The Sicilian Expedition is the decisive event in the Peloponnesian war. In fact that is what motivated Thucydide's to record it in his historical records. Thucydides prophesized that it would be `the greatest in all Greek history' and "it was a major turning point for Athens',moreover, it was the `most glorious victory for the winners, and the worst calamity for the loosers.' The outcome was that Athens lost the war which lead to the eventual collapse of her empire and dignity. The Athenians lost the war due to their ill preparedness for the expedition, illogical and hasty decisions, and poor leadership during the expedition.
First of all, it is feasible to say that one of the most important reasons for the Athenian defeat was due to the fact that they were essentially not ready for another battle. The importance of prepraredness was exemplified by Percile's in his War speech, he was recollecting the Athenian ancestors success against the Persians and he stated it was "more good planning than good luck." The problem is that the Sicilian expedition was spontaneous and unanticipated, thus unplanned. As Thucydides recounts "that same winter, immediately after the destruction of Melos, Athens decided to attempt the conquest of the Greeks on Sicily."
However, they were not "well informed about the relative strength of their allies and their enemies in Sicily" . The Athenians had sent some ambassadors in early spring to Egesta to evaluate the situation. Instead of bringing back useful information, they brought back some ambassadors and sixty talents of uncoined silver (which was only one months pay for the Athenian naval fleet).
Although the Athenians were still not properly informed, they still set out a date to take o...
... middle of paper ...
...ion of their retreat; Demosthenes wanted to leave and save his troops, while Nicias' was afraid of the embarrassment he will have to suffer if they left. However, the vote was in favor of leaving, just as they were about to do so, a lunar eclipse occurred. A Thucydides tell us ."..most of the Athenians took the eclipse to heart and called on the generals to stop",a wise leader would have order his troops to keep going. Yet " Nicias who put to much faith in divination and such practices said he wouldn't consider moving..untill they waited twenty seven days prescribed by the soothsayers" . If the leaders were wise they could have escaped army and the losses would have not been so drastic. The outcome was that the procrastination of the Athenian army is what gave Syracuse and its allies the time to beat them at sea and on land, and there eventual crushing defeat.
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.
During the Persian War, Sparta and Athens worked together to defeat the Persians. The discipline and strength of Spartan Army helped saved Greece from invasion. Afterwards Sparta and Athens alliances were formed. Athenians had superior naval force and enforced the democratic rule in states allied to Athens. Neighboring allied states depended on the trade provided by Athens navy. In the same time Athens had established themselves as the head of the empire. (Lecture 7 notes). Sparta had superior land army and they destroyed Athens crops in order to have a hold on Athens and force them to surrender. The war lasted 10 years with neither side winning the war. At the end they agreed to a truce. A few years later, Athens tried to conquer Sicily, but the Sicilians defeated Athens. Athens lost much of its army and navy. The Spartans took advantage of this weakness and attacked Athens and cut of their trade routes and food supplies. Spartans won and Sparta became the most powerful city in
The major theme that comes out clearly in the text is the theme of warfare and glorious death. Right from the beginning of his book, Thucydides, writes the story of the war between the Athenians and the Spartans. The theme of warfare is therefore evidenced by the Athenians preparation, the author says, ‘…beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war and more worthy of relation than any other that had preceded.’ This shows that the war that was to start was a unique one that had never happened before in history, in Thucydides opinion. This to me shows a bit of an exaggeration but more importantly this dramatic portrayal of the Peloponnesian war shows that war was seen as a part of life in Athens. In the text, we don’t find Thucydides describing war as being dark, catastrophic, or destructive which is how we would depict war nowadays. Instead we find him describing the war as this huge event that will go down in history as the greatest war to be fought.
