Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War

Història de la Guerra del Peloponès #1

by Thucydides, Loeb Classical Library

A definitive and refreshingly readable new translation of Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, paired with a brilliant introduction on how to read and understand Thucydides.

Thucydides called his work a "possession for all time," and his History of the Peloponnesian War has been essential reading for generals and politicians for centuries.

Robin Waterfield's translation of Thucydides's sweeping narrative vividly depicts the events of the war between Athens and Sparta that began in 431 BCE and would continue until 404, a conflict that embroiled not only mainland Greece but Greek states from the eastern Mediterranean and as far west as Italy and Sicily. The only extant contemporary narrative of this conflict, Thucydides's History brims with military, moral, and political reflections, offering critical commentary on challenges that still dominate our world today, from the strife of civil war to the devastation of widespread plague to the nature of political power.

Thucydides died before completing the account-it ends in 410-but his legacy is timeless. One of the great masterpieces of classical Greece, The History of the Peloponnesian War offers an incisive and timely window into the conflicts of the past.

Genres: History, Classics, Nonfiction, Ancient History, War, Politics, Greece

Hardcover

First published January 1, 412

About the author

Thucydides (c. 460 B.C. – c. 400 B.C.) (Greek Θουκυδίδης ) was an Athenian historian and general. His History of the Peloponnesian War recounts the fifth-century BC war between Sparta and Athens until the year 411 BC. Thucydides has been dubbed the father of "scientific history" by those who accept his claims to have applied strict standards of impartiality and evidence-gathering and analysis of cause and effect, without reference to intervention by the gods, as outlined in his introduction to his work.
He also has been called the father of the school of political realism, which views the political behavior of individuals and the subsequent outcomes of relations between states as ultimately mediated by, and constructed upon, fear and self-interest. His text is still studied at universities and military colleges worldwide. The Melian dialogue is regarded as a seminal text of international relations theory, while his version of Pericles' Funeral Oration is widely studied by political theorists, historians, and students of the classics.
More generally, Thucydides developed an understanding of human nature to explain behavior in such crises as plagues, massacres, and wars.

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

Towards the end of this book I had a flashback of watching an episode of Mastermind in the 80s, the contestant had chosen the Spartan military as their specialist subject was asked being asked by Magnus Magnusson, the Icelandic Viking who swooped down from the north to Britain as a child to become a TV quiz host, why the Spartans had stopped their campaign on one particular occasion and gone home. The correct answer was that this was in response to an earthquake. Judging by Thucydides' history that could have been a lucky guess. The best way to maintain a reputation as fierce-some warriors is not to fight, but to be frightening, and the Spartans seem to have displayed a rare skill in finding reasons in the shape of a sacrificed animal's liver or a passing earthquake or a religious festival for either staying home or returning there.

I found Thucydides difficult to start the translation might have been an issue but increasingly intriguing. His history is a book that can be reread, studied, attention paid to each word as much because of what he doesn't say and how he says what he does.

It is an ambitious book in several ways. Thucydides was writing after Herodotus and his epic on the Persian war but opens by telling us that this war was "more worthy of of relation than any that had preceded it...the greatest movement yet known in history" (p1). Secondly Thucydides makes great claims for his precision and accuracy implicitly a dig here at Herodotus and his giant gold gathering ants or the baby Cyrus lowered in a basket into a river to be brought up by step parents (but you've heard that story before). Both claims are dubious, the first has become a common place, people invariably want to claim that the story they want to tell is about the biggest, most impressive, amazing, far-reaching, and influential story ever in the history of history and they can't all be right,the other requires the reader's trust in Thucydides. He has decided what to trust as reliable information and what to include in his history. While he mentions a couple of times comparing accounts he never gives any clue as to whose accounts he is comparing or indeed when. The composition of the book is unclear, some parts seem more complete than others. Parts of the book were presumably being written or revised decades after the events and since he doesn't reveal his sources there are untold layers of interpretation between the pages. While with Herodotus I had more of a feeling that I knew where I was in terms of what source materials were going into the finished work apparently everything and anything (and the giant gold gathering ants are fun)

Thucydides does have some clear biases. He is fan of Pericles, he can live with Athenian democracy but doesn't seem to be enthusiastic about it, he doesn't like Cleon and while he lived among the Peloponnesians after his exile seems to find the Athenians a superior bunch in terms of their élan.

