When embarking upon an expedition for war certain preparations should be made to guarantee success of the expedition. We, as formidable senior leaders and strategic military planners evaluate criteria as we plan for these “expeditions” using a system to assist us in satisfying the political objective (ends), devising the method for achieving the objective (ways), and gathering resources (means) to meet that objective. Upon close examination of the Athenian Sicily Expedition during the Peloponnesian War (431 BCE- 404 BCE), Athens experienced severe difficulty in astutely applying the ends-ways-means construct. Senior Athenian leaders hastily framed the political ends and largely succumbed to the appeal to fear fallacy of Spartan expansion to …show more content…
The ends for the Sicily campaign went awry due to Athens greed for expansion spurred by false claims of war financing from the Egestaens and the assumption that the Peace of Nicias would endure, thus reducing the Spartan threat to the homeland. Athenian leaders were lulled initially into the expedition due to the fallacy of appeal to fear by the Egestaens. Athens should intervene otherwise the Syracusans would conquer Sicily, reunite with Sparta, and become a formidable future threat to Athens . The Sicily campaign was an attractive offer to Athens, an outside party financed the war effort and success would reduce a future threat. These ends were wholly unachievable because they were based on two fatal flaws, the Egestaens did not truly have the financing available to fund additional triremes and hoplites, and the fragile Peace of Nicias would not hold due to its fallibility to return cities to Sparta and Athens . Although the ends were clearly defined, to acquire Sicily to expand the Athenian empire, they were derived under false pretenses and required considerable means to …show more content…
In this regard, Athens failed. Athens was not prepared to conduct warfare against an unknown opponent. Athens was unsure of how fervent the Syracusans would fight having never faced them in battle. Little was known about the terrain of Sicily and where it was vulnerable . In the face of uncertainty, a sensible military leader would heavily weight his attacking force. Mass becomes the crucial factor to ensure victory is achieved. Athens had trouble in formulating a military strategy to guarantee success. The three Athenian generals had differing opinions in dispatching Syracuse. Alcibiades pursued a path of alliance followed by attacking the dissenters, Lamachus favored a surprise attack on Syracuse to crush political will, and Nicias preferred a demonstrative show of force to deter Syracuse from further action . Each of these actions required varying levels of means from lowest to highest concentrations of military force. An unclear, disjointed strategy cannot be adequately resourced. Nicias realized this early on in preparing for the Sicilian campaign, and had thus heavily weighted the Athenian military in the pursuit of the campaign . The military was appropriately resourced to execute each of the three Generals’ strategies, but at a great cost. For success and holding Sicily, the Athenian military would most likely
There is no coincidence that the rise of Athenian Democracy goes chronologically hand in hand with the rise of the Athenian Navy. Following the defeat of the Persians by the Greeks, Athens’ naval successes allow it to surpass the previous naval power of Corinth; create the Delian league to fund and support this navy; and eventually ruffle enough feathers with their fellow Hellenic neighbours that they inspire the Peloponnesian war. Overall their naval reputation and intimidation comes from the skill of the men who maneuver and command the ships, and the tool they use to wield their power, the Athenian trireme. By looking at the design of the trireme, and the work and numbers put both into the ship and the men that drive it, hopefully both the wealth and skill of the Athenian navy can be appropriately highlighted. In the end, it is this immense power and resources that allow the Athenians to overstep their limits and caused such demoralizing defeats such as the expedition at Syracuse and the eventual loss of the Peloponnesian war, after which they prove unable to grow to the same undefeated sea power they were.
Archaeology and the Trojan War “. he [Heinrich Schliemann] found layers of ruins. and two bore unmistakable signs of violent destruction. One of these layers, the seventh according to more recent excavators, was no doubt the city of Priam and Hector. The historicity of the Homeric tale has been demonstrated archaeologically.”
The Melians argued using consequences of an Athenian take over. In section 110, the Melians threatened that if their allies the Lacedaemonians were provoked by the takeover of Melos, they might attack Athens itself: "...the Cretan sea is a large place; and the masters of the sea will have more difficulty in overtaking vessels which want to escape than the pursued in escaping. If the attempt should fail they may invade Attica itself, and find their way to allies of yours whom Brasidas did not reach: and then you will have to fight, not for the conquest of a land in which you have no concern, but nearer home, for the preservation of your confederacy and of your own territory." In addition, the Melians complained that they would be thought of as cowards if they surrendered, and they warned the Athenians that hostility would turn other neutral city-states against them.
Spartan women were considered fundamentally more advanced than other women of Athens, due to the way that Spartan women were reared. Spartan women were treated equally to men, and given freedom like the men were. They were given the opportunity to train with men, and were even slightly more educated than their male cohorts. Spartan women were exceptionally more advanced than other women during this age due to these factors, and are a great example of strong women within past civilizations.