In conclusion, Athens and Sparta, both powerful Greek City-State. The Archidaminam War, The Peace of Nicias, and The Decelan of Ionian. In total these 3 wars lasted 27 years.Sparta, the capital of Laconia, was at one time the most powerful City-State in Ancient Greece. Thucydide, a greek historian who lived during the peloponnesian war, said the war was because of the Athenian empire and its fast growing power. Sparta won the war and remained the the most powerful until
After the defeat, busy with defending their lands and putting down a revolution, Sparta sues for peace, which Athens rejects as they “kept grasping at more.”39 If the Athenian objective was to maintain her empire and conduct affairs in her national interest without interference, then Athens should have accepted the Spartan peace offer. Instead, they reject the offer, convinced by their recent success they can get more if they continue the war. The war continuing, Sparta is forced to change course in their strategy and free a number of Helots to join Brasidas for his expedition into Thrace and Chalcidice. As described before, Brasidas decisively defeats Cleon at Amphipolis and takes the strategic initiative away from Athens. This defeat will be a major reason for peace between Athens and Sparta, but a peace not as favorable as one after
For many years in the Greek world, prior to the outbreak of war, the growth of Athenian power had been increasing. Athens had control of the largest naval fleet of the Greek States and held many allies in the region. Noticeable rifts had begun to rise between both Athens and Sparta around 460BC and Thucydides argues that “the growth of Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta” had infact created what is argued to be one of the core elements of this war. This fear of Sparta is argued by Thucydides and Kagan as being one of the largest underlying factors that upset a balance of peace in the region. This fear and tension gave way to the eventual outbreak of war following many short term events that triggered conflict that was unnecessary and preventable with a calm-headed nature.
In conclusion, multiple factors led to the failure of Xerxes’ expedition into Greece. According to Herodotus, Xerxes failed due to his personal hubris, fear, and general ineptitude. He further believed that it was God’s decree. More pragmatic reasons would include strategy; the Persian’s plans were generally sound – the Greeks, with the genius of Themistocles, just did one better. Timing was also a factor – winter came on all too soon. Key to all of this was the war of morale – one which the Greeks decisively won. Luck, too, played its part, but it was relative incompetence of the Persian troops which was the crux of the matter. The failure of the infantry was the cause of the final disintegration of the campaign. Xerxes’ personal failures and errors of judgment were an accelerant towards this end. First and foremost, he was let down by his men.
The Athenian ancestors have built a great form of government, education, military policy, navy, and they died in courage to win all of this for you. Now you must decide if you will do the same for your future citizens and pray that you have a different outcome then them by
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.
Thucydides set out to narrate the events of what he believed would be a great war—one requiring great power amassed on both sides and great states to carry out. Greatness, for Thucydides, was measured most fundamentally in capital and military strength, but his history delves into almost every aspect of the war, including, quite prominently, its leaders. In Athens especially, leadership was vital to the war effort because the city’s leaders were chosen by its people and thus, both shaped Athens and reflected its character during their lifetimes. The leaders themselves, however, are vastly different in their abilities and their effects on the city. Thucydides featured both Pericles and Alcibiades prominently in his history, and each had a distinct place in the evolution of Athenian empire and the war it sparked between Athens and Sparta. Pericles ascended to power at the empire’s height and was, according to Thucydides, the city’s most capable politician, a man who understood fully the nature of his city and its political institutions and used his understanding to further its interests in tandem with his own. After Pericles, however, Thucydides notes a drastic decline in the quality of Athenian leaders, culminating in Alcibiades, the last major general to be described in The Peloponnesian War. While he is explicit in this conclusion, he is much more reticent regarding its cause. What changed in Athens to produce the decline in the quality of its leadership?
The Battle of Marathon in 490 BC, however, did not provide such an instance. When the Persian army headed to Greece to attack, only Athens and Plataea sent soldiers to fight them. The Spartans claimed they could not send soldiers due to a festival and only appeared after the battle was won by the Athenians and Plataeans to congratulate the victors (Demand 1996: 186-187). The victory gave a boost to the confidence of the Athenians, who felt that “at Marathon we were the only ones to face up to th...
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...
The Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) was a conflict between the Athenian Empire and the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta that resulted in the end of the Golden Age of Athens. The events of the war were catalogued by the ancient historian Thucydides in The History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides’ writings showed the ancient Greek belief that there is a parallel between the city-state and the character of its citizens; in order for the city-state to be successful, its citizens must be virtuous. Thucydides did not believe that the true cause of the Peloponnesian War were the immediate policies of the Athenian Empire against the city-states in the Peloponnesian League but rather the fundamental differences in the character of the two city-states
While Persian financial support undeniably contributed to the Spartan’s victory over Athens in the Peloponnesian War, modern historians have over-emphasized the importance of that assistance to their eventual victory. Persian money allowed the Peloponnesian forces to stay in the fight, which had quickly dissolved into a war of attrition after the Athenian’s defeat at Syracuse. However, there were several negative aspects of the Persian/Peloponnesian alliance which detrimentally affected Sparta’s ability to effectively wage war against Athens. Included in this was the tendency for Persian Satraps to withhold pay and reinforcements, or to provide that pay irregularly. Additionally, Persia’s insistence that Sparta recognize their control over all Ionian cities prior to any treaty being completed led