The Sicilian Expedition is the decisive event in the Peloponnesian war. In fact that is what motivated Thucydide's to record it in his historical records. Thucydides prophesized that it would be `the greatest in all Greek history' and "it was a major turning point for Athens',moreover, it was the `most glorious victory for the winners, and the worst calamity for the loosers.' The outcome was that Athens lost the war which lead to the eventual collapse of her empire and dignity. The Athenians lost the war due to their ill preparedness for the expedition, illogical and hasty decisions, and poor leadership during the expedition.
First of all, it is feasible to say that one of the most important reasons for the Athenian defeat was due to the fact that they were essentially not ready for another battle. The importance of prepraredness was exemplified by Percile's in his War speech, he was recollecting the Athenian ancestors success against the Persians and he stated it was "more good planning than good luck." The problem is that the Sicilian expedition was spontaneous and unanticipated, thus unplanned. As Thucydides recounts "that same winter, immediately after the destruction of Melos, Athens decided to attempt the conquest of the Greeks on Sicily."
However, they were not "well informed about the relative strength of their allies and their enemies in Sicily" . The Athenians had sent some ambassadors in early spring to Egesta to evaluate the situation. Instead of bringing back useful information, they brought back some ambassadors and sixty talents of uncoined silver (which was only one months pay for the Athenian naval fleet).
Although the Athenians were still not properly informed, they still set out a date to take o...
... middle of paper ...
...ion of their retreat; Demosthenes wanted to leave and save his troops, while Nicias' was afraid of the embarrassment he will have to suffer if they left. However, the vote was in favor of leaving, just as they were about to do so, a lunar eclipse occurred. A Thucydides tell us ."..most of the Athenians took the eclipse to heart and called on the generals to stop",a wise leader would have order his troops to keep going. Yet " Nicias who put to much faith in divination and such practices said he wouldn't consider moving..untill they waited twenty seven days prescribed by the soothsayers" . If the leaders were wise they could have escaped army and the losses would have not been so drastic. The outcome was that the procrastination of the Athenian army is what gave Syracuse and its allies the time to beat them at sea and on land, and there eventual crushing defeat.
In conclusion, multiple factors led to the failure of Xerxes’ expedition into Greece. According to Herodotus, Xerxes failed due to his personal hubris, fear, and general ineptitude. He further believed that it was God’s decree. More pragmatic reasons would include strategy; the Persian’s plans were generally sound – the Greeks, with the genius of Themistocles, just did one better. Timing was also a factor – winter came on all too soon. Key to all of this was the war of morale – one which the Greeks decisively won. Luck, too, played its part, but it was relative incompetence of the Persian troops which was the crux of the matter. The failure of the infantry was the cause of the final disintegration of the campaign. Xerxes’ personal failures and errors of judgment were an accelerant towards this end. First and foremost, he was let down by his men.
1) According to Thucydides, during the civil war at Corcyra a re-evaluation of values took place in the populace (3.82). Explain the nature of these re-evaluations, and the reason(s) they took place.
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. Pericles ascended to power at the empire’s height and was, according to Thucydides, the city’s most capable politician, a man who understood fully the nature of his city and its political institutions and used his understanding to further its interests in tandem with his own. After Pericles, however, Thucydides notes a drastic decline in the quality of Athenian leaders, culminating in Alcibiades, the last major general to be described in The Peloponnesian War. While he is explicit in this conclusion, he is much more reticent regarding its cause. What changed in Athens to produce the decline in the quality of its leadership?
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.
The major theme that comes out clearly in the text is the theme of warfare and glorious death. Right from the beginning of his book, Thucydides, writes the story of the war between the Athenians and the Spartans. The theme of warfare is therefore evidenced by the Athenians preparation, the author says, ‘…beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war and more worthy of relation than any other that had preceded.’ This shows that the war that was to start was a unique one that had never happened before in history, in Thucydides opinion. This to me shows a bit of an exaggeration but more importantly this dramatic portrayal of the Peloponnesian war shows that war was seen as a part of life in Athens. In the text, we don’t find Thucydides describing war as being dark, catastrophic, or destructive which is how we would depict war nowadays. Instead we find him describing the war as this huge event that will go down in history as the greatest war to be fought.
