Do The Melians Make Good Arguments

Since the speech that clearly persuaded the Spartans took the form of the Athenian Thesis, one could reasonably conclude that the Spartans were moved by the motives of fear, honor, or benifit. Thus, this case as a whole lends credence to the thesis itself. Interestingly, if the Spartans truly acted according to the Athenian Thesis, this would imply that Sparta has the same tendency for domination as the Athenians. This could suggest that, after assembling alliances out of fear of a growing Athens, Sparta would progress to maintain its hold on states out of honor and, finally, out of interest, thereby mirroring Athens’ past. Whether Thucydides believed in the Athenian Thesis and intended the persuasiveness of this speech to be a historical case that supported the Athenian Thesis’ soundness is uncertain. However, no one can deny that the reasons which persuaded the Spartans to act followed the form of the thesis and that Sparta seems to have acted from

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,

The two dominating Greek city states, Sparta and Athens, have there own strengths that make them the strongest throughout Greece. Sparta is "located in the southeastern Peloponnesus, in an area known as Laconia" (Spielvogel 53). Athens is on the peninsula of Attica (Geography). Sparta is know for their immense military might (Spartan Military). Athens is known better for their "leading naval force in Greece" (Women of the Ancient World). Their government systems were very different but very effective. Each Greek state was able to conquer a lot of land using different tactics. This brings up the thought that every country or state could be effective if all the people supported the cause. Political correctness however tends to breed idiots. With this being said, unenforced laws leads people to start thinking that they can get away with whatever they want or better yet, defy the lawful order of an officer. This can than become deadly and spread, until it cripples the system and a new one takes over. What does this new system believe in? Are they idea 's that are realistic? Or are they the idea 's of tree-hugging hippies who thinks everyone is going to "play ball." Well little does the tree-hugging hippie know, is that "The Man" who was "keeping him down" actually did know what he was talking about. Maybe the thirty plus years of military experience wasn 't complete garbage. Maybe it was keeping him and his family safe from the psychopaths and terrorists that

Argos received an excuse from the Delphic oracle to keep it from battle (Hdt. VII.148-152), and Messene was “so corrupted that [it] even tried to prevent Sparta’s attempts to come to Greece’s aid” (Plato, 692d). Other city-states avoided participation in the wars as well. The oracle also excused Crete from fighting (Hdt. VII.169), and the tyrant Gelon of Syracuse refused to let his state help Greece’s cause (Brunt 158-162). If these poleis had chosen to fight, the Persians may have been intimidated by the large Greek forces and avoided war. The Greeks instead presented an image of a nation torn by cowardice, thereby making the Persians more confident in attacking Greece. This lack of unity among the city-states created some

There was an increasing concern in the Peloponnesian League that Athens' rapid growth was an opportunistic exploitation of Athenian allies and a direct threat to the League. Well-founded or not, these fears came to a head in 432, when Spartan allies lobbied hard for the League to check Athenian growth by declaring war. At these debates, a Spartan ally from Corinth chastised the perceived aggressive expansion of Athens, stating "(Athenians) are by nature incapable of either living a quiet life themselves or of allowing anyone else to do so."

When Sparta gave its ultimatum to Athens, Pericles was more than happy to oblige and go to war. He embodies Athenian arrogance and overzealousness. Pericles speaks to the Athenian assembly convincing them to go to war because according to him, they cannot lose. Pericles explains how Sparta doesn’t have the same financial advantages that Athens does and how Athens has a far superior navy. According to Pericles, the best strategy is to use that to Athens’ advantage, leaving Attica exposed by only attacking and defending the sea were they have an advantage. Pericles finishes of by saying that Athens possesses all of Sparta’s strengths and none of its weaknesses, and Athens must fight so that future generations will have an Athens that is as good as ever.

