-state was to win a war, it
The Realist, absolutely dedicated to the preservation and security of the Athenian Empire declares stoutly, “General, it is no great surprise that our negotiations reflected the success and dominance of realism in the political arena.” The Liberal, mindful of universal pathos over such a nationalistic approach, gasps. Deeply moved by the proceedings of the Melian dialogue, and aghast at the lack of understanding in her fellow representatives, she offers a venomous retort, “To hell with realism! Can’t you see the truth? Oh, my comrades are blind to the universal laws of right and wrong! Truly, our very invasion of this people is immoral! We should be moved by empathy and compassion for the Melians!” A steady, even voice i...
Because of the tranquil times, the civilization’s society had more time to focus on writing, math, astronomy, and artistic fields, as well as trade and metallurgy. Out of all the city-states of Greece, two excelled over all the rest, Sparta and Athens. Even though they were the most advanced and strong civilizations, they were bitter enemies. While Athens focused mainly on the people’s democracy and citizen rights, Sparta were ferocious and enslaved its original inhabitants, making them unable to leave and kept under a close eye to prevent insurgence (History of Greece:The Golden Age of Greece). Additionally, Sparta had strict and trained soldiers that underwent intense physical exercising and instruction.