The Peloponnesian War: Thucydides' Account

Background: Thucydides

• Thucydides was born around $460 BCE$ and died around $400 BCE$.

• He was an elite Athenian citizen.

• He participated in the Peloponnesian War.

• He was exiled for failures during the war, which enabled him to write about the conflict from the perspective of "both sides."

Setting the Scene: The Peloponnesian War

• The war lasted from $431 BCE$ to $404 BCE$.

• The primary belligerents were the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta (also known as Lacedaemons), and the Delian League, led by Athens.

• These leagues were formerly allies, bound by a "Thirty Years Peace" treaty.

• Athens: A rising superpower, characterized by a strong naval force, extensive wealth, and a colonial state.

• Sparta: A declining superpower, known for its land-based military, relative poverty, and a slaveholding society.

• The period preceding the war was marked by a generation of treaties and international organizations, which ultimately failed to prevent the conflict.

Immediate Causes and Corinthian Complaints

• According to Thucydides, the main issues leading to the war included:

1. The Siege of Potidaea, a Corinthian colony.

2. The Defense of Corcyra, a former Corinthian colony.

3. Athens' restriction of trade with Megara, a Peloponnesian border town allied with Athens.

• The Corinthian delegation's main issues (as found on Page $16$, $17-18$ of Thucydides' work) were:

1. Athens had violated the Thirty Years Peace treaty.

2. Athenians were acting aggressively against Corinth and its allies.

3. Injustice had befallen Corinth due to Athenian actions.

Economic Factors and War Theories

• Capitalist Peace Theory (war initiation):

• This theory postulates that trade fosters peace.

• Conversely, restrictions or barriers to trade promote war.

• The economic interests of Corinth and the Peloponnesian League were significantly harmed by Athenian policies, contributing to the drive for war.

Corinthian Arguments for War

• Corinthians, through their delegation, argued that Athenians were emboldened by Spartan inaction.

• They believed that the only way to stop the Athenians was through violent confrontation.

• A preemptive war with Athens was necessary to prevent a conflict when Athens grew even stronger.

• The lack of support for Corinth would force further Athenian aggression (as noted on Page $18$, 20$碾.

Corinthian Arguments for War (Continued) and Related Theories

• Balance of Power Theory (Diehl):

• States form alliances and engage in war to prevent other states from becoming too powerful.

• Corinth wanted the Peloponnesian League to act to prevent Athenian power from becoming unchecked.

• The argument was that "no war now equals subjugation later."

• Is Peace Too Costly? (Tuck):

• Wars are difficult to end, especially when they incur reputational damages.

• Corinth's stance implies that maintaining peace at the cost of perceived Athenian dominance would ultimately be more damaging.

• Can the War Be Stopped? (Tuck):

• Wars often continue due to demands made by an international backer or supporter.

• Corinth's argument to Sparta was: "Sparta needs to go to war, otherwise what is the point of being in an alliance with them?" This highlights the pressure for an alliance leader to act.

Athenian Response to Corinthian Complaints

• The Athenian delegation did not directly address the Corinthian complaints, viewing Corinth as a "lesser power."

• Instead, Athens treated Spartans as their peers, engaging with them on an equal footing.

• Athens argued that the Peloponnesian League was indebted to them.

• They proposed that if there were legitimate issues, they should be taken to arbitration.

• Legitimate issues were defined as only those raised by Spartans (an equal power), implying that Corinth was abusing the arbitration system as a lesser power (as noted on Page 22$,$23$,$24$ of Thucydides).

Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives on the Conflict

• Realism:

• All states pursue their own interests, including Sparta.

• Athens should not be blamed for pursuing its own interests.

• Appeals to justice are often made by those who lack power (e.g., Corinth).

• Idealism:

• Athens had established court systems to handle disagreements.

• It was considered unheard of for a powerful entity like Athens to submit to international law, yet they proposed arbitration.

• Prospect Theory:

• People and states are more sensitive to losses than to gains.

• Corinth complained about its losses and abuses the arbitration system rather than focusing on the gains made with Athens, such as:

  • The Thirty Years Peace.

  • The eviction of the Persian Empire.

  • The establishment of an international law/arbitration system.

