It required a strong fleet of ships and strong funds in order to function. According to Thucydides, t... ... middle of paper ... ...henian who had lead the siege against Samos, realised this but also appreciated the dangers of changing this tactic all together – ‘Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go’. To this extent, it is reasonable that Athens should use such extreme measures, as it seemed to be the only way in which she could uphold her power and keep her allies close. Yet by doing so she had transformed the original aims of the Delian League entirely, which had a purpose to promote freedom and independence. In the later cases of Corinth and Megara, it was Athens unwillingness to agree on independence that triggered the Peloponnesian War.
Athens was the head of the Delian League because they started it and when Sparta saw that they were stealing money to glorify their city, the Spartans didn’t like it. Both city-states believed they would have the upper hand if they fought, so they both pushed for war. Eventually, Sparta declared war on Athens. Since Sparta had a strong army they wanted to fight a land war. However, Pericles, Athens’ leader, wanted to wait for the precise moment to attack by water.
When industrialised nation-states made war on each other one side might achieve a decisive victory, but the combatant militaries temporarily formed death and devastation on a surprising new scale. The logical starting point for a global history of modern warfare is to see how the regions most transformed by industrialisation and massive nationalist mobilisation affected the 19th and early 20th century world at large. Latest technologies made it possible to mass-produce weapons through enhanced accuracy, power, and also range. Many of the new weapons and corresponding tactics went against the essential concepts of what constituted proper conduct of war, making change complicated and unsettling. Military conditions are in consistent flux throughout industrial age as new weapons were developed and transportation and communication improved.
Furthermore, increasing military spending meant that countries wanted to use their armies, and this idea is backed up by the ”use it or lose it” mindset. Alliances were formed to protect one another against possible future attacks, but ended up further increasing the tensions between the European powers as alliances were formed against other alliances. Imperialism meant that countries were already fighting over territory, and though it was far away from where these countries actually were, it severely increased the risk of war as the tensions between countries increased. Nationalism increased hostility as the propaganda war began and continued. Each country was frantically trying to prove that they were superior to all other countries, and in this process they often ended up making negative propaganda slandering other countries and their leaders.
When an opportunity comes for war against Athens, Sparta is not very reluctant and could even be considered eager to enter an altercation. Pericles leadership appeared sound but may have over reached the power of Athens. Pericles convinced the Athenians that allowing allied states to become free was a sign of weakness. In addition, he convinced them that Sparta was no match and could not win a long-term war against the great Athenian navy.
This is where the trouble starts. Because Greece was so focused on their millitary to win the war, The main focus of everyone was to do their part to win the war against the Axis powers. The communists create an army. The democratic party of course did not want to get left out in credit of help to win the war. And soon they had their army called the Democratic army.
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.
In these cases, violence alone is not enough to cause change, but may serve to build momentum that in turn, makes change possible. Instead of the sole use of violence and intimidation tactics to force submission and support, widespread popular backing is exactly what is needed for a successful movement; a small but loyal constituency of oppressors, a significant number of oppressed, and a large amount of firepower may accomplish goals in the short-run, but will fall short of achieving lasting change. The effectiveness of a large movement by the people also lessens the success of violence in counter-revolutionary attempts. These missions, to keep control of power and subdue so-called subversives, tend to be fiercer and disregard issues such as personal freedoms and human right... ... middle of paper ... ... Krause, Enrique. “The Vision of Father Morelos.” Problems in Modern Latin American History.
The Delian league, founded in 478 BC, was originally formed not only to defend against the Persians, but to strike back against them. With Sparta reluctant to spearhead this effort, it fell to Athens to take the position as leader of these united Greeks. The Delian league began as a peaceful and voluntary union, however it was not long before Athens began using the league resources for personal gain and started conquering regions, forcing them to join, and pay tribute. This marks the transition from a democracy to an empire, and ultimately the beginning of the end for Athens. The people of the Delian league were not happy with this and many rebelled.
He also addresses the downfall of dunamis, otherwise known as power. Thucydides implicitly offers praise to the Spartans war tactics, thus producing his work dedicated on trying to improve the Athen’s war strategies. Thucydides points out early on that the cause of the Peloponnesian war is due to the overwhelming fear that Sparta has towards Athens’ growth2. In essence, the Spartans did not want their government to become a direct democracy, which would mimic the government in Athens. After news of Athenian expansion breaks out, the Spartans call upon a Corinthian representative to uphold the Greek tradition of cross-examination by other city-states.