Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Athens Political Life
The development of Athens
The development of Athens
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Athens Political Life
A result of the division of forces was the Peloponnesian's establishing a permanent garrison at Decelea in northern Attica. This was approximately fifteen miles from Athens itself. This forced the Athenians to give up the surrounding land and permanently live in the city. Thousands of slaves deserted to the Peloponnesians and industry and commerce shrank (Botsford and Robinson 218). This had a tremendous impact on Athens' economy and ability to finance the war.
With enemies at its back, Athens was unable to mass its forces in Sicily to conquer Syracuse. This hampered the expeditionjespecially in its lack of cavalry which Athens held back to defend Attica. Another failure was the Athenian utter disregard for operational security that greatly hampered the expedition.
During the Syracusan expedition the Athenian's lapses in security proved fatal to their campaign. A major error at the beginning of the campaign involved Alcibiades and the Athenian assembly's attempt to recall him. Immediately before the expedition's departure, the assembly suspected Alcibiades of religious sacrilege. Afraid of Alcibiades' power in the army, the Athenian assembly decided to wait until they departed to pursue the issue. The Athenian assembly indicted Alcibiades for sacrilege after he sailed for Sicily and ordered him to return to face charges.
On the return journey in a separate ship, Alcibiades escaped at Thurii and later went into exile in Sparta (218). The Athenians failed to anticipate Alcibiades' possible defection and take action to prevent it. A side consequence was that the assembly took the soul and tactical advantage out of the expedition by recalling Alcibiades. The expedition had a better chance of success if the command had gone to Alcib...
... middle of paper ...
...ed.
To worsen matters, faced with these problems, Nicias became too cautious and would not listen to his subordinates. He repeatedly violated the principles of surprise, mass, maneuver and offensive. Nicias proved incapable of imposing his will on the Syracusans. He failed to anticipate their actions and consequently his forces could not quickly respond. It is little surprise that the Syracusans, when motivated and decently equipped, eventually defeated the Athenians. They understood these principles and used the Athenian lack of them to their advantage.
If the Athenians had used the proven principles of war, they would have had two courses of action. One, not become involved in the dispute,or two, take decisive action immediately and crush the Syracusans. Instead, as history points out, the Syraclisans defeated the Athenians who, as a result, lost their empire.
Demosthenes began his series of orations, known to history as The Philippics, against Philip following the conquest by Philip of the Illyrians to the west of Macedonia and the Thracians to the north and east of Macedonia. The continued agitation of Demosthenes and the speed with which Philip was acquiring his empire spurred Athens, finally, into a disastrous alliance with Thebes in an uprising against Philip in 338 B.C.E., the result of which was the destruction of Thebes by Philip as example of consequence to all who would potentially rise against him. Athens, however, receiving treatment as ally and friend, was spared the consequence o...
Thucydides accounts that the allies saw this as a great advantage – ‘Because of their dislike for Pausanias, [the allies] were glad to see her [Athens] do so’. Yet this seems terribly ironic considering the events that followed Athens’ promotion of leadership. Athens first task as leader was to assess the various forms of finance that were crucial to the league. It required a strong fleet of ships and strong funds in order to function.
... weaker state will remain neutral from a military strength. Melians’ loss reaffirms the absolute power of imperial conquests and nationalism in theories of realism. Since the Melians were allied with the Spartans and failed to cooperate, it is justifiable that the Athenians had the right to want to rule and invade the Melians as means to protect their own strengths.
The Peloponnesian War and the Decline of Leadership in Athens Thucydides set out to narrate the events of what he believed would be a great war—one requiring great power amassed on both sides and great states to carry out. Greatness, for Thucydides, was measured most fundamentally in capital and military strength, but his history delves into almost every aspect of the war, including, quite prominently, its leaders. In Athens especially, leadership was vital to the war effort because the city’s leaders were chosen by its people and thus, both shaped Athens and reflected its character during their lifetimes. The leaders themselves, however, are vastly different in their abilities and their effects on the city. Thucydides featured both Pericles and Alcibiades prominently in his history, and each had a distinct place in the evolution of Athenian empire and the war it sparked between Athens and Sparta.
The main reason that the Greeks were able to win the Second Greco-Persian War was the fact that their victory on the sea dealt a crippling blow to the land army. The Greeks owe their naval success to a man named Themistocles. If it had not been for him then Athens would have not used some newly found silver to build 200 new ships for their navy. These ships were later used in the war against the Persians. The two forces were working in unison and they were dependent upon each other for victory. The Persian naval forces were there in order to protect the flank of the army's advance. If the Persian navy were not present then the Greeks would have been able to get on ships and sail to a spot behind the Persian lines and outflank them. They also delivered supplies to the armies that were necessary for its survival.
