Thucydides+study+questions

Thucydides states the "//inevitable"// cause of the war was "//the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta".// In the aftermath of the Persian War Athens took control the [|Delian League] to further the cause of the war, which it did forcing Persia out of the Aegean. However, the league effectively turned into an Athenian hegemony, this was highlighted by the shift of the war funds from Delos to Athens, and the Athenians reference to its 'Empire'. Sparta in response strengthened its own Peloponessian league comprising of the Peleponnesos, Boetia and other allies. A Cold War comparison can be made (c.f internal affairs, proxy wars, trade sanctions etcetera).
 * **What does Thucydides say was the cause of the war? Does this mean Thucydides understands the Peloponnesian war in "realist" terms?**

Thucydides' quote can be seen in '[|realist]' terms (power and security valued above ideals and ethics); rather than labeling it the fault of either side, it gives the impression of cause and effect. Sparta declares war to protect its own interests as Athenian growth was threatening them. Another example is the [|Melian Dialogue] where Athens gives the island of the Melos the 'choice' between becoming a tribute paying vassal, or destruction, despite Melos' neutrality. This demonstrates that war, according to Thucydides is waged in realist terms. The idea of the strong expressing power, and the weak forced to suffer such power. The Athenians inform the Melians that they must do this to keep their empire/league strong. Melos will provide gold and men for the effort, and by example will dissuade other states from anything similar. Similarly in the Mytilenian debate, Diodotus simply states "//this is not a law court where we have to consider what is fit and just; it is a political assembly, and the question is how Mytilene can be most useful to Athens//."

Political realism is a school of thought which treats nation-states as unitary actors on an anarchic international stage. Under the realist paradigm nations will act in their self-interest. Self-interest is usually defined by traditional measures of power (and self-interet) //id est// their economic, military and political power. Realism also implies that countries who invoke morals, ideals, and ethics when enacting foreign policy are merely using them to cloak their true self-interested motives. It is worth thinking about what 'self-interest' means, especially when applied in the international context today. Can a state really be described as a unitary entity with a self interest?(Some good comments [|here])
 * **What does it mean to understand something in "realist" terms (and in neorealist terms - p. 10 of the textbook)? Does it mean that war can be justified or rationalised if it serves someone's self interest? But why would someone go to war if there were no self interest to serve? Apart from realism/neorealism, what are other ways of understanding conflict?**

Realism is a descriptive theory of international relations, therefore the ability to analyse the behaviour of nation-states should be reliable. However, when it comes to the more normative questions of whether a war is just or not, realism remains silent. Even if you assume that realism is the most descriptive model of international relations, it is fallacious to conclude that a war is just or morally acceptable - a war simply serves a nation's self-interest.

In class, it was discussed how Thucydides seems to think that the Peloponnesian war was due to the gain of military might in Athens, and the fear that this induced in the Spartans. Though I do not agree with this argument, I observe some of the validity in the points it makes as to how war can be justified. There are however numerous reasons to go to war other than to gain an increase in power. It is precisely what Thucydides argument opposes: morals, ideals, and ethics. To numerous European Christians during the Crusades they believed that they must make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to atone for their previous sins. They sure made war along the way. Conflict can occur where there is a clash in ideals **(if you are to apply a realist paradigm one cannot stop the analysis on the surface. The Crusades were just as much about gaining territory and influence which may have been coated with an idealistic facade. The moral authority that it gave Christian rulers to be able to say that they had control over Jerusalem was a powerful and unifying tool for domestic purposes. It is therefore of no surprise that many of the campaigns (including the forth ( which sacked Constantinople) and the sixths (which did not have the popes blessing) diverted the purpose to enriching in the broadest since the agents who went to war. It purpose though was always self-interest as noted above, but it is probably not appropriate to digress)** . There is no need for me to gain something to make a fight with you. Lastly, and seemingly the least likely to occur, conflict can arise between groups through irrational thoughts or chaotic emotions. Someone like a king, assuming he is powerful, could be having a bad day and just decide to take his anger out on you by cutting of your head with the guillotine. **(The self interest between the way in which a King treats his subjects and rival state maybe easily distinguishable - the monopoly on violence is broken once in an anarchic international arena. But even if it were not true, it maybe true that a King could satisfy his short term self interest by attacking another kingdom because he was angry and acted out of passion this could be to the expense of his kingdom. This maybe a act of stupid but he still acted in his self-interest at the time)**

