The Melian Extent To The Athenian

He gets Meletus to agree with a series of claims, the first of which is that it would be better to live amongst good citizens rather than bad citizens. He then claims that good citizens do their neighbors good and bad citizens do their neighbors evil. Meletus agrees with both. Next Socrates questions Meletus if there is anybody who would prefer to be hurt by those who live with them rather than benefit from them. Meletus answers no because nobody likes to be injured.

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,

Pericles’ Funeral Oration by Thucydides, and Sophocles’ play, Antigone, both illustrate cultural values that are crucial in understanding the dynamic of Ancient Athens. In these two pieces of literature, the cultural values are explained and understood through death. Pericles delivered the Funeral Oration as part of a public funeral for some of the Athenian fatalities in the first year of the Peloponnesian War. In Antigone, Sophocles is able to encompass values and conflicts through the death of Antigone’s brother. Pericles connects the death of soldiers to the importance of community, trust, personal freedoms, and social order that was essential in the success of Ancient Athenian Culture. Sophocles addresses the values of family, religion, and loyalty in his play, Antigone. The values highlighted in each of these works are very similar as they institute the importance of the patrioi nomoi (Athenian constitution) to the success of the Athenian state.

The Athenian and Spartan governments had extremely different approaches to life. The democratic views of the Athenians were open minded and curious, focused on development. The oligarchic views of the spartans were more narrow minded and restricted, focused on constancy. The athenian democracy distributed power very well and gave everyone a fair share in the decision being made. Athenian life was comfortable and free, the polar opposite to the cruelty of Spartan life. The Athenian democracy also used their wealth very wisely inciting the development of their civilisation. Based on the information below, the Athenian population lived a happier life.

“The Restoration of the Athenian Empire” Our walls are crumbling and our fleet is minute. We here in Athens are unable to collect tribute from other city-states and are often in threat of being attacked. Our fleet is defenseless and weak. The Democratic fraction, propose that we spend our time and hard earned money on the rebuilding of our walls and fleet. That way Athens can dangerously collect tributes from other Greek city-states. The Democrats also would like to commence in hazardous military voyages with our insubstantial navy. Hoping the result brings forth great rewards.

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

From the Melians point of view, Athens was asserting their dominance with no real justification. The Melians offered friendship, or at least not enmity, but Athens gave only two, hostile choices- which

They do not believe and trust on neutralization, be our slaves or be our enemies. Athenians want every island and country to be with them. They believe in power and they are sure they can win the war very easily and can defeat Melians because Melians has nothing compare to Athenians. But Melians hope and prayers to God if he change the fortune and make them as power full as Athenians and rejects to surrender to Athenians. To well tenet the realism, Russian invasion on Crimea, Ukraine is a very good example.

In the Melian Dialogue, The Melians may not have been the strongest opponents, they made good arguments throughout the dispute. When given an ultimatum, the Melians fought back by arguing that they are neutral cities and should not be enemies. An invasion on them would alarm the other Greek States causing others to fear the Athens. Although, the Athens would most likely want all to be afraid of them, it wouldn’t help them make allies essentially weakening them. Even though the Melians knew the Athenians were stronger and able to beat them, they believed if given the chance they’ed be able to put up a good fight. As stubborn and hard-headed as this may make the Melians sounds, they weren’t going to give up without a fight. The Athenians seem

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

Thucydides, in structuring the Melian Dialogue explicitly shows us that the Melos is a smaller and weaker nation in comparison to Athens however, the Melians’ illogicality of weakness to go up against Athens can somewhat justify the Athenians act of being greedy. The Athenians stresses the senselessness of resistance and the inescapably of capitulation but the Melians remain steadfast in their decision to be neutral and tries to shift the argument to issues of justice and hints at the possibility of human and divine assistance. The Athenians aware of the weakness of the Melians says, “Your strongest arguments depend upon hope and the future, and your actual resources are too scanty, as compared with those

1. During the Mycenaean civilization, who was the great poet and what were his two important literary works that influenced the Greeks and formed part of Western literature? Homer, The Iliad, The Odyssey

Athens was a much more superior polis compared to Sparta because the Athenians invented new ideas and creations that supported the people, such as democracy, the Athenians led the Delian League, and Sparta created the Peloponnesian League after the Athenians created their alliance, and the Athenians changed the ways of their government many times to suit the people, and the Spartans did not.

Well, as introduced by Suresht Bald: “Without openly attacking the other, each used persuasion, coercion, und subversion to strengthen itself and weaken its rival. This struggle for hegemony by Athens and Sparta…” or the Worlds currently developing, East/West Hegemonic dilemma; which “is felt most acutely by small, hitherto “independent” states that are now forced to take sides in this bipolar World… One such State was Melos… After strategically positioning their powerful fleet… [Whose Admiralty sent envoys and a commission is held on Melos, by the Athenians, where to be negotiated, was the island’s surrender to the hegemonic protection of Athens; whose main purpose was trying to ‘save the face of the hegemony’ — “but also to improve their