Thucydides, 4.80. 3

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.

Spartan government, in contrast, is oligarchical. People were most often brought into slavery as a result of being conquered in battle, however some were brought in to battle through their familial lineage. Upon being brought in to slavery, a Spartan slaves’ main duty was to aid in battle. In Sparta, the government and voting was held by select elites. These elites would most likely make decisions for themselves, without considering the well-being of other citizens not wealthy enough to vote. This would be undesirable for Spartan slaves and common people as their voices are not heard, and they have no rights in their freedom to vote.

The government in Sparta followed a very different coarse than that of the Athenians. It was controlled by an oligarchy in which the power was held by a group of five men called ephors. Working below the ephors was the Council of Elders and an Assembly. Male citizens over age sixty could serve on the Council while anyone, male or female, over the age of twenty could be a member of the Assembly. Though the citizens had little say in the decisions made by the government, the system worked effectively. Over the years, the Spartan's brutal reputation in war grew so great that other nations and city-states were too frightened to attack Sparta even though the Spartan army was no larger then eight thousand men. The Spartan Constitution called for all men to begin their military education at the age of seven, where they were trained to be tough and self-sufficient. Every man in the army fought with a great deal of passion for his country. Life in Sparta may have been rough, but the rest of the Greeks envied the Spartans for their simplicity, straight forwardness, and fanatical dedication. The beliefs of Sparta were oriented around the state. The individual lived and died for the state. The combination of this philosophy, the education of Spartan males, and the discipline of their army gave the Spartans the stability needed to survive in Ancient Greece.

Athens and Sparta shared the same sources of income, agriculture and slave labor, but they managed them in different manners. The slaves in Sparta were called helots and since they had no rights, they were often treated as tools rather than as human beings. The helots belonged to the state not to their landlord, so they can be considered a part of the agricultural technology. Since Spartans major obligation in life was serving in the army, they left the management of their land to

Sparta was governed as an Oligarchy where a few male citizens were elected to govern the city state in an annual

Both of these levels of society in the Spartan hierarchy had extremely important roles in the city of Sparta, from feeding the masses to creating weapons for the army. Without these two social classes the high structured military mechanism that was Sparta would cease to function and the legendary state would have never become so prominent.

Sparta was ruled by a king or at some point two kings. These two kings were from two separate families of royalty and neither of them had absolute power. The king or kings had to be consulted by the Ephors. The Ephors had a lot of power and authority in the Spartan government. They were a group of five elders, men over the age of 30 who would serve in this position for a year. They had the power to bring up charges against anyone in Sparta, including the king. Unlike Athens who was set on trying to establish a peaceful democratic atmosphere; Sparta was a lot more militaristic and strict. One of the Spartan government’s main priorities was the strength of the Spartan army. They believed that strength, endurance and numbers were a key part in a successful and powerful army. Therefore every Spartan boy at the age of seven would be taken away from their mothers and put into training for the next 13 years.

The progressing city-state of Sparta was infamous for many things. Sparta was known for its powerful army, strict guidelines, and eccentric values. Due to these unique characteristics, residents of Sparta had to keep up to continue its legacy. Being a resident of Sparta meant taking numerous risks yet for reasonable causes. These risks were taken for the progression of the city state. Risks included krypteia mindlessly killing Helots to prevent them from rebelling. Despite this lack of respect for human life, Sparta had atoned for this by providing relevant teachings for women and lessons on survival. Sparta, being a city state with a small population , was primarily focused on winning battles. Thus they perpetrated many feats that were meant to benefit this major cause. Although there was a lack of respect for human life in Sparta, the strengths of a Spartan education are clearly greater than its weaknesses because of the education provided for women and teachings on survival.

Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian war served as a window into Athenian societal culture. Carrying the reader from Pericles' moving speech to the assembly, through Cleon and Diodotus' oratory battle over the fate of Mytilene, and finally to the Athenian proposal to the Melians, Thucydides detailed the transformation of Athens from a state based on justice and freedom to a empire with a corrupted soul. This corruption did not occur over night, but was the result of increasing tyrannical behavior by the part of Athens in its interactions with other Greek city states. The stages of this development can be analyzed into three parts: Pericles' war speech, the dialogue on Mytilene, and the Melian debate.

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 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 ancient Greeks made city states that functioned as their society. These were small, usually consisting of a population of around eight to ten thousand people. Some of the famous city states are Sparta and Athens. Sparta imposed many tensions on the individual. Sparta was a highly militarized state and would pull the boys away from the family usually around age seven and put them into a state sponsored training regimen that would make them highly skilled warriors. If the boy was unable to complete the training for any reason they were seen as unable to be a Spartan and were usually seen as an outcast and removed from society. The Spartans, just like most other societies in ancient times, valued boys over girls. “Spartan parents often exposed female babies to the elements and leave them to die they also made decisions on male infants testing them and seeing if they would develop into a mature warrior and if not they would face the same fate as females.”1 This

Sparta was, above all, a military state, and emphasis on military fitness began at birth, imprinted through society and the political system. The education of the Spartan male children prove that the military and war was constantly a huge part of Spartan society, and the laws and systems that Sparta was governed by, only enforced the militaristic attitude into the society of Sparta. That the Spartans needed to be ready for war is proved by the discord between the Spartiate and the helots, who outnumbered and under ranked the Spartans.

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).