Athenian Arguments Against Immediate War

• The Athenian delegation highlighted the disadvantages of war (as noted on Page 25$ of Thucydides):

• Wars are easy to start but difficult to stop (Tuck and the Athenians).

• The longer a war progresses, the more destructive and unpredictable it becomes (Realism).

• Junior partners, like Corinth, should not dictate the terms of war (Realism).

• Going to war with Athens would violate the existing treaty (Idealism).

• Differences should be settled through law and arbitration (Idealism).

Spartan Deliberation: Delay vs. Immediate War

• Archidamus (King of Sparta) argued for delaying the war because:

1. Athenians possessed a superior navy.

2. Athenians were richer, as "War depends on finance more than weapons."

3. While eventual confrontation with Athens was inevitable due to its rising strength (Balance of Power Theory - Diehl), Sparta needed to:

   1. Prepare itself and its allies for war.

   2. Start raising funds for a Spartan navy and mercenaries.

4. The treaty with Athens was important, and it would be unlawful to act when Athens was ready to go to court.

   1. If Athens compromised, war could be avoided.

   2. If Athens did not compromise, Sparta would have gained valuable time for preparation.

• Sthenelaidas (Ephor/elder statesperson) argued for immediate war because:

1. Arbitration was a poor resolution when damage had already occurred.

2. Compromise with Athens would be a betrayal of alliances with Peloponnesian League members (referencing "Is peace too costly?" by Tuck).

Thucydides' View on War Initiation and Spartan Stance

• Thucydides' account emphasizes the Balance of Power Theory:

• Athens needed to be stopped before it became too strong, regardless of specific injustices.

• Failure to go to war would damage Sparta's status as the main superpower.

• Ironically, the Spartans believed their "best hope for peace is war" in the long run.

• Spartans believed they would win the war for several reasons (as noted on Page 29$,$30$,$31$ of Thucydides):

1. They possessed superior ground troops.

2. They could raise money from their alliances through a joint effort.

3. Their alliance was composed of volunteer city-states.

4. They perceived Athens as an oppressive power towards its colonies.

• Spartan demands included:

1. Lifting the siege of Potidaea.

2. Returning colonies taken from the Peloponnesian League.

Pericles' Call to War

• Pericles, the democratically elected leader of Athens, had to convince citizens to refuse Spartan demands (as noted on Page 32$ of Thucydides).

• He argued that Spartans had committed an injustice by trying to circumvent the arbitration system and treaty through demands for war.

• He believed international law could be manipulated for public support, but Athens' position was strong.

• Pericles asserted that war was inevitable, regardless of the Athenian response.

• He emphasized that equality and respect for Athens would come from the rejection of Spartan demands.

Athenian Rationale for Victory and Demands

• Athens believed it would win the war for the following reasons (as noted on Page 33$,$34-35$,$35$ of Thucydides):

1. They were richer than Sparta.

2. The Peloponnesian League did not have enough time to close the wealth gap.

3. The Athenian navy was superior.

4. The Athenian navy could blockade Spartan military forces, cut off their resupplies, and choose the terms of engagement.

• The Athenian response to Spartan demands included:

1. Removal of all trade barriers if Spartans reciprocated and removed barriers for Athenians.

2. Athens would return colonies when Sparta did the same.

Early Stages of the War: Plague and Displacement

• An ally of the Peloponnesian League struck first, but an Athenian ally defeated them.

• A devastating plague struck Athens, an unforeseen turning point.

• The conflict caused significant displacement, with Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from Athenian allies congregating in Athens.

• This congregation intensified the plague, leading to the death of approximately a quarter of the Athenian population.

Pericles' Eulogy and Athenian Values

• Pericles' famous speech at the funeral of fallen soldiers described the qualities of Athens rather than merely eulogizing the dead (as noted on Page $40$, $41$, 42$ of Thucydides).

• He highlighted that:

• Athens was democratic.

• Athens was a center of trade.

• Athens offered luxuries unmatched by other cities.

• Athenians valued nobility and wisdom.

• Athens was surviving on its own against numerous forces.

• Athens was the best city in the region and an example for others.

The Nature of the War: From Issue-Based to Value-Based

• Pericles called upon the living to be prepared to defend Athens and its values (an idealist perspective), because soldiers had died for Athens (as noted on Page 43$,$45$ of Thucydides).

