The text, Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War is an account of the war that took place in Greek and that involved numerous instances of conflict and cooperation between the feuding political units. This paper seeks to examine the frequent conflicts and cooperation between the political units, the causes of such occurrences; the principal actors and the consequences of this phenomenon. In the second part of the paper, we make an assessment of both the causes and the conduct of the War and make the case whether the same is applicable to the 21st century or not.
The account of Thucydides of the Peloponnesian war begins with the tale of Epidamnus on the gulf of Ionian. The original founder of Epidamnus was Corcyra though its founder was from Corinth if we are to proceed on the knowledge as proffered by the ancient law. Upon the passage of time, Epidamnus was able to grow both in stature, power and fame. However, a faction that arose out of a war with the adjacent barbarians acted to destroy much of its power. Thucydides argues that the first sparks of the Peloponnesian war started with the Epidamnus demonstrations where the city’s powerful men were expelled. The men then joined the barbarians in the raiding against the city by both the land and the sea. Thucydides further makes the case of how a local fued escalated to produce a big conflict. Instructively, the demonstration by the Epidamnus is able to appeal both Corcyra and Corinth in the face of external aggression for assistance. In particular, the Epidamnus are able to convince Corcyra to reconcile them with their enemies and bring a ceasefire to the war with the barbarians. The ambassadors of Epidamnus take a seat at the Temple of Hera at Corcyra and seek for aid. Thucydides gives a vivid example of how the Corcyraeans refused to offer the much needed assistance to the supplicants and sent them with nothing. Upon this refusal and unsure of the next step, they send for Apollo so that it hands over their colony to Corinth and obtain aid from that quarter. It is upon receiving the sanction or authority of god that the Epidamnus demonstrations approach Corinth and give up their city. It is this ready and willing acceptance of Corinth to offer their city to the Epidamnus that sparks a war with Corcyra. Thucydides, who initially wrote the account in Greek and that was later translated into the English language was a historian of the 5th Century BC and gave a vivid tale of the revolting account of how two major political units in the country battled each other to death. These two major political units-Athens and Spartans became entangled in a twenty seven year war that was motivated by a number of factors. We argue that some of the causes of the conflict include mutual distrust, self interest and an accumulation or build up of arms. It is instructive that Thucydides writes that he decided to give an account of the history to serve as a lesson for mankind, so that similar wars or battles would never be experienced any longer. As such, he seeks to delve into the causes of the war and how the whole operation was conducted with a view to highlighting what went wrong and acts as a good lesson for the future. However, Thucydides as a writer and historian is not naïve enough as he admits with chilling cynicism that human beings are morally decayed and as such, similar wars may break out once again under similar circumstances and causes. I examine the frequent conflict between two city states that may be defined as political units for this purpose. In addition, I examine how they were embroiled in a terrible war just three decades after defeating the Persian invasion as a joint venture. It is important to note that these two Greek City states- Athens and Spartans were distinctively different in almost every way, and one gets the feeling of a love-hate relationship with each of the sides, while reading the book. While narrating the account of the Peloponnesian war, Thucydides does not follow the easy trodden path but rather tries to explain the causes of the war without diminishing the intricacy of the war. In this respect, Thucydides searches not only the human nature but also power and argues that it is the gods that motivated the Peloponnesian war that took place at the time.