Above all else it seems that Pericles finds __being 'Athenian'__ praiseworthy, and the 'Athenian spirit' they have. The fact that Athens is a 'free city', built upon each generation, handed down to their fathers who made it strong, and continued by the present generation is praiseworthy. While he will "say nothing of the warlike deeds" that made it so, it is this end result that matters; Athens is "perfectly well able to look after itself both in peace and in war". The people need not be trained from birth to be valorous in war, rather when the time comes the people are "//just as ready to face the same dangers as they are".// The people are able to bring out the best of everything; money without extravagence, intellect without softness, etc. The people are proactive and "do good to others" rather than expect good to be done to them. The men who die in battle then exemplify the defence of right over wrong, and are praiseworthy, as are those that are left behind to carry on the cause. Of course, this speech is written by Thucydides and deliberately contrasts as heavily as possible with the effects of the plague. "We do not copy our neighbors, but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few." 2.37 "Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his condition." 2.37 Pericles exalts the government of the Athenians. If you are a citizen then your economic status is independent of your effect on the moderation of Athens' and her decisions. The Athenian institutions are educating not only themselves but also all of Greece. Pericles argues that the Athenian empire and its greatness is due to its free and relaxed methodology. Unlike its rivals, the Athenians are free and tolerant in the private lives of their citizens, but in the public matters he says, "we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws." Athens benefits from its greatness in the form of its lifestyle and government, but all of Greece can learn a lesson or two from her achievements. -->Yes, as Thucydides writes in 2.39 "Our city is thrown open to the world..." and later in 2.41 "I say that Athens is the school of Hellas" it shows that Thucydides thinks that the democracy in Athens could serve as 'good' example for other communities in Hellas (Greece) and that others could learn from the Athenian model. **Does this show that Thucydides thinks this, or that Perivcles thinks this?** There seems to be a relationship whereby the Athenian way of life is justifiably **What do you mean justifiably? 1216616265** maintained by the vassalisation of others. The spirit of the Athenian people is in part derived from their democratic system, this spirit in turn has made Athens wealthy and given the people the luxury to enjoy life. There is no hypocrisy in maintaining this at the expense of others because of the unique focus upon the paramount importance of the Athenian polis. Essentially, Athens could not maintain its democracy if all were democratic. **Consider also the second speech of Pericles, after the plague 1216616265** In fact, for Pericles, the Athenian empire is just because Athens has a culture of justice **Better evidence would be required for this claim. Consider that he almost says the empire is unjust in the speech he givers right after the plague 1216616265**. For him, the Athenian regime is the best of all cities. Like he says in the Funeral speech, Athens is the only city who has and makes justice equally for all her citizens. Thus in Pericles’s perspective, the Athenians have the best institutions to support the empire. And, for him, Athenians have fight for this empire, therefore they deserved it.
 * **What does Pericles find praiseworthy in Athens?**
 * **What is the benefit of Athenian empire, according to Pericles? Does this benefit accrue to Athenians or to all the members of the empire?**
 * **Is there a relation between Athenian democracy and Athenian empire?**
 * **Is the Athenian empire a matter of choice or necessity, for Pericles? That is, do the Athenians have a choice in the matter of creating and maintaining their empire?**
 * **Is the Athenian empire just? Does Pericles think the Athenian empire is just?**