• This marked a significant shift in the war's justification:

• From an issue-based war (e.g., removing trade barriers), which is easier to end through negotiation.

• To a value-based war (fighting for Athenian ideals), which is more difficult to end, often requiring regime change (Tuck).

• Pericles was temporarily removed from office but later returned.

• He died shortly after his return, succumbing to the plague.

Mid-War Developments

• Athens endured the plague and Spartan offensives.

• Athens successfully defended Thrace.

• The Peloponnesian city of Potidaea fell to Athens.

• Athens captured and killed Spartan generals responsible for early losses.

The Mytilenean Debate: Background

• Mytilene was an ally of Athens with special privileges, unlike other Athenian colonies:

• It did not have to pay taxes.

• It maintained its own laws.

• Its navy was subsidized by Athens.

• Despite these privileges, Mytilene rebelled.

• The Mytileneans were scared by gossip that they would lose their special privileges.

• They asked Spartans for help, but that help never materialized.

• Mytilene eventually surrendered to Athens.

• Athens was angered, having wasted Athenian lives and resources subduing a privileged partner.

• The central question became: What should Athens do with its rebellious ally?

The Mytilenean Debate: Cleon's Argument

• Cleon argued for severe punishment: all Mytilenean men dead, the rest enslaved (as noted on Page $67$, $68$, $69$, 70$ of Thucydides).

• His argument rested on several points:

• He valued "inferior but strict law" over "superior but fluid law."

• He asserted that time works an injustice on victims.

• He believed everyone was guilty; citizens were complicit with their leaders, meaning there were no innocent civilians in war.

• Severe punishment was in Athens' state interests:

  1. It would deter all colonies from rebelling over slight issues.

  2. Failure to punish would be a tacit approval of Mytilenean rebellion.

The Mytilenean Debate: Diodotus' Argument

• Diodotus, initially supporting severe punishment, shifted to advocate for a more moderate and lenient approach (as noted on Page 71$,$72$,$73$ of Thucydides).

• His points included:

• Taking time to decide demonstrated good judgment.

• Cleon's position harmed Athens' interests and was not truly concerned with "justice."

• Severe punishments are not a deterrent; death penalties exist, yet people still commit crimes. Killing or enslaving all Mytileneans would not deter future rebellions.

• Severe punishments actually promote rebellion:

  • Rebels would have no incentive to surrender, as the consequence for a failed rebellion would be the same as fighting to the last person.

  • Athens would have to devote more time and resources to fight rebellions that refused to surrender.

  • Athens would lose taxable populations, becoming poorer.

• Showing mercy could prevent future rebellions as locals might be less likely to support rebellious leaders against a merciful Athens.

The Siege of Plataea: Spartan Position

• Plataea was a colony of Athens (part of the Delian League) and a rival of Thebes (part of the Peloponnesian League).

• Spartans wanted Plataea to surrender without fighting for several reasons (as noted on Page $78$, $80$, 81$ of Thucydides):

1. Damage to reputation: Spartans had failed to enter the city despite setting it on fire and laying siege to it.

2. Plataeans were starving, and the city was mostly destroyed; further destruction meant Spartans would gain little from fighting.

3. If Plataea surrendered with "free will," Sparta could keep it as a colony even if they eventually made peace with Athens.

4. According to ancient Greek customs, cities taken by force had to be returned to their original status and inhabitants.

The Siege of Plataea: Plataean Position

• The Plataeans argued (as noted on Page 78$,$80$,$81$ of Thucydides) that:

• Plataea was a former ally of Sparta, but joined Athens at Sparta's request after Sparta refused to defend them against Thebes.

• Spartans asking them to abandon Athens was an injustice, as Athens was the only state that truly helped Plataea against Thebes.

• Harming Plataeans would cause reputational damage to Sparta, potentially backfiring and hurting their image as liberators.

The Siege of Plataea: Theban Position

• The Theban speech was considered "fairly weak" by the account (as noted on Page 85$ of Thucydides).

• It recalled the initiation of the Peloponnesian War:

• Thebes tried to bring Plataea into the Peloponnesian League.

• Plataea killed the covert Theban soldiers and prisoners of war.

• Thebans argued that Plataeans were not innocent, begrudging Athenian allies, or neutral; they actively promoted Athenian interests.