The historical background of the war context is imperative at this juncture so as analyze the issues as they were. The Greeks in Asia Minor had been under the control of the king of Lydia known as Croesus by the sixth century B.C. When the Lydian King was later defeated by the King of Persia known as Cyprus, the Greeks had to cooperate. They found themselves as an appendage of the Persian Empire. Indeed, in the whole book it is a tale of empires and other forms of political units that were either in conflict and later cooperated whenever they suffered defeat. Later, the Ionians who were led by the city of Miletus and assisted by the Athenians and the Eritreans decided to revolt against the empire of Persia. Though the revolt by the Athenians in conjunction with those from the city of Miletus was a little successful at first, they were later defeated with the city of Miletus being burnt. The Persian king at the time, Darius, was not very keen on seeking revenge from the Ionians as he was against the Athenians and the Eritreans. In fact, it is reported that upon hearing that the Athenians had assisted the Ionians in the revolt against Persia, he shot an arrow into the air and commanded one of his servants to be reminding him three times while he was dining of the Athenians so that he could exact revenge. However, Darius did not achieve his intention to seek revenge as his army was defeated by the Athenians with 6000 of his men being killed and his son Xerxes sent a massive force by both land and sea with the aim of conquering all Greece. It is then that the Greeks being led by Sparta opted to confront the Xerxes forces at the narrow pass named Thermopylae in Northern Greece. In this battle that involved conflict, the Persians who totaled 300 in number put up a brave fight, but, were overwhelmed by the great number of Persians who were assisted by a traitor who was Greek. It is upon the realization that the Persians could not be surmounted on land that they abandoned their city, Acropolis that was burned by the Persians. At the time, the Athenians fell back on their fleet that constituted nearly half of the Greek army. A certain Athenian leader named, Themistocles, masterminded a Greek invasion on the Persians at the bay of Salamis off the coast of Attica. Through his machinations he defeated the Xerxes forces at Plataea in 479 B.C. Consequently, and under the aegis of the Spartan commander named Pausanias, the Greeks decided to pursue this new found advantage and liberate the Greeks, (in this case the Ionians) from the shackles of the Persians. As a result of the victory that the Greeks registered against the Persians under the leadership of Pausanias in liberating the Ionians, the Ionians cooperated with the Greeks since they had been forced into the army service of the Persians during the period of domination and subjugation. This is a classic case of cooperation between two political units. A while later and upon finding the behavior of their leader Pausanias as dictatorial and intolerable, the Greeks decided to rebel against Pausanias and break away from him opting instead for Athens to lead them into the war against the Persians. This again is a perfect demonstration of cooperation between two units immediately after a conflict.
Athens was glad to be given this role as a leader. Consequently, he formed an alliance against the Persians that was an offensive as well as a defensive agreement or treaty. At this point in time, the Spartans did not have problems with the Athenians taking on this responsibility since they had cordial relations with them and more importantly, the Spartans were not keen on a long term involvement with matters of eastern Greece. In short, the main objective of the alliance formed between the Athenians and the Spartans was simply to take revenge against the Persians for their invasion of Greece. Indeed, it is this alliance of the Athenians and the Spartans as against the Persians that came to be known as the Delian League. The name derived from the island of Delos that hosted the temple of Apollo. It acted as a traditional center of worship for the Ionians and that also served as treasury and a meeting place for the Assembly of the League. The Delian League was majorly made up of the islands of the Central Aegean, a few cities on the coast of Asia Minor, Rhodes, some cities in Cyprus, Euboea and the islands off the coast of Asia Minor. At its apogee, the Delian League numbered a total of 200 member states with the member states making monetary contribution that they were assigned into a common pool of funds. In this arrangement, the more powerful states were charged with the provision of manpower and ships with the Athens taking the lead in the event of war. In the decade between the years 477-467 B.C, this alliance of the units was able to free a number of Greek cities on the coasts of Northern Aegean and also expelled garrisons that belonged to the Persian enemy.