But in his speech, Pericles does not talk about how to treat the people of the empire. For him, Athens is the only thing who matters. For him the empire is a natural evolution of Athens. But in reality, we have to remember, after the Persian war, Athens transforms the Delian league, in its “personal bank”. In order to ensure peace and protection, Athens demands more tributes from its allies. This way, Athens will have the necessary navy against any new threat (we have to remember, Athens wins against the Persian by sea). This transformation of the league was unfair for the Athenians allies because there is no more Persian threat. But Athens had to conserve this empire in order to ensure its way of life. This way we can say, that Athens is only fair with its citizens. The allies have to pay the price to be weak and submit to Athens. **This view is inconsistent with the eralier view - they should be harmonized 1216616265** Pericles paints a picture of a vibrant, enthusiastic Athenian spirit. During the plague people had no enthusiasm and easily gave up hope. They saw death all around them and knew that once they caught the plague they were almost certain to die from it soon. Enthusiasm was replaced with despair. Thucydides probably wants to provide a balanced picture of Athens and not be like other writers who show only the good or only the bad in people **This is too vague. Which other writers? What is the point of the balance?1216616265**. He could also be trying to show that those who rely too heavily on their own perceived 'greatness' will become quickly demoralised by failings and signs of weakness. This shows that Pericles' idea of the Athenian spirit is a bit of a facade and only exists when times are prosperous because when tested the people give up hope. This then would demonstrate a contradiction between Pericles' idea of the Athenian spirit and the realities of the Athenian people. In 2.53 Thucydides describes how the plague is affecting the rule of law in Athens. The citizens of Athens were so desperate because of the plague, that some did not respect any longer the institutions and the laws. "No fear of Gods or law of man deterred a criminal...For offences against human law no punishment was to be feared; no one would live long enough to be called to account. Already a far heavier sentence had been passed and was hanging over a man's head; before that fell, why should he not take a little pleasure?"
 * **Does the description of the effects of the plague on Athens contradict Pericles' picture of the Athenian spirit? Why do you think that Thucydides immediately follows the funeral oration with the account of the plague?**
 * **Why does the plague have such dire effects on Athenian institutions, according to Thucydides? What does this suggest about human institutions in general?**

I am not sure about this, but we could probably infer, that during a sever crises, a calamity (to use the word of Thucydides), institutions are no longer (or less) respected by the people. Despite Thucydides' general aversion and derision of myth he personally finds it disturbing that so many natural disasters and plagues should go in tandem with the most devastating of human actions, finding that the "//Old stories of past prodigies//" became credible. **Consider though what he says about some of the oracles: it is not thaty they became credible in the way people thought 1216616265** Thucydides seems to suggest that the effects of the plague were at least exacerbated by warfare as the people were confined within their walls by the Spartan forces without. The lessons perhaps drawn are simply that 'fortunes change'. No amount of civic pride and conquest could prevent a plague. **What does the plague suggest about Pericle's strategy, for example? (See here Pericles' first speech, before the funeral oration) 1216616265** Cleon regards the revolt in Mytilene as a crime against Athens, particularly deserving of retribution because it was tantamount to a defection to Sparta. The execution of the men and enslavement of the women and children is a proportionate response to this crime, because it will act as a deterrent to other cities in similar situations as Mytilene. This attack would be the best advertisement for Athenian power; ultimately it is the fear of this power which will prevent other states in the empire from rebelling as well.
 * **Does Thucydides mean to draw a lesson about the war from the effects of the plague?**
 * **What is Cleon's basic reason for urging the Athenians to stick to their original decision? Is his speech consistent?**

As seen already in the lecture, Cleon supports the condemnation of the Mytilenaeans, because he thinks it is right to implement the decision, no matter how cruel this decision is (Thucydides rephrases Cleon's speech in 3.37 to 3.40). He thinks that changing the decision (and not condemn the Mytilenians) would be a sign of weakness of the Athenian democracy and the Mytilenians would loose respect of Athenians. He sees Mytilenians as subordinates of the Athenian empire. In 3.39 Cleon says: "I say to you that no single city has ever injured us so deeply as Mytilenè… they have rebelled; and entering the ranks of our bitterest enemies have conspired with them to seek our ruin…We should from the first have made no difference between the Mytilenaeans and the rest of our allies, and then their insolence would never have risen to such a height; for men naturally despise those who court them, but respect those who do not give way to them. Yet it is not too late to punish them as their crimes deserve ". Cleon argues that Mytilene has to be punished, that their behavior must induce consequences, because otherwise the Athenian empire is in danger. Other allies of Athens could follow this 'bad' example if Athens does not react (it almost sound like the "Domino Theory" of the Cold War, which US Presided Eisenhower used to describe the rise of Communism in Indochina). I think the speech is in a certain way consistent, but if the means that Cleon wants use are successful to obtain Mytilenian's respect can be discussed.

