Thucydides Sicilian Expidition Essay

Promoting Greek unity gave the Greeks greater strength in numbers during the wars. Plutarch states “The greatest of all his achievements was to put an ending to all the fighting within Greece, to reconcile the various cities with one another and persuade them to lay aside their differences because of the war with Persia”. Themistocles’ relationship with naval commander Eurybiades also was very important. With Themistocles’ great foresight and decision making, the value of this working relationship with Eurybiades was the ability of Eurybiades to trust in Themistocles and his opinions. This proved very effective in the battles of Artemisium and Salamis. Thucydides praises this: “This man was supreme at doing precisely the right thing at precisely the right moment.” All of these pre-war efforts are contributions to which Themistocles played a great role in Greek victory.

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.

In his ambitions to conquer Sicily and then move on to Italy and the Peloponnesus, he also shows this thirst.12 The Athenians recognized Alcibiades's brilliance and ruthlessness so they elected Nicias as a general to "[temper] his rashness."13 Alcibiades resorted to violence to gain glory, Pericles, on the other hand, attempted to prolong peace and settle matters with diplomacy. He once tried to persuade the cities to send delegates to meet in Athens to discuss restorations of temples destroyed during the war with Persia, but nothing came of his plan because of Spartan opposition.14 He even went so far as to bribe the chief magistrates of Sparta to buy time to prepare for war, which he knew was inevitable.15

occasional assistance from the gods, but cowardice shown by other poleis nearly ended the Greeks’ chances of success.

A study of the strategies and projections of King Archidamus of Sparta as compared to those of Pericles of Athens reveal Archidamus' understanding of the "superiority of land power as a basis for success at sea" in the ancient Mediterranean - as well as Pericles' naiveté as to this tenet.

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.

This essay examines the evolution of the Athens strategy from the beginning to the end of The Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BCE). The Strategy will be evaluated in the context of the relationship of ends, means, and ways by testing the suitability, acceptability, feasibility, and risk.

Themistocles was aware that the only way to defeat the Persians was to cut of their naval power, so he devised a plan. He sent a slave to the Persians with a message that they were escaping, and the Persians sent ships to meet there escapees. The Athenian ships were prepared to face them. Their specialty in sea battles, along with the narrowness and swirls of the sea gave the Athenians an advantage. This strategy is what ultimately brought victory to the Greeks, as it left the Persians without a supply line and weakened their forces. The two events, the battle at Marathon and the battle at Salamis, showed that Athens was a great contributor to the war, both land and sea.

The Peloponnesian War pitted the Athenians against the Spartans. The Peloponnesians’ were an alliance of city-states controlled by Sparta. These two powerful city-states became locked in a struggle for dominance of the eastern Mediterranean area. The roots of the conflict and in particular this expedition is highly complex. As Thucydides says in his history of the war, the underlying cause was Spartan fear of Athens' expansive power. But, the triggering event was Athens' aggressive behavior towards Corinth, an ally of Sparta.

Throughout the Ancient Greek world, there have been many wars and standoffs. However, there has been only one which changed the course of Greek history forever; the Peloponnesian War. Caused by the growing tension between Athens and Sparta, it came and left, leaving only destruction in its wake. The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War caused the downfall of Greece, and the end of the Classical Age.

The Athenians always had the last word; had this been an actual debate the Athenians would have won by showmanship and persuasion alone. The Melians managed to question their rivals, but once the Athenians responded, there was no Melian rebuttal. To the question of how other neutral Greek city-states might have reacted to Athenian aggression, Athens responded that any neutral sites that might have become hostile did not concern them. They argued that neutral city-states either posed little threat, or were already under pressure to join the alliance. To this the Melians had nothing to say. They instead moved on to say that they would be thought of as "base and cowardly" should they have submitted. Athens answered that there is only disgrace in submission to an equal power, not a greater one like Athens. No Melian concern was left unanswered by the Athenians, yet the Melians were often at a loss for words. The only explanation for this phenomenon

“But we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in power will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaemonians” (Thucydides 270). The Melians should have acted sensibly instead of being naïve and submit to the imperial power seeing that the odds were against them. The Athenians give them a choice, but they decided to act irrational and respond emotively. “They underestimated Athens’ military power, judging the issue by the clouded eye of volition rather than calculations based on security and followed the human tendency to back their desires with uncritical hope and use of sovereign reason only to reject what they find unpalatable” (Bosworth 36).

The last Olympic swimmer just touched the wall and the race has ended. Cameras are replaying every single movement from the race and a winner has been clearly decided. Just as these Olympic swimmers will gain a medal for placing, ancient Athens had numerous accomplishments of its own. Athens “prosperity … was due in large part to its stable and effective government” (SOURCE 1). When analyzing the history of ancient Athens, is easy to see how the accomplishments of a democracy, Greek philosophy, and Greek literature all shape Athens.

The Peloponnesian War changed Greece and nothing was the same after the war. Athens was never to be as powerful again. As a result of the war, the Athenian Empire was never the same again because of the change in the balance of power in the Greek world. This greatly alarmed Sparta and its allies. The aggressive policies of Athens did not de-escalate the situation whilst the ambitions of the city-state certainly provoked the Spartans. Increasingly, the Spartans became very nervous about the growing naval and commercial power of Athens.

Described by Thucydides as “the foremost Athenian and most able in speech or action [at the time of the Peloponnesian War,]” Pericles ushered in what was widely known as the “Golden Age of Athens” (31). He often exercised great prudence in his decision making and was widely admired by the Greek people. The man stressed justice, the worth of the Empire, and cleaving one’s personal interests to those of the city. Through his eloquent speeches and definitive actions he captured both the hearts of the Athenians and territory as a premier military commander. The people readily accepted his authority, and became accustomed to it. This would only lead to problems down the road, however, as other rulers took up the mantle of Athens. They would only be but a gilded echo of Pericles, unable and unwilling to follow his path. Therefore, though Pericles did not intentionally set Athens up to fail, because of the oratorical skill, leadership style, and character he possessed, success could only be truly achieved by and through him.