Amidst an interlude in the fierce struggle for power between the two dominant Greek poleis, Athens and Sparta, the Peloponnesian war, there was unrest. Despite the Peace of Nicias, belligerence between the two states did not cease, but rather took on a new face. While careful to remain within the parameters set several years before in the peace treaty, Athens moved cautiously, but aggressively in establishing alliances, albeit coerced, and strengthening its empire. It was at this juncture that it made its move toward securing the small, weak island-state of Melos, which in its neutral independence suggested danger to the Athenian empire. In a move not of fairness, but of survival, Athens offered the Melians an ultimatum: to be subjugated

It is remarkable how timeless the Speech of Archidamus is. One could easily imagine the Spartan King were speaking to a modern occupied territory, itching for a revolt. King Archidamus urges the Spartans to head caution when entering war with Athens. He has “seen too many wars” [pg 25, 80] The battles he has witnessed in his lifetime have swayed him of any naive fascination with war. He has learned that violence begets violence, so one should only enter a battle they are prepared to win. Archidamus explains that Athens is stronger in terms of wealth, military might and political power. If the Spartans take the offensive route under these circumstances, they will surely loose both in combat and in terms of public relations. [pg 26, 81] Furthermore, Archidamus explains later that Athens had agreed to mediation, making any fight that Sparta were to start an unlawful preemptive attack. [pg 28, 85] The King assures his people he is not blind to their suffering, he just envisions better ways of ending it. [pg 26, 82] One of these methods would be to create partnerships with other nations who would lend armed forces and capital to the cause. To be done in tandem with confederation would be the accumulation of Sparta’s assets. Archidamus predicts that under these circumstances, Athens could be motivated to surrender. Under the very different circumstances from which he is speaking, the King pushes to avoid war at all costs citing that “complaints can be resolved, whether they are

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

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

“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).

In early fifth century BC Greece, the Greeks consistently suffered from the threat of being conquered by the Persian Empire. Between the years 500-479 BC, the Greeks and the Persians fought two wars. Although the Persian power vastly surpassed the Greeks, the Greeks unexpectedly triumphed. In this Goliath versus David scenario, the Greeks as the underdog, defeated the Persians due to their heroic action, divine support, and Greek unity. The threat of the Persian Empire's expansion into Greece and the imminent possibility that they would lose their freedom and become subservient to the Persians, so horrified the Greeks that they united together and risked their lives in order to preserve the one thing they all shared in common, their

The Persians wanted to conquer the Greeks after the Greeks were allies to Aristogoras. Darius, the king of Persia, started to send agents to determine any potential allies in the Greek city-states. They found Argos and supplied the with men and money to get the job done. They failed as Spartans sliced and diced every soldier, as shown in the movie “300.” Spartans always came out on top due to their aggressive and “perfect” military. Athens had their entire fleet destroyed and were controlled by Sparta from there on

War is a perpetual factor in the international system because it creates a structure in which a state or more can be viewed as more powerful than the other. In the Melian Dialogue, the Athenians have for an argument that if they choose to remain neutral with Melos, then they will be viewed as a weak or weakening state. For the Athenians believed that based on the acquired knowledge of man history that “it is a necessary law of nature to rule wherever one can” (the Athenians in Melian Dialogue). In other words, they believe that if there is a land and its central government is weak, and there is stronger power seeking to quest for more land, then they are entitled to conquer the land. Meaning, more land equals more power. The more land one gets

Athens and Sparta were both dominant powers in ancient Greece. However, a legendary rivalry existed between the two. When Athens ended its alliance with Corcyra in 433 B.C. and began to surround Potidaea, it threatened Corinth’s position. Sparta feared that Athens was becoming too powerful and tried to avert war. The Spartans believed that peace was possible if the Athenians would revoke measures against Sparta's ally, Megara. The Athenian leader, Pericles, refused to concur with this because Sparta and Athens had earlier agreed that conflicts would be solved by negotiation. If the Athenians would yield to Sparta's request, they would in fact be accepting Sparta’s orders. This was unacceptable, and as a result, war broke out. Athens and its Delian League were attacked by Sparta and its Peloponnesian League. Diodorus mentions that the Spartans did not just declare war, but sought additional support from Persia.