Remarkably given his stress on accuracy and reliability he tells us that he makes up the speeches that he has people say With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said (p.11) . About mid way through I wondered if the speeches were a key, it was unhelpful to think of this a history, better to frame it in my imagination as a drama. In which case this is a tale about hubris. The pride of Athens that came before its fall.

Thucydides tells a very familiar story of Machtpolitik. Athens through fighting off the Persians obtains an Empire. Sparta comes to fear Athenian power and is motivated by that to fight Athens. Pericles has a wise policy of avoiding battle but this is undone, first by his death but then by the ambition of reckless, feckless and self serving politicians as I said two thousand plus years later virtually everything in Thucydides is deeply familiar in Thucydidies' world there was in Pericles one of a unique type: thoughtful, farseeing and good looking in a helmet . At the same time in speeches a reoccurring criticism of Athens is its arrogance. Given the opportunity, the subject parts of its empire will break away. Athens can compel the rebels to obedience, but only for as long as its politicians are able to respect the foundations of Athenian power. Some have read this as Thucydides believing that might is right and that a state should use power directly in pursuit of its own ends, simply taking what it wants. I'm not so sure, in the context of the history that isn't an approach that works out well for Athens they lose the war . Nor is Thucydides direct, the political attitudes are expressed in speeches (made up to reflect what he felt was demanded of the speaker at the time) and are typically paired - one person arguing for a position, the other arguing against it. This is a cleaned up, parred down, staged account of a decision making process played out in the theatre of public assemblies that runs counter to what he describes happening in book eight where we have political clubs in Crawley's expression, which sound a bit too Jacobin to my ears, I can imagine that Thucydides was referring to something quite different , rumour and discussion between small groups of people going on in the aftermath of Athenian defeat in Sicily and the seizure of power by a Junta in Athens itself.

This is intriguing, there is a sense of purpose beyond a historical inquiry into the twenty-sevenish year war between Sparta, Athens, and their allies that is never quite spelled out but hangs elusive over the whole work. The influence is clear in Livy's The War with Hannibal there is the same assertion of the epic and unique scope of the conflict every war in recorded history now has to be bigger and even more important than the preceding on down to the Cod War which was the mightiest struggle of all time, waiting only for the emergence of its chronicler, the same use of paired speeches to stage a policy debate, the same use of a cart to block a gate to allow one side to gain entry to an enemy town - which made me wonder if Livy (or his sources) were reusing Thucydides or if Hannibal & co were themselves keen readers and took their tactical ideas from history or if some plans are just so basic that they are unwittingly repeated. Perhaps this is why the long siege of Syracuse gets so much attention in Livy - here victorious Rome clearly surpassed Athens.

This was a very intimate conflict, when Athens lost in the region of five thousand of its citizens killed or captured in Sicily, this was about one in eight of its entire citizen population which is to say adult men born to Athenian parents. It was fought at close quarters, the bitter rivalry between Thebes and Potidaea is between a town and a village a couple of miles apart but will eventually end in the execution of every man left to defend Potidaea after a lengthy siege most of the population were evacuated taking refuge in Athens leaving a contingent of men to fight and a force of women to bake their bread. Eventually they surrender to the Spartans agreeing to be judged by them, the Spartans ask each man one question: "what service did you render Sparta during the siege" naturally given their answers each man is then put to death .

