Thucydides Sicilian Expidition Essay

Themistocles was aware that the only way to defeat the Persians was to cut of their naval power, so he devised a plan. He sent a slave to the Persians with a message that they were escaping, and the Persians sent ships to meet there escapees. The Athenian ships were prepared to face them. Their specialty in sea battles, along with the narrowness and swirls of the sea gave the Athenians an advantage. This strategy is what ultimately brought victory to the Greeks, as it left the Persians without a supply line and weakened their forces. The two events, the battle at Marathon and the battle at Salamis, showed that Athens was a great contributor to the war, both land and sea.

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.

The Peloponnesian War changed Greece and nothing was the same after the war. Athens was never to be as powerful again. As a result of the war, the Athenian Empire was never the same again because of the change in the balance of power in the Greek world. This greatly alarmed Sparta and its allies. The aggressive policies of Athens did not de-escalate the situation whilst the ambitions of the city-state certainly provoked the Spartans. Increasingly, the Spartans became very nervous about the growing naval and commercial power of Athens.

In his ambitions to conquer Sicily and then move on to Italy and the Peloponnesus, he also shows this thirst.12 The Athenians recognized Alcibiades's brilliance and ruthlessness so they elected Nicias as a general to "[temper] his rashness."13 Alcibiades resorted to violence to gain glory, Pericles, on the other hand, attempted to prolong peace and settle matters with diplomacy. He once tried to persuade the cities to send delegates to meet in Athens to discuss restorations of temples destroyed during the war with Persia, but nothing came of his plan because of Spartan opposition.14 He even went so far as to bribe the chief magistrates of Sparta to buy time to prepare for war, which he knew was inevitable.15

Promoting Greek unity gave the Greeks greater strength in numbers during the wars. Plutarch states “The greatest of all his achievements was to put an ending to all the fighting within Greece, to reconcile the various cities with one another and persuade them to lay aside their differences because of the war with Persia”. Themistocles’ relationship with naval commander Eurybiades also was very important. With Themistocles’ great foresight and decision making, the value of this working relationship with Eurybiades was the ability of Eurybiades to trust in Themistocles and his opinions. This proved very effective in the battles of Artemisium and Salamis. Thucydides praises this: “This man was supreme at doing precisely the right thing at precisely the right moment.” All of these pre-war efforts are contributions to which Themistocles played a great role in Greek victory.

Since the speech that clearly persuaded the Spartans took the form of the Athenian Thesis, one could reasonably conclude that the Spartans were moved by the motives of fear, honor, or benifit. Thus, this case as a whole lends credence to the thesis itself. Interestingly, if the Spartans truly acted according to the Athenian Thesis, this would imply that Sparta has the same tendency for domination as the Athenians. This could suggest that, after assembling alliances out of fear of a growing Athens, Sparta would progress to maintain its hold on states out of honor and, finally, out of interest, thereby mirroring Athens’ past. Whether Thucydides believed in the Athenian Thesis and intended the persuasiveness of this speech to be a historical case that supported the Athenian Thesis’ soundness is uncertain. However, no one can deny that the reasons which persuaded the Spartans to act followed the form of the thesis and that Sparta seems to have acted from

Throughout the Ancient Greek world, there have been many wars and standoffs. However, there has been only one which changed the course of Greek history forever; the Peloponnesian War. Caused by the growing tension between Athens and Sparta, it came and left, leaving only destruction in its wake. The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War caused the downfall of Greece, and the end of the Classical Age.

A study of the strategies and projections of King Archidamus of Sparta as compared to those of Pericles of Athens reveal Archidamus' understanding of the "superiority of land power as a basis for success at sea" in the ancient Mediterranean - as well as Pericles' naiveté as to this tenet.

The Peloponnesian War brought disease, destruction, famine, widespread civil wars, and a huge loss of life. The war was a complete catastrophe for Athens, who never fully regained their empire back. Sparta won the war, but they didn’t become a great city and a new empire was never built. Sparta attempted to lead the Greeks, but soon fell short and new leaders were called forth.

occasional assistance from the gods, but cowardice shown by other poleis nearly ended the Greeks’ chances of success.

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 last Olympic swimmer just touched the wall and the race has ended. Cameras are replaying every single movement from the race and a winner has been clearly decided. Just as these Olympic swimmers will gain a medal for placing, ancient Athens had numerous accomplishments of its own. Athens “prosperity … was due in large part to its stable and effective government” (SOURCE 1). When analyzing the history of ancient Athens, is easy to see how the accomplishments of a democracy, Greek philosophy, and Greek literature all shape Athens.

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

Described by Thucydides as “the foremost Athenian and most able in speech or action [at the time of the Peloponnesian War,]” Pericles ushered in what was widely known as the “Golden Age of Athens” (31). He often exercised great prudence in his decision making and was widely admired by the Greek people. The man stressed justice, the worth of the Empire, and cleaving one’s personal interests to those of the city. Through his eloquent speeches and definitive actions he captured both the hearts of the Athenians and territory as a premier military commander. The people readily accepted his authority, and became accustomed to it. This would only lead to problems down the road, however, as other rulers took up the mantle of Athens. They would only be but a gilded echo of Pericles, unable and unwilling to follow his path. Therefore, though Pericles did not intentionally set Athens up to fail, because of the oratorical skill, leadership style, and character he possessed, success could only be truly achieved by and through him.