Diodotus thinks that such an attack would set a precedent essentially mandating a "death sentence" for all cities which revolted. He doubts the efficacy of such a deterrent, because he feels it will remove any incentive for cities like Mytilene to repent, compensate Athens and continue to pay imperial tribute - an improtant source of war revenue. Instead, it will lead to these cities fighting to the death, leading to extended sieges and military action for Athens which will only drain the cities resources and hamper the war effort. In Cleon's speech, the role of justice is wrapped up in interest. He focusses on the justice of the punishment of the Mytelenaeans in terms of the crime they committed: "punish them as their crime deserves." He argues it was a crime to revolt, deserving retribution. In order to deter other states from similarly revolting, punishment must ensue, no matter how cruel.
 * **What is Diodotus' basic reason for urging the Athenians to change their original decision? Is his speech consistent?**
 * **What role does justice play in Cleon and Diodotus' speeches on the Mytilenian debate? Do both Cleon and Diodotus avoid considerations of justice when making their speeches?**

Diodotus, in contrast, does not speak of justice at all - saying that practicalities are what are generally important in times of war. In this instance, practicalities mean that mercy ought to result. However, when Diodotus, before he begins his speech, says that "he who speaks in the course of right must make himself believed by lying", as "the best advice when offered in plain terms is as much distrusted as the worst... he is rewarded by a suspicion that... he gets more than he gives." Two inferences could be drawn from this: a) That Diodotus in fact believes that justice is of more importance than his speech suggests - by saying that justice is of no importance, he is protecting himself from those who would believe he had outside interests, and must therefore lie, or b) That Diodotus is in fact reinstating the realist position - that justice is of little relevance in international relations, and those who suggest that it does are both naive and potentially biased. The Athenian contingent here represents human laws – man-made realities – where the number of soldiers an army has represents respective power, and the outcome of any war. The quote refers to the 'true' meaning of justice between states: Thucydides described interstate relations as amoral and anarchic. Therefore, it could be argued that Thucydides sympathized with either the Athenians or the Melians **This would be contradictory: if he sympathizes with the Athenians, the Melian position would be incoherent 1216616265**. Thucydides wrote "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." This enforces his view that might is right. For this reason, it could be argued that he sympathized with the Melian position because they were left with a choice to surrender and yield their political independence to a strong empire, or to defend their rights and fight. It could be said that he sympathized with the Athenian position because by invading Melos, they were simply expanding their empire. Their power was so great that they could invade the island and crush the enemy.**So which is it? 1216616265**  I disagree, Xavier. The two points of view may be inconsistent with each other, but either is broadly adoptable (if one position is taken, however, the other may then be rejected.) Either party could be argued as voicing Thucydides's personal sympathy. I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the question, as I have found distinguishing between this question and “What can we say about Thucydides' //own position// from the text?” quite difficult – therefore this answer may be a bit confused. A) Evidence of sympathy towards the Athenians  If we accept (as many do, but I contest) that Thucydides actually supported the Athenian policies. There are many arguments favoring this view but I have chosen to focus more on the alternative.  B)  Evidence of sympathy towards the Melians However there are also reasons to suggest that he may not think justice is so unimportant as we might think, and that he is actually sympathetic to the Melian position: In the dialogue the Athenians give the Melians a choice of whether the island submits to Athens, pays tributes and survives, or fight Athens and be destroyed. The Melians argue their neutrality- appealing to justice and international law, which guarantees their right to neutrality. They also give several other counter-arguments, mainly that giving mercy to Melos will win the Athenians more friends; and also that the Spartans will come to Melos' aid. The Athenians, however, refuse to discuss their demands for justice- which if compared to the justice exclaimed by Pericles in the funeral oration- signifies the difference in approach to justice in domestic/international terms.
 * **Does Thucydides have a position in the debate? If so, what is his position?**
 * **What do the Athenians mean when they say "when these matters [i.e., matters of war] are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept"?**
 * Real’ justice can only occur between equals. If one party has disproportionate power over another, the bargaining power of that party is jeopardized as the other party is more able to represent his or her interests.
 * Where parties have disproportionate power (as in the Melian/Athenian relationship), justice depends on the beneficence of the stronger party. Law and ‘justice’ is created by the stronger party, and imposed upon the weaker. The stronger party is able to impose whatever “they have the power to do.” Justice is unable to exist except insofar as a stronger party chooses (and they may well choose none.)
 * It is in this way that as the stronger party, the Athenians are able to force the negotiations onto their own terms – away from arguments of principle, to arguments of practicalities.