I was then a little taken aback by Thucydides treatment of the Corcyrean Revolution. For him this outbreak of inter-communal violence seemed particularly horrific yet from an outsiders perspective it just seemed to be the application of a similar degree of violence within a community as they were prepared to visit upon a neighbouring community: kill the men and sell the women and children into slavery - this was the time when Euripides' Trojan Women was first performed, the resonance must have been inescapable he also writes that "Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them" (p170), while a general 'the world is going to hell in a hand basket' meditation it is also an observation that remains contemporary, as does much of his description of how the great powers move among smaller states and decision making is open to manipulation but also to the logic of events during the war Aristophanes' play in which the women of Athens go on strike, refusing to have sex with their husbands until they do the sensible thing and make peace with the Spartans, was performed. Aristophanes proposes an act of solidarity to achieve political ends but often what we see in Thucydides is political atomisation, most intensely in book eight. People are isolated, alone with their feelings, fearful, but unable to find reassurance except through violence - or maybe I'm reading this too much in the spirit of Hobbes

Fear plays its part in the revolution in Corcyra too. Those who have power fear those who are excluded from it not only class struggle but apparently also generational struggle as here fathers fought sons, mothers and daughters at least were left out of it at first , masters fear their slaves, Sparta fears Athens. Yet this isn't entirely convincing. It doesn't make a lot of sense that Sparta's conduct of the war until the first truce is so limited and so doesn't seem particularly fear driven - invading Attica each summer (providing the omens were favourable and there were no earthquakes or festivals). This is another level at which Thucydides is intriguing, fear can be the general psychology background of a society yet the practical application of policy is capable of a range of nuance. One of the Spartan kings (they had two at any one time) Agis seems to be the key figure here. Through the speeches we get an illusion of being close to the mind of a character, yet the information that Thucydides does share with us holds us at arms length too, and much is obscure. Is there enough in Thucydides' description to imagine a power struggle between the king and the ephor - the senior magistrate who speaks in favour of immediate war with Athens, that is realised in Agis' conduct of the war? Is the debate expressed to show how politicians manoeuvre with human emotion to win personal advantage?

Then again Thucydides is writing from hindsight. In his remarks on Pericles and poor decisions made after his death he refers to the eventual ending of the war (pp107-109), while at the time his fellow citizens did not enjoy quite the same advantage of perspective. My feeling was that Thucydides came close to blaming the citizens for being capable of being manipulated by others, but perhaps I was reading too much into him.

If you are tempted to dip your toes in and test the waters of Thucydides I'd suggest starting with the Sicilian expedition. It comes relatively late in the war but is a good narrative block with swings of fortune and the sad picture of Nicias, the commander of the Athenians on the verge of battle with the Syracusians, appalled by the position of affairs, realising the greatness and the nearness of the danger...and thinking, as men are apt to think in great crises, that when all has been done they have still something to do, and when all has been said that they have not yet said enough, again called on the captains one by one, addressing each by his father's name and by his own... (p399)




Also of interest two new books on Thucydides' history:
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/a...
I was also struck by how Alcibiades but also before him Themistocles after exile from Athens gave advice to the enemies of Athens in total contrast to the kind of patriotism expressed in the Roman story of Coriolanus who turned against Rome until his mother told him off, but then I suppose the desire to avoid the behaviour of an Alcibiades might well be precisely why the Romans had the story of Coriolanus
perhaps my memory serves me wrong but this seems to be a history in which women are silent appearing only to bake bread or be sold into slavery. The interesting thing about this is how this means that the family relationships between political figures (not to mention the brazen heterosexuality of Pericles) completely fall by the wayside. This includes Thucydides' own family background, which if as speculated did include a relationship with Thracian royalty would explain his own role in events better than his silence. It is another point of contrast with Herodotus in which the Queen of the Massagetae gets to have the last word with Cyrus the great although admittedly she does have to have him decapitated first.


The Edition and the Translation
I bought while I was still at school. Then I'd stop off on the way home and root about boar like in a second hand book shop and exchanged an entire one and a half UK pounds for this small, old, Everyman pocket sized edition. True to my on going austerity reading project as inspired by the book Howards End Is on the Landing A Year of Reading from Home which true to my project I haven't read I decided to finally read it all the way through.