All the while, Athens was consolidating its leadership in the east while engaged in the freeing of the cities on the coasts. At home, the walls around its city that had been destroyed by the Persian during the war were being rebuilt. In addition, the harbor of Piraeus was also fortified that caused a sense of discomfort to the Spartans since this portended that Athens then had a strong navy. Indubitably, this was no good sign for the Spartans as it hinted that given the strong navy and the resources at their disposal, Athens could then challenge them for the leadership of the Greek world. It did not take long before the fears of Spartans were confirmed when Athens started making use of the Delian League against other Greek states. This was simply a manifestation of imperialistic tendencies, and this became crystal clear in 472 when Athens forced Carystos in Eubaoea into joining the alliance on grounds that the city was too close to Athens as to remain autonomous. In 469 and 465, two revolts against the Athens were experienced that the Athenians were able to fully handle. The upshot of the revolt by these two cities was the loss of their independence. They were forced to pay tribute to Athens, instead of making monetary contributions to the treasury of the alliance. Indeed, it is this very fate that befell all the other member states that rebelled in the Delian League. Athens was in support of reducing the Free states into subject states that were run by governors since this would make it easier for them to exercise even tougher control over the states. It also aimed at reducing the number if allies contributing ships opting instead for the states to contribute money that it could then use to build ships. The ships built in this way would as such become the property of the alliance that was under its control, and practically its own fleet. Many of the states that were initially allied to Athens in the Delian League thus became unwilling to bear the costs and expenses of military service and consequently played into the hands of the Athenians by contributing money instead of ships. It is notable that only the three states that contributed ships instead of money namely: Lesbos, Chios and Samos were the only ones that were able to remain as the single most important members of the Delian league throughout the fifth century. The disaster suffered by the Athenians at the hands of the Persians in Egypt marked the end of all pretence that there was an equal alliance. This was manifest in the transfer of the common treasury of the League to Athens as well as the requirement that all members of the League make use of weights, coinage and measurements belonging to the Athenians. Further, all significant court trials that involved the members of the League were to be held in Athens, a practice that kept its allies in line and availed both land as well as other financial opportunities for the poor in Athens.
It is notable that Thucydides is dismissive of religion as playing a factor in human nature. He argues that human nature is defined by historical conditions and is not an immutable permanent presence. He is of the view that man is clearly in need of moral restraints but warns that such restraints do dissolve under extremity. Other causes of the Peloponnesian war as cited by Thucydides was the growth of Athens as a power bloc. He writes on page 15 and 16 of the book that the truest reason for the quarrel, though least evident in what was said at the time was the growth of Athenian power that instilled fear into the Lacedaemonians and brought them into war. The acts of aggression as manifested by Athenians were key causes of the war that ensure between them and the Spartans. He also argues that men need to be taken as they are and not what they ought to be and further argues that men have a hidden brutish nature. Politics that is the inclination of man to rule others as described on page 23 is reflected in power politics where there is the pitting of the expedient against the just. Owing to the high stakes involved in politics, the dynamic becomes amoral and the means to reach that target become power. Some of the political theorists that the work by Thucydides has a parallel are Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Writing in the Prince, Machiavelli argued that a man who wants to act virtuously comes to grief among so many people who are not virtuous. Therefore, he advises that for a prince to maintain his rule, he must not do what is virtuous but make use of this or not according to the need. We state that on this, Machiavelli was a realist rather than a virtuous man. In this instance of realism, the work of Thucydides reflects this realism as advocated by Machiavelli with little regard to moral restraints that Thucydides acknowledges fade away under pressure. On his part, Thomas Hobbes’ first important work was a translation of Thucydides work in a work tiled,” To the Readers” where he basically translates the Peloponnesian war. Indeed, Thomas Hobbes was greatly influenced by Thucydides where he agrees with Thucydides that honor, profit and fear are the driving factors of men. Hobbes argues that competition; diffidence and glory drive men and adds that every man against every man is the natural state of mankind. In this whole discourse, the principal actors that manifest themselves are the Athens, the Spartans and the Corinthians.
Without doubt, the causes of the Peloponnesian war as elicited by Thucydides and the conduct of the whole operation may be applicable to the 21st century. Indeed, as evident in the time where personal interests, financial interest of a country and a desire to rule others as seen in the numerous conflicts and cooperation whenever a unit was conquered, the same tactics are used in modern day. Upon the conquest of an empire, a state or any other political unit, the conquering unto seeks to consolidate her power and subjugate the other units with a view to extracting the full financial benefits. Mutual distrust, self interest and accumulation of arms are integral causes feuds even to this day as it was then. The buildup of arms among the Athenians resulted in their superiority and the consequent posing of threats to its former allies. In the 21st century, nations that have the weaponry and military superiority are usually at the forefront in bullying other nations, empires and states that have less military superiority. The world’s superpowers have a strong build up of arms and a fortification of their cities and occasionally test out their mettle against other nations with a view to subjugating them. This was manifest in the colonization of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America by the far more superior nations in terms of militarization in Europe.
Works Cited
Connor, Robert W. Thucydides. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Romilly, Jacqueline de. Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2008.
Strassler, Robert B. The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. New York: Free Press, 2008.
