The Basic Foundation Of Classical Realism

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

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 parallel to the argument between the Just and Unjust speeches, ‘new’ triumphs over ‘old’ once again in the fight between Strepsiades and Pheidippides. Pheidippides declares to his father, “I will make it clearly apparent, by Zeus, that I was beating you with justice (Clouds, 1332). Throughout their argument, Pheidippides was applying the same techniques to his speech that the Unjust speech utilized. Their apparently cynical disrespect for social mores emphasizes the fact that what is ‘old’ is losing its strength within society. What is right is in palpable contrast to what is currently occurring in the social order. Strepsiades broached the suggestion that as a father he has nurtured Pheidippides from infancy to his adulthood. Because of this, Strepsiades insists that he has earned his son’s respect. However, Pheidippides is convinced

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 431 B.C., even before the Peloponnesian War, Athens’ strength compared to other Greek polises was evident. Athens had islands, a powerful, a well-trained navy, and one, if not the best, general at the time: Pericles. Pericles says in his speech that, “war is inevitable,” but in fact the war was preventable (72). Even with all of the military strengths and assets that Athenians had afforded to them, they chose to be merciful to the Peloponnesians who were in no shape to go to war. They did not have the experience, money, manpower, or means to participate in a lengthy war and Pericles makes the citizens aware of this (70). Pericles is both modest and humble for choosing to point out these facts which in turn helps the Athenians see the potential

In the ancient societies of Greece, war means many things; power, glory, honor. The idea of fighting is not just a daily task for the Greeks but a necessity. In

Undeniably, the ancient Greek society places a heavy emphasis on values and traditions. The two texts of the “Clouds” by Aristophanes and “History of the Peloponnesian war” by Thucydides, although contextually divergent, are actually conceptually convergent. Both texts are built around the central theme of the collapse of conventional values. While the breakdown of traditional values in the “History of the Peloponnesian war” is presented in a more metaphorical and symbolical manner, the downfall of conventional values in the “Clouds” is on a more direct basis. Although both texts essentially convey across the same solemn message that the relinquishment of

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.

The Peloponnesian War was the turning point in Athenian hegemony in Ancient Greece. It was fought in 431 B.C. between the Delian League, led by Athens, and the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta. According to Thucydides, Athens’ imposing hegemonic status and its overwhelming quest for more power made the Peloponnesian War and Athens’s eventual fall from power inevitable. Despite the Athenians having a far more superior navy and being considerably wealthier, they were defeated and made subjects of Sparta. In this paper, I will discuss Thucydides’ and Socrates’ reasons for why

The Athenians believed they had been wronged and that “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must” (CCW 57). The Melian Dialogue is a commentary on the impact of power hungry nations and how a haughty approach is often unnecessary and leads to conflicts that could otherwise be avoided. The independent variable is the domination sought after by acquisitive unions such as the Athenians. The dependent variable is the war and tyranny that can result from hostility between such prideful nations. Furthermore, the theory that amity equals weakness is presented in The Melian Dialogue by the Athenians. The Athenians respond to the Melians request for neutrality by stating that “your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness” (CCW 57). According to the Athenians, equality represented impotence and vulnerability. The independent variable is the superiority necessary to prove strength and power. The dependent variable is the way in which other nations perceived the Athenians regarding their capability and vehemence.

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.

The Melian Dialogue is a debate between Melian and Athenian representatives concerning the sovereignty of Melos. The debate did not really occur-the arguments given by each side were of Thucydides own creation. Thus it is reasonable to assume that we can tease out Thucydides' own beliefs. In this paper, I will first extract Thucydides views from the Melian Dialogue and then analyze whether or not these views are well founded.

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

“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).

Realism, liberalism, and Marxism are all different perspectives that can be used to analyze situations and aid government officials to understandings and agreements in relation to trade. Lawrence Herman 's article focusses on the potential destruction of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) caused by the disturbing and unacceptable proposals by the United States president, Donald Trump. There are many different views on Free trade but three main perspectives are the realist views, which claim that all nation-states have to rely upon their own resources and security and act in pursuit of their struggle for power and self-interest, liberal views, which approve of free trade, and lastly, through Karl Marx’s theory of Marxism.