What Led Up To The Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian War was an ancient Greek war fought between Athens and Sparta’s Peloponnesian League. The Peloponnesian War had many causes which included anti-Athenian feelings by the Peloponnesian League and competitive feelings for power. It began when Athens started to dominate and treat other members of the delian league like subjects. This in turn caused Sparta to refuse to join the delian league so he created a rival league which was the Peloponnesian League.

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.

From 3000 BCE to 1500 CE their has been many events and people who have had an major impact on Western European civilization. The event I think had the most important affect is The Persian and Peloponnesian wars. The Persian war begun because the lonians city-states owed money to Persia and the lonians city-states were conquered by Cyrus II of Persia. The reasons for the Peloponnesian war are the democratic reforms of Cleisthenes but Sparta always denied this and Athenian control of the Delian League. Both of these wars affected Greek history.

Thucydides wrote his work as a historical and objective work for readers to learn about the Peloponnesian War. The lesson that readers are intended to learn from this work is that we must learn from our past mistakes, such as going to war for no logical reasons. Thucydides may not have incorporated any Gods into his work because of the fact that the purpose behind his objective work was to teach future generations of mankind’s faults of creating this war. Thucydides wrote this as he first-handedly observed the Peloponnesian War in Greece and

It is important to study Thucydides because Thucydides can help us to understand the way politics work in the world today.This should come later – it is not an introduction to a whole paper – always assume your reader is not familiar with your topic In his book titled, The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides brings to light, some of the causes of the war, as well as some of the consequences of the war. (This is a good opening sentence. It introduces the reader to the topic) Thucydides analyzed the Peloponnesian War on a deeper level (what do you mean?) to help us understand why and how things occur in the world. The world has a better understanding of war and politics in general because of Thucydides. Thucydides’ account of The

The perspective that Thucydides took to write History of the Peloponnesian War gave his work, on a first read, the impression that his opinion was removed to provide an objective analysis of the destruction of the greatness of Athens over the period of the war. He began with a “medical history” of how humanity structured the first societies based on the interplay between fear, interest, and honor. Then, progressed to how war devolved the great Athenian society. Which took Thucydides from revisiting eloquent speeches over strategy to simpler retellings of brash disputes. Thoughtful placement displayed Thucydides’ opinion of Athens’ actions, how he viewed the other city-states’ positions on various issues in the book, and emphasized

Everything leading up to them going into battle is what caused the Athenians to go thoughtlessly into the encounter. One of the most influential parts of the agreement was that they were supposed to get paid and were told that it was an easy battle, but that led them to believe that there was nothing to care about. The information they were told however, was not entirely true and their hope of reclaiming land was exceedingly high, that they concluded that this idea for war was a good thing. Unfortunately, the Athenians were, “ignorant of the size of the island and the number of its inhabitants” (Bagnall 201). Also, in addition to them being ignorant of the size of the island, “they did not realize that they were taking on a war of the same magnitude as their war against the Peloponnesians” (Bagnall 201). Furthermore, their generals were not able to agree on what to do, and the soldiers rushed onto shore without any directions or strategies to guide them. Their generals had a great deal to do with the fact of their soldiers failing to invade and win this battle. They did not think to plan any well thought out strategies before sending their troops into battle. Nobody did anything to help guide them along the way. The fact that they mindlessly went into battle was the most catastrophic part of the war. All of these factors went hand in hand and is what brought the destruction of this city upon

Throughout the book, Thucydides shows the difference in his works by using economics and politics as the two main factors which used to determine wars at that time. Such a move was sin contrast with how historians used to portray wars at that time. Historians usually used gods and their influence to explain army victories but Thucydides explains that the cities with the most money and a centralized system of government used to win such wars. For instance, the author explains that Athens had many armies and was powerful in the sea, thus having an advantage over its

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.

Pericles was an important man for Athenians. Indeed, he was so influential to Athens that Thucydides claimed him as “the first citizen of Athens”. He, Pericles, led countrymen for the first two years of the war and made the “Delian League into an Athenian empire”. Pericles’ thoughts regarding the war were more obvious after his death than while he was still alive. He had said that Athens in one-way or another forgot to take care the most important things. For example, he said, “Athens will be victorious if she bided [Athens] and took care of her navy” meaning that during the course of the war Athens as a city itself forgot how to take care of the things that made Athens an influential and precious city. In addition, Thucydides claimed that Pericles’ successors were a big factor of the position of Athens while approaching the war. His successors instead of helping Athenians confront the war as an important case of matter, did the opposite. Instead, they took care of “private business”, which were only beneficial for their private ambition. However, such bad decisions and

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

SUBJECT: "Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War", The Landmark Thucydides ed. By Robert Strassler, NY, Touchstone, 1998.

The Peloponnesian War started on April 25, 431 BC and it started because Sparta called on the other greeks to help to quell a helot uprising so Athens sent 4000 soldiers but Sparta rejected. The Athens felt offended and they stopped alliance with Sparta. So in 433 BC Athens placed a ban on trade but Athens high taxes caused a weakening of the Delian League. So Sparta declared war to stop the taxes.

Written by the Greek historian Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War is one that tells the story of the war (431-404 BC) which divided the Greek world between Athens and its allies and Lacedaemon. The Melian Dialogue presents two sides and two perspectives that of the Melians neutrality and that of the Athenians’ might. By Thucydides juxtaposing the Athenian’s position to that of the Melians, there is a clear conclusion of which side actions are tactically and morally acceptable. One would argue that the Athenians are immoral for violently plundering the Melian territory because they had the power to do so. However, given the circumstance of trying to defend their empire due to the imbalance of forces, the Athenian actions are not

of events which I am going to look at to see if there was a single