 * The practical argument here advanced by the Athenians, however, is disproved to a point – when they are unable to control the outcome of the negotiations. Rather than “accept[ing] what they have to accept”, the Melians choose to rely on the very arguments they are precluded from making – divine justice and moral principle, declining to surrender. Although the Athenians do in the end impose their might – destroying Melos – this was not the outcome to which the above quote referred – which appears to assume the reaction of the Melians before it has even been made. Certainly, by refusing to yield, Melos denied Athens – the “strong” - their most preferred outcome.
 * **Does Thucydides sympathize with the Athenian position, the Melian position, or neither?**
 * The arguments of the Athenians – that they as the strong will lord over the weak - are fulfilled. Neither the Gods nor the Spartans come to the aid of the Melians, who are destroyed (even if they create some trouble in the interim.)
 * The way the Athenians limit the dialogue (away from moral matters to practical matters) is not cruel, it is merely the Athenians speaking frankly. It merely outlines the disparity between speech and action. Whether or not the Melians talk about morality, the real decision will be made on whether Athens has significant enough advantage to attack Melos.
 * The Athenians, in being frank, are not being cruel – a humanitarian end can be extracted– convincing the Melians to save themselves the horror of siege. The fact that they are talking at all implies that they would prefer to persuade the Melians.
 * The two options presented by the Athenians are the only options available – in the honest opinion of the Athenians, the Melians cannot be allowed to stay neutral or fight against them.
 * Thucydides portrays the Melians as fiercely autonomous, fearless and just – traits specifically praised by Pericles when referring to Athens (e.g.II.40). Indeed, the Melians almost embody “ the simplicity which is so large an element in a noble nature,” which Thucydides notes was now “ laughed to scorn,” taken over by “every form of wickedness.” (III.83) If you take the Perseus translation ([|http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Thuc.+3.82.8)] it reads as: "The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition."
 * Just because the Athenians say that justice is of little relevance does not mean that this is what Thucydides thinks. If we use previous clues – Diodotus’ claim that “he who speaks in the cause of right must make himself believed by lying’ – and consequently is forced to withhold justice from his speech – we could infer that even if Thucydides agrees with the practical logic of the Athenians, that he may hold moral qualms about the Melians.
 * Constant reference to the hopelessness of the Melian position by the Athenians provides reader empathy – whether or not the reader considers the Melian reaction as foolish. Given the generally negative feeling in Greece toward the massacre at Melos, were Thucydides defending the Athenian position, one would expect perhaps more evidence as such.
 * The Melian debate was of little consequence in the actual Peloponnesian War – an almost trivial affair that did not impact upon the final result in any way. What use for such a detailed and unique description of such an event was there, then, other than its //moral// significance (whether an affirmation of the morality or a negation), particularly given that it is clear that Thucydides neither witnessed the debate nor was provided with any account of the parties’ communication? The contrast between the Mytelenian debate and this excerpt does give the appearance of sympathy for Melos in the face of a corrupted Athens.
 * The fact that the Athenians are talking to the Melians at all is not Thucydides attempting to show a sign of kindness (if we assume that he doesn’t believe justice is completely irrelevant). It is simply in their self interest to gain the territory (as they assume they will) without invasion - which if justice is important, may be practical, but not good.
 * The fact that the Athenians fail to convince the Melians, particularly following a dialogue could be a significant factor, suggesting that people fight even against their own interests due to other forces that cannot entirely be ruled out of international relations, such as honor. For more detail on this idea, see my discussion topic.
 * Given that Thucydides was exiled from Athens, some sympathy towards the Melians could be inferred from his circumstances...?
 * **Based on Thucydides' account of the dispute between the Melians and Athenians, what role, if any, does justice play in determining a state's foreign policy? Explain and assess the arguments of the Melians and the Athenians. (Taken from POLS/PHIL 2005 exam paper)**

The Athenians offer a sharp dose of true realism **Why is this "realistic?" 1216616265**: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. The Athenians argue that the Spartans also recognise this argument, and that they will not assist the weak Melians if doing so will disadvantage Sparta. This is an example of Sparta’s disregard for justice in an international-like sphere **It seems more like an example of Athens' disregard for justice - though perhaps something else is meant by this sentence1216616265**. It is evident that there is a difference in approach to the idea of justice when put in an inside/outside context. **Yes, but is this what Thucydides //shows// 1216616265** Thucydides I think believes that war does corrupt people and individuals because war has limits of justice and the pursuit for power and intrests are pushed towards war. War is part of Athenian life, to successed and progress war has to take its place. Thus showing war does corrupt people to believe they need war to fight for their own interests and power. **Unclear - needs further explanation 1216616265**
 * **Is Thucydides a realist? What can we say about Thucydides' own position from the text?**
 * **Does Thucydides show that war corrupts peoples and individuals?**