Essay on The Mytilene Debate and Athenian Debate

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.

"Just before the Peloponnesian War began, Pericles of Athens and King Archidamus of Sparta provided net assessments of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the two sides. Evaluate their projections."

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 the Aftermath of the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta, Pericles, Athens’ general and statesmen, delivered a powerfully comforting eulogy to the polis of Athens, assuring the people that their city state is in good hands, and easing the pain of all the families and relatives of the deceased. He uses several rhetorical devices throughout his speech to gain a positive emotional appeal by his audience and makes assertions in the attempt to enhance and transform the perception of him by the audience.

Creon has no toleration for people who place personal beliefs over the common good. He believes that government and law is the supreme authority, and civil disobedience is worst form of sin. The problem with Creon’s argument is he approaches He approaches every dilemma that requires judgement through descriptive generalizations. In contrast to the morality defined by Aristotle in his Nicomachaean Ethics, Creon shows that he is deaf to the knowledge of particulars--of place, time, manner, and persons, which is essential for moral reasoning. In short, he does not effectively bring together general principles and specific situations Creon does not acknowledge that emotion, and perception are as critical to proper moral consideration as reason. This explains why he does not respond accordingly with the reasoning of the guard, Tiresias the prophet, Antigone, her sister Ismene, or even his own son Haemon. Throughout the whole play, Creon emphasizes the importance of practical judgement over a sick, illogical mind, when in fact it is him who has the sick, illogical mind. He too exhibits pride in his argument. To Antigone and most of the Athenians, possessing a wise and logical mind means acknowledging human limitations and behaving piously towards the gods. Humans must take a humble attitude towards fate and the power of the gods, yet Creon mocks death throughout the play. He doest not learn his lesson until the end of the play when he speaks respectfully of

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.

Throughout the play, Creon shows many examples of how he is imperfect. One example would be how he believes that the state is primary to his family and relationships, “If this is your pleasure, Creon, treating our city’s enemy and our friend this way … the power is yours, I suppose, to enforce it with the laws, both for the dead and all of us, the living,” this quotation said by the leader of the chorus describes how the elder people of Thebes respect their family more than the state, but they held back on their opinions, knowing of what Creon, the leader, wanted to hear (235-240). Another example of how Creon shows the audience of how he is imperfect is when, Creon meets with Haemon. Creon argues with Haemon about how people should act towards the country which they reside in, “But whoever steps out of line, violates the laws or presumes to hand out orders to his superiors, he’ll win no praise from me. But that man the city places in authority, his orders must be obeyed, large and small, right and wrong,” Creon believes since he has the highest throne in his country, that he should be obeyed whether the circumstance (745-751). Lastly, Creon demonstrates to the audience that he is imperfect by wanting to protect his country too much. This is visible when Creon sentences Antigone to a slow death, because of burying her brother, who was outcasted as a traitor. Creon put the state over his family which will lead to the complete

This quote explains the main conflict of the play. Creon has ordered that Polynices, Antigone’s brother, cannot receive a proper burial because in Creon’s eyes he is a traitor. Polynices fought against his brother to claim the throne of Thebes, the pair ended up killing each other. Tiresias tries to tell Creon that he is wrong to do this because it is angering the gods that he is denying them a body. Tiresias even warns Creon not to be stubborn, “Stubborness/ brands you for stupidity-pride is a crime.” (1137-1138). Pride in Greek tragedies is most often the cause of a characters downfall and Creon is no exception.

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

I agree with your intentions here. I think that they may be brief descriptions of some greater implications. When we look at who did the least amount of wrong we can have something tangable to analyze in regards of weighing the dishoner, or the reverse effect. which would give us a broader range of judgment in what they did wrong, or who was "most right" in this case. I would look into something like a majority vote in this regard. If the backlash of Creon's decisions were to fall on the whole state being upset, or just Antigone, and maybe a family member or two. When we look at it in this way, I feel that putting someone else above all others would be an injustice to every single person of the state. To be a regulatory society no one should

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

Creon meant to clarify to his son that anyone who commits a crime should be punished - even if the criminal is a member of one's family. Creon's doctrine says that once the state decides something, the law applies to everybody. Therefore, he sees no alternative other than to leave the body unburied for the state. Creon would do anything for the sake of the community whereas Antigone is devoted to her family. The situations mentioned above create tensions in the play because Antigone and Creon are bi-polar in their beliefs.

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.

“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).