Essay on An Analysis of Thucydides' Views on the Melian Dialogue

Action from necessity is a constantly recurring theme in Thucydides’ The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. A sentiment used to explain the growth of the Athenian Empire which some Athenians espoused to an assembly at Sparta best quantifies necessity, “. . . we were necessarily compelled at first to advance the hegemony to where it is—especially by fear, and then by honor, and later by benefit.” (Selected Passages 1.75.3). This claim, referred to as the Athenian Thesis, is used to advance the two following implications: all states act with the motivations of fear, honor and interest and no one can condemn a state for doing so. The Athenian Thesis influences the way many of the Athenian elite structure their patterns of reasoning in both noticeable and subtle ways.

Making use of rhetoric devices and compromising the ideals of democracy breach the ideals of traditions in the Greek society. Unlike that in the “Clouds”, Thucydides does not show any sign of flaws of the traditional values.

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

In Chapter 1, the author assesses the unique and eternal achievements of 5th century BCE Athenian culture. She introduces several basic dichotomies that define her understanding of the writers and events of the period in the later chapters.

In the fourth year of the Peloponnesian War, the city of Mytilene, revolts against Athens and conspires with Sparta and asks for their assistance. However, these plans for revolt are reported to Athens, who send an army against Mytilene. While under siege, Mytilene’s democratic faction gives up and decides to surrender to Athens. When the Athenian leaders first meet to decide about the fate of the Mytilene people, they decree that all the Mytilene men be put to death, while the women and children be enslaved. The following day, the Athenians decide to put all Mytilene’s to death not just the guilty. However, this time an assembly is called to persuade Athenian officials to reconsider their death penalty. During this assembly, there are two speeches given; one by Cleon and the other by Diodotus; these will be explored in detail in the following paragraphs. As I read Thucydides’ summary, the two speeches serve as contrasts, illustrating the difference between bad and good arguments. Through the following themes/conclusions that will be explored/applied in the paper, this paper argues that Diodotus, not Cleon, makes the better argument: i) Cleon uses the language of un-justice, punishment, irrationality and extreme emotions, which makes his disposition unreasonable; ii) Diodotus uses the language of rationality, justice and intellect which form the basis of a strong argument.

Compare and contrast Thucydides’ and Socrates’ analyses of the fate of Athenian democracy in war, of why the Athenians went to war, and of how and why they failed.

The Melians, contrarilly, see justice as grounded in fairness. They contend that action based in reason is the true definition of justice. “There is every advantage in your not destroying a universal benefit, but that at all times there be fairness and justice for those in danger,” (Thuc.,V, 90). This belief in abstinence from aggression without cause is what defines the fundamental differences in the Athenian’s and the Melian’s philosophies. As a neutral state, Melos remained impartial up until it was confronted by Athens, and it is this confrontation which violates the Melian definition of justice. Having not been harmed by

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.

First of all, it is feasible to say that one of the most important reasons for the Athenian defeat was due to

The Mytilenian debate was one instance in Greek history where the sophist ways of rhetoric substantially affected the decision of the Athenian leaders. It was originally planned by Cleon to put the Mytilenians to death immediately (Thucydides, 212). However, an assembly was called in order to decide the fate of Mytilene, due to a sudden change of feeling and the acknowledgement of such a cruel act. Cleon, who stood by his original orders, spoke in front of an assembly in order to convince them to follow through with his plan. Cleon, throughout his speech, denounces the ideals of sophism and focused his attention towards the members of the assembly itself.

It is evident that Thrasymachus was not convinced by Socrates’ argument, notwithstanding his agreement with Socrates’ points. In a nutshell, Thrasymachus does not tell us what justice really is in an explicit form. He rates justice on whom it harms or whom it empowers (i.e.: the rulers, the poor, the good man…).

The Melian Dialogue presents the negotiations between the Athenians and the Melians regarding the imminent invasion and conquer of the island of Melos for expansion purposes. The Athenians give the Melians two options: surrender or be destroyed. From the negotiation, the Melians reasonably expect war and understand that the “contrary case, slavery” is a conceivable possibility (CCW 56). The Melians recognize that the Athenians are much stronger, however, they refuse to submit as subrogation is the outcome. In this instance, the Melians adopted a liberal perspective as they focused on the wellbeing of their civilization. The Athenians argued that the Melians “would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we

In the passage describing the Mytilenian Debate, Thucydides explains the duality between the “man in the street” and “intellectuals.” Thucydides places the man in the street and intellectuals in opposition through the phrase “better…by the man in the street than by intellectuals,” suggesting that there is a fundamental difference between the two; most importantly, the difference in their intelligences. By pitting the man in the street against ‘intellectuals,’ Thucydides suggests that the common man does not possess intelligence; yet, the common man’s lack of intelligence is not a decidedly negative aspect. Thucydides compares the intellectuals’ use, or abuse, of knowledge to the “worst thing” that could happen, casting a negative light on the intellectuals. In fact, the “common sense” of the common man is “more helpful” and “better” than the cleverness of the intellectuals. This opposition between the “man in the street” and the “intellectuals” further demonstrates the pervasive and dangerous nature of cleverness. Cleverness is connected to a state of being “constantly” fluid, as the good laws set by the intellectuals are “constantly being altered.” The intentional choice of the word ‘altered,’ rather than ‘improved’ or ‘enhanced’ suggests that the laws are not improving in their quality or changing for the better. In this sense, the citizens’ lack of “abidance” to these ever-changing laws, as good as they may be, appears to be more important than the quality of

Written by the Greek historian Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War is one that tells the story of the war (431-404 BC) which divided the Greek world between Athens and its allies and Lacedaemon. The Melian Dialogue presents two sides and two perspectives that of the Melians neutrality and that of the Athenians’ might. By Thucydides juxtaposing the Athenian’s position to that of the Melians, there is a clear conclusion of which side actions are tactically and morally acceptable. One would argue that the Athenians are immoral for violently plundering the Melian territory because they had the power to do so. However, given the circumstance of trying to defend their empire due to the imbalance of forces, the Athenian actions are not

I personally agree with both, where having a proper knowledgeable expertise is important, following the laws and guidelines is very important too. However, according to me Socrates happens to better understanding than Meletus, because if there is no proper source of knowledge than there also exist no scoop of