The edition uses the 1876 Richard Crawley translation I assume that since then new manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts may well have been found in Egypt so more recent translations may be based on better editions of the text, perhaps stylish in its day but some of the word choice introduces its own distance between the original and the contemporary reader for instance his use of the term capital (ie in terms of finance rather than centre of government), heavy infantry for hoplite (which I was ok with until I remembered my paternal Grandfather served in a light infantry regiment), with 'first rate' and 'cruiser' used to describe the ships. The more you are familiar with the mid Victorian British military the clearer you'll find Crawley's account of the Peloponnesian war. The problem for me was that this introduces doubt as to what else is obscured through his word choice and AC's recommendation in a comment on one of my status updates is to go for the Rex Warner translation available in Penguin if, gentle reader, you are tempted to give Thucydides a go in English.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

What I love about the best ancient Greek literature is how startlingly modern it could be. This is particularly true of Euripides (whom I regard as a 21st century dramatist) and The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. The accounts of the Corcycran revolution, the so-called Melian Dialogue (in which Athens shows itself to be somewhat less enlightened than reputed), and the utter disaster of the Sicilian Expedition can just as easily be taking place now in remote parts of the world.

The Peloponnesian War even had its own Neocon in Alcibiades. He was largely responsible for Athens undertaking the Sicilian Expedition, only to be called back by the Athenian leadership for sacrilege. Thereupon, he made his escape at Thurii, went over to the Spartans, where he gave them excellent advice in combating the Athenians. Then, when the Spartans began to suspect him, he went over to Tissaphernes, the Persian Governor of Asia Minor. (Later still, he returned to Athens.)

I recommend the Rex Warner translation but urge readers to have a copy of The Landmark Thucydides at hand for its numerous and excellent maps, if not for its somewhat archaic translation by Richard Crawley.

[Murray ᛘᚢᛦᛦᛅᛁ · Rating 5 out of 5]

The 27-year war fought between Sparta and Athens.

🏺🏺I was always on Athens’ side - they had poetry, philosophy, theater, sculpture and art; Sparta just had the arts of killing and enslaving. Athens had their slaves too, though nothing like Sparta had (more slaves than citizens).

Athens also yearned to create a state with more democracy and more personal autonomy and freedoms. Sparta just wanted the freedom to enslave more.

(That was the only reason they fought at Thermopylae. Forget all the Hollywood and pop cult propaganda like 300. They weren’t fighting for the freedom of Greece. They only fought because their slave state was in jeopardy.)

Athens more than held their own in this prolonged conflict. What defeated them in the end was not Spartan military prowess. It was disease.

🏺🏺An awesome volume from the ancient world, a world and its consequences that remains forever with us.

[Marc Lamot]

Let's be honest, reading Thucydides is a tough task, especially when compared to his counterpart (and slightly earlier-living) Herodotus. I am referring to the content he presents, not even his style, which I am told is particularly difficult in Ancient Greek. No, with Thucydides there are no exotic stories, no ethnographic descriptions, no dramatically embellished confrontations. Instead, we get the highly detailed, ultra-edited chronological account of the war between Sparta and Athens, roughly from 431 to 411 BCE (ending 7 years before the real end of the conflict), a war that was sometimes fought on several fronts simultaneously, covering a very wide area.

In that respect, this Landmark edition certainly comes in handy: the many maps and explanatory notes for the mentioned places, and the brief summary of each paragraph in the margin, are an absolute asset for following Thucydides' argument closely. Sometimes there is a bit too much extra information, especially geographically, and a little more substantive commentary would have been more appropriate. That is only partially compensated for by the essays included after the translation, as these are rather factual, whereas I had expected something more regarding Thucydides' methodology. When I read that the included translation was Richard Crawley's from 1874, I was quite shocked. But I understand that with such a rather dry text, not much literary variation is possible, and the age of the translation is not an insurmountable obstacle.

Perhaps it is worth adding some nuance to my emphasis on the dullness of the text. Naturally, there is inevitably a certain literary embellishment. Just look at the more than 140 speeches that Thucydides included, which – in the context of historical explanation – are naturally constructed with a certain literary flair (not all of them, as there are also a few purely military ones among them). And certainly towards