Of all the history of the Ancient Greece, there were two events that showed really well how disunity among the Greeks highly contributed to its downfall, which were the Peloponnesian War and Successors’ War. Interestingly, both wars occurred after a unity and followed by a unity that was carried out by “outsiders”. This may have actually shown that the Greeks had never learned from their past
One of those traits is that although Athenian citizens and soldiers live a more leisurely life and are not trained as rigorously as the Spartans in land warfare, Athenians’ natural courage makes up for that (Thucydides pg. 42). Athens was definitely the dominant naval power in Greece at the time, but the Athenians’ devaluing of land warfare led to a stalemate in the first phase of the Peloponnesian War before the Peace of Nicias in which Sparta ravaged Athens’ countryside and forced its citizens to be holed up in the city walls and to live in close quarters, making them susceptible to the plague. Another trait of Athens that can be argued as not a positive factor is its institution of democracy. Athenian democracy was quite limited in the modern sense since its citizenry only included ethnic Athenian males over the age of 20, but it was remarkable in the ancient world for the amount of civic participation it allowed of those that it considered citizens. The Athenians prided themselves on including people of lower economic status into the citizenry, but this trait may be not as positive as Pericles proclaimed (Thucydides pg. 40). In an oligarchic system such as Sparta’s, if the city-state was to win a war, it
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 decision of Achilleus is a crucial moment in understanding how fate works in epic (Homerian) literature. Thetis tells Achilleus of his opportunity to win renown as the greatest warrior of all time, earning glory through his fearless acts in battle against a foe who is sure to overcome the Achaians. The fate of ten years of attack on Troy hinge upon the decision of Achilleus, who is given the choice to win glory for the Achaians and, more importantly, himself.
As can be expected from pioneer governmental institutions, Athenian democracy was not perfect. In fact it was far from it. It resulted in the establishment of poor policies by aggressive populists who sought "...private ambition and private profit...which were bad both for the Athenians themselves and their allies." (Thucydides). These self interested populist leaders with personal gain in mind established extensive internal political instability "...by quarrelling among themselves [and] began to bring confusion into the policy of the state." (Thucydides). Repeated opportunities to accept terms of peace after the battles of Pylos (425), Arginusae (406) and Aegospotami (405) were ignored by the inefficient Athenian demos eventually resulting in the devastation of the once dominant city-state. Internal political strife can also be attribu...
...rated the superiority of the Greek long spear and armor over the weapons of the Persians, as well as the superior tactics of Miltiades and the military training of the Greek hoplites. The choice of weapons, training of warriors, selection of battle site, and timing had all worked together to help the Athenians prove that size doesn’t always matter.
In the years following the Persian Wars in 479 B.C., Athens had come out on top being the most dominantly powerful of any Greek city with a navy that had superior strength that increased day by day. The Athenians “ruled with heavy-handed, even brutal force as well as with reason” (Kagan 2). This was due largely to the fact that Athens had a stable and effective government, which only increased their advantage in proving themselv...
We have now examined Thucydides' strongest arguments for Athenian rule. It is clear that Athens had a stronger claim to rule than the Melians had to remain sovereign. We also know that Athens' claims hold up when we examine them for validity. Thucydides beliefs in Athens' claims were therefore well founded.
In this regard, Athens failed. Athens was not prepared to conduct warfare against an unknown opponent. Athens was unsure of how fervent the Syracusans would fight having never faced them in battle. Little was known about the terrain of Sicily and where it was vulnerable . In the face of uncertainty, a sensible military leader would heavily weight his attacking force. Mass becomes the crucial factor to ensure victory is achieved. Athens had trouble in formulating a military strategy to guarantee success. The three Athenian generals had differing opinions in dispatching Syracuse. Alcibiades pursued a path of alliance followed by attacking the dissenters, Lamachus favored a surprise attack on Syracuse to crush political will, and Nicias preferred a demonstrative show of force to deter Syracuse from further action . Each of these actions required varying levels of means from lowest to highest concentrations of military force. An unclear, disjointed strategy cannot be adequately resourced. Nicias realized this early on in preparing for the Sicilian campaign, and had thus heavily weighted the Athenian military in the pursuit of the campaign . The military was appropriately resourced to execute each of the three Generals’ strategies, but at a great cost. For success and holding Sicily, the Athenian military would most likely
Because of the tranquil times, the civilization’s society had more time to focus on writing, math, astronomy, and artistic fields, as well as trade and metallurgy. Out of all the city-states of Greece, two excelled over all the rest, Sparta and Athens. Even though they were the most advanced and strong civilizations, they were bitter enemies. While Athens focused mainly on the people’s democracy and citizen rights, Sparta were ferocious and enslaved its original inhabitants, making them unable to leave and kept under a close eye to prevent insurgence (History of Greece:The Golden Age of Greece). Additionally, Sparta had strict and trained soldiers that underwent intense physical exercising and instruction.