The causes of the Peloponnesian War proved to be too great between the tension-filled stubborn Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. As Thucydides says in Karl Walling’s article, “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed” (4). The three phases of the war, which again, are the Archidamian war, the Sicilian Expedition and the Decelean war, show the events that followed the causes of the war, while also showing the forthcoming detrimental effects that eventually consumed both Athens and eventually Sparta effectively reshaping Greece.
About 2500 years ago, the ancient Greeks and Persians started the Battle of Thermopylae. During this battle, there was a great army that we call them the Brave 300. This army was 300 great soldiers that led by their king Leonidas, and they were so brave that they fought against more than one 1 million Persians by themselves. Even though they were defeated, their story was spread everywhere around the world, and people have wrote tons of books and made movies about them. So some people start questioning that did the Spartans deserve all the attention that history gave them? After learning the history of the Battle of Thermopylae and watching the movie of the Brave 300, I believe that the Spartans did deserve all the attention that
invading through the mountains of Albania. However, Greeks refused to abandon their territory and fought back, taking a big risk considering the difference between the Greek and Italian army and the caliber the previous one had. Six weeks later, the outcome was extremely u...
... 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.
The Lacedaemonians were not content with simply sending aid to Sicily; they also resolved to take the war to the Athenians. The Corinthians, the Spartans, and others in the Peloponnesian League sent more reinforcements to Syracuse, in the hopes of driving off the Athenians; but instead of withdrawing; the Athenians sent another hundred ships and another 5,000 troops to Sicily. Under Gylippus, the Syracusans and their allies were able to decisively defeat the Athenians on land; and Gylippus encouraged the Syracusans to build a navy, which was able to defeat the Athenian fleet when they attempted to withdraw. The Athenian army, attempting to withdraw overland to other, more friendly Sicilian cities, was divided and defeated; the entire Athenian fleet was destroyed, and virtually the entire Athenian army was sold off into slavery.
This lead to different allies and different war tactics. For example, when Persia was trying to take Athens in the Persian wars, Thebes sided with the Persians to try to get rid of Athens easily. This was an unusual ally because Persia was trying to take down Greece, but it was also a smart war tactic to take down Athens easily. Another Example is when Thebes supported Sparta against Athens. In the Peloponnesian wars, Sparta tried to take down Athens, and again Thebes sided with the opposite team against Athens to try to take them down. Overall, Thebes were smart in picking allies and plotting strategies against rivals like Athens.
There are times in history that something will happen and it will defy all logic. It was one of those times when a few Greek city/states joined together and defeated the invasion force of the massive Persian Empire. The Greeks were able to win the Greco-Persian War because of their naval victories over the Persians, a few key strategic victories on land, as well as the cause for which they were fighting. The naval victories were the most important contribution to the overall success against the Persians. The Persian fleet was protecting the land forces from being outflanked and after they were defeated the longer had that protection. While the Greeks had very few overall victories in battle they did have some strategic victories. The Battle of Thermopylae is an example of a strategic success for the Greeks. The morale of the Persian army was extremely affected by the stout resistance put up by King Leonidas and his fellow Spartans. The Greeks fought so hard against overwhelming odds because of what they were fighting for. They were fighting for their country and their freedom. They fought so hard because they did not want to let down the man next to them in the formation. Several things contributed to the Greeks success against the Persian invasion that happened during the Second Greco-Persian War.
As can be expected from pioneer governmental institutions, Athenian democracy was not perfect. In fact it was far from it. It resulted in the establishment of poor policies by aggressive populists who sought "...private ambition and private profit...which were bad both for the Athenians themselves and their allies." (Thucydides). These self interested populist leaders with personal gain in mind established extensive internal political instability "...by quarrelling among themselves [and] began to bring confusion into the policy of the state." (Thucydides). Repeated opportunities to accept terms of peace after the battles of Pylos (425), Arginusae (406) and Aegospotami (405) were ignored by the inefficient Athenian demos eventually resulting in the devastation of the once dominant city-state. Internal political strife can also be attribu...
...rated the superiority of the Greek long spear and armor over the weapons of the Persians, as well as the superior tactics of Miltiades and the military training of the Greek hoplites. The choice of weapons, training of warriors, selection of battle site, and timing had all worked together to help the Athenians prove that size doesn’t always matter.
The Battle of Salamis is said to be one of the most important battles in all of history. It was a naval battle fought between the massive Persian army and smaller Greek army in the Bay of Salamis in 480 BCE. This battle was one of the many battles that were a part of the Greco-Persian war. This paper will explore the events leading up to the battle, the battle itself, including advantages and disadvantages both sides had on one and other, and finally will discuss the affects the result of this battle had on each side. Surprisingly, the much smaller Greek army defeated the Persians at the Battle of Salamis. How did this happen, one may ask? Although the Persians appeared to have the military advantage in this battle, particularly in terms of sheer size and numbers, the Greeks successfully defeated them with the help of their leaders, tactics, and many Persian blunders.
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...