• Plataeans had committed three injustices:

1. Broke diplomatic agreements.

2. Killed Theban prisoners of war who had surrendered.

3. Did not release other prisoners of war.

Spartan Campaign in Thrace: War of Values

• Spartans aimed to detach Athens from its colonies in Thrace (a northern region) (as noted on Page 97$,$98$,$99$ of Thucydides).

• The war between Sparta (a kingdom/oligarchy) and Athens (a nominal democracy) was also a war of values: oligarchy vs. democracy.

• International wars can generate civil wars (Diehl).

• In places like Acanthus, the people wanted to maintain their alliance with Athens, but rich oligarchs sought an alliance with Sparta.

• Brasidas, a charismatic Spartan general, aimed to take over Acanthus without fighting to ensure it remained theirs in the event of a peace treaty.

Brasidas' Justification for Subjugation

• Brasidas believed Spartans were "invited" to take control of Acanthus (as noted on Page $97$, $98$, 99$ of Thucydides).

• He argued that Sparta was not an aggressive force and did not want to use fraud or force to gain alliances.

• However, if he failed to convince the Acanthians to join the Peloponnesian League, he would resort to force.

• For Brasidas and Sparta, forcing subjugation was deemed "just" because:

1. Athens grew rich by taxing colonies like Acanthus; staying under Athenian influence funded the war against Spartans, making Acanthus a legitimate target as it hurt Sparta.

2. Spartans had to prevent Acanthians from helping to enlarge the Athenian empire and its taxable colonies.

• Brasidas argued for the common good of the region (Northern Greece) in the destruction of Athenian alliances, thus Sparta had to take over Acanthus, voluntarily or by force.

• Acanthus ultimately joined out of fear, aligning with Hobbes's view that "covenants formed out of fear are valid."

The Melian Dialogue: Melos' Appeal to Justice

• Athens sought to control Melos, a very weak and insignificant power (as noted on Page 103$,$104$,$105$ of Thucydides).

• Melos was allied with Sparta but maintained neutrality.

• The Melians appealed to justice, arguing that:

• Harming those who had not harmed them was wrong.

• Athenian actions would be adverse to international (Greek) law.

• Athenian actions would be adverse to God.

• Other cities would view Athenians' actions negatively.

The Melian Dialogue: Athenian Response and Realpolitik

• The Athenians wanted to bring Melos under Athenian power as soon as possible (as noted on Page $103$, $104$, 105$ of Thucydides).

• Their response was a classic example of Realpolitik:

• Justice is only applicable when dealing with equal powers.

• When power is unequal, the strong "get as much as it can take, and the weak must accept that."

• The debate was not about the sovereignty of Melos (which Athens took for granted was already theirs), but about the conditions of survival for the Melians (whether they would be killed or give up the city without a fight).

• Athens argued that the surrender of Melos would be mutually beneficial:

  • Melians would survive.

  • Athenians would gain a taxable population.

• The Athenians, aligning with Hobbes, asserted that international law does not always exist; it only applies when actors have equal power.

• ## The "End" of the War and its Aftermath

  • Sparta ultimately won a "pyrrhic victory," a victory achieved at too high a cost (as noted on Page 103$,$104$,$105$ of Thucydides).

  • Athenian power relied on a taxable population, requiring the expansion of colonies to fund its war efforts.

  • Spartan war efforts were largely voluntary.

  • Athenian allies became discontent, rebelled, and forced Athens to spend more money, resources, and lives extinguishing these rebellions.

  • The Persian Empire joined the side of Sparta, a factor explained by the Balance of War Theory.

  • Sparta itself collapsed soon after its victory, unable to defend itself after spending too many lives fighting Athens.

  • Thebes, a former ally, invaded Sparta, illustrating the Realist/Hobbesian view that "alliances are temporary and selfish friendships / mean nothing in international relations."

  • The conflict continued beyond the official "end" of the war (Diehl), highlighting the lasting geopolitical instability. The final page reference $Page 103; 104; 105$ refers to Melian Dialogue which is the final discussion of substance before the war resolution. This suggests the end of war discussion refers to the entire trajectory and its lessons. The last numerical reference to a page is on the Melian Dialogue. The final paragraphs are summaries of the war's outcome.