The Melians Dialogue

The Peloponnesian War pitted the Athenians against the Spartans. The Peloponnesians’ were an alliance of city-states controlled by Sparta. These two powerful city-states became locked in a struggle for dominance of the eastern Mediterranean area. The roots of the conflict and in particular this expedition is highly complex. As Thucydides says in his history of the war, the underlying cause was Spartan fear of Athens' expansive power. But, the triggering event was Athens' aggressive behavior towards Corinth, an ally of Sparta.

Without being either the ones who made this law or the first to apply it after it was laid down, we applied it as one in existence...and one that will endure for all time,” (Thuc., V, 105). The Athenians see no injustice in doing simply as their nature impels them to do. In fact, the Athenians see their offer of subjugation to the Melian people as more than reasonable, “What we will demonstrate is that we are here to help our empire and that there is salvation for your city in what we are now about to say, since we hope to rule over you without trouble and let both parties benefit as you are saved,” (Thuc., V, 91). Following their belief in doing what is necessary to strengthen themselves, even at the expense of others, is what brings Athens to Melos.

The Peloponnesian war lasted from 431 to 404 B.C. and was profoundly influenced by two Athenian men, Pericles and Alcibiades. Though Pericles and Alcibiades were related by blood they were quite different. Pericles was a diplomat, he approached matters with a level head and tried to find a solution that did not end in bloodshed. Alcibiades was less stable, he either fought, manipulated, or ran when confronted with a problem. Both men spoke eloquently enough to move almost the entire city of Athens, using their words to bend people to their will.  What was different between them was what their will was, one cared about the city and its wellbeing, the other cared about his own wellbeing.

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.

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,

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

In the fourth year of the Peloponnesian War, the city of Mytilene, revolts against Athens and conspires with Sparta and asks for their assistance. However, these plans for revolt are reported to Athens, who send an army against Mytilene. While under siege, Mytilene’s democratic faction gives up and decides to surrender to Athens. When the Athenian leaders first meet to decide about the fate of the Mytilene people, they decree that all the Mytilene men be put to death, while the women and children be enslaved. The following day, the Athenians decide to put all Mytilene’s to death not just the guilty. However, this time an assembly is called to persuade Athenian officials to reconsider their death penalty. During this assembly, there are two speeches given; one by Cleon and the other by Diodotus; these will be explored in detail in the following paragraphs. As I read Thucydides’ summary, the two speeches serve as contrasts, illustrating the difference between bad and good arguments. Through the following themes/conclusions that will be explored/applied in the paper, this paper argues that Diodotus, not Cleon, makes the better argument: i) Cleon uses the language of un-justice, punishment, irrationality and extreme emotions, which makes his disposition unreasonable; ii) Diodotus uses the language of rationality, justice and intellect which form the basis of a strong argument.

existing wars between each other” (Hdt. VII.145.1) in order to fight against Persia. However, only one Peloponnesian state (Sparta) offered help throughout the wars.

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

Most Greek city states were ruled by a small elite group, also known as an aristocratic oligarchy (cite text book). Pericles explains that the Athens government is a democracy because the administration is in the hands of many and not just a few people. This will cause the government to have equal justices exist for all people. This is confirmed by Pericles stating, “When a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as a reward of merit”. This means that a citizen has to earn their privileges, they don’t just get things because of who they are in society. Athens not only takes pride in their government, but is also very proud of their military. Athens considers their military training to be better that their enemies in many ways. The people never try to hide anything from enemies or prevent them from seeing or learning anything that might benefit them. While their enemies are undergoing difficult exercises to make them brave, the people of Athens live the easy life. Although they live the easy life, the people of Athens are equally ready to face the challenges which their enemies face. The people of Athens would rather meet danger with a light heart and not intense training like their neighbors. They also want to do this with courage not enforce by law, but instead gain by habit. When the Lacedaemonians come into Athenian territory they bring their whole confederacy,

The Peloponnesian war (431–404 BC) was an ancient Greek war fought by Athens against the Peloponnesian led by Sparta. Thucydides famously claims that the war started “because the Spartans were afraid of further growth of Athenian power, seeing as they did have the greater part of Hellas was under the control of Athens”. The two main protagonists from opposing sides Lysander and Alcibiades had the most influential impact on the end of the war.

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.

First of all, it is feasible to say that one of the most important reasons for the Athenian defeat was due to

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

The Melian Dialogue is a negotiation between the Melians and the Athenians regarding the future of Melos. The Athenians are giving the Melians an ultimatum of being enslaved or being destroyed by Athens’ navy strength. Athens and Melos are a part of a greater scheme of international interactions that are determined through discussion, ethics, power and political morality that produce either a sense of justice or depravity of it. The Melians are shown to be just in the face of the Athenian, but their plea for justice was not heard. The Athenians are reluctant to negotiate a compromise and disregard justice in different extents.