While Persian financial support undeniably contributed to the Spartan’s victory over Athens in the Peloponnesian War, modern historians have over-emphasized the importance of that assistance to their eventual victory. Persian money allowed the Peloponnesian forces to stay in the fight, which had quickly dissolved into a war of attrition after the Athenian’s defeat at Syracuse. However, there were several negative aspects of the Persian/Peloponnesian alliance which detrimentally affected Sparta’s ability to effectively wage war against Athens. Included in this was the tendency for Persian Satraps to withhold pay and reinforcements, or to provide that pay irregularly. Additionally, Persia’s insistence that Sparta recognize their control over all Ionian cities prior to any treaty being completed led
During the Persian War, Sparta and Athens worked together to defeat the Persians. The discipline and strength of Spartan Army helped saved Greece from invasion. Afterwards Sparta and Athens alliances were formed. Athenians had superior naval force and enforced the democratic rule in states allied to Athens. Neighboring allied states depended on the trade provided by Athens navy. In the same time Athens had established themselves as the head of the empire. (Lecture 7 notes). Sparta had superior land army and they destroyed Athens crops in order to have a hold on Athens and force them to surrender. The war lasted 10 years with neither side winning the war. At the end they agreed to a truce. A few years later, Athens tried to conquer Sicily, but the Sicilians defeated Athens. Athens lost much of its army and navy. The Spartans took advantage of this weakness and attacked Athens and cut of their trade routes and food supplies. Spartans won and Sparta became the most powerful city in
In conclusion, Athens and Sparta, both powerful Greek City-State. The Archidaminam War, The Peace of Nicias, and The Decelan of Ionian. In total these 3 wars lasted 27 years.Sparta, the capital of Laconia, was at one time the most powerful City-State in Ancient Greece. Thucydide, a greek historian who lived during the peloponnesian war, said the war was because of the Athenian empire and its fast growing power. Sparta won the war and remained the the most powerful until
After the defeat, busy with defending their lands and putting down a revolution, Sparta sues for peace, which Athens rejects as they “kept grasping at more.”39 If the Athenian objective was to maintain her empire and conduct affairs in her national interest without interference, then Athens should have accepted the Spartan peace offer. Instead, they reject the offer, convinced by their recent success they can get more if they continue the war. The war continuing, Sparta is forced to change course in their strategy and free a number of Helots to join Brasidas for his expedition into Thrace and Chalcidice. As described before, Brasidas decisively defeats Cleon at Amphipolis and takes the strategic initiative away from Athens. This defeat will be a major reason for peace between Athens and Sparta, but a peace not as favorable as one after
The Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) was a conflict between the Athenian Empire and the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta that resulted in the end of the Golden Age of Athens. The events of the war were catalogued by the ancient historian Thucydides in The History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides’ writings showed the ancient Greek belief that there is a parallel between the city-state and the character of its citizens; in order for the city-state to be successful, its citizens must be virtuous. Thucydides did not believe that the true cause of the Peloponnesian War were the immediate policies of the Athenian Empire against the city-states in the Peloponnesian League but rather the fundamental differences in the character of the two city-states
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...
...a trail of destruction in its wake, this war changed the entire course of Ancient Greek history. Even though there has been countless wars in Greek history, the Peloponnesian War was definitely the one with the most consequences.
The Lacedaemonians do not invade our country alone, but bring with them all their confederates; while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbour, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their home". Pericles is telling the funeral audience that just because we sit here at a funeral, we are winning easily against Sparta. They need help even on land they are more familiar with, and we still defeat them. So not only does Athens have the better form of government that was passed down from generation to generation, but we also obviously have better war tactics than Sparta in which that is supposed to be their specialty. He says this to the distraught funeral crowd who deep in their minds are questioning if they could win this war and Pericles is giving them a sense of hope and a sense that they could win this war with ease.
If Athens and Melos went to battle against each other, the gods, if they favored anyone, would favor Athens. 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.
An interesting and important aspect of this Greek notion of fate is the utter helplessness of the human players. No matter the choice made by the people involved in this tragedy, the gods have determined it and it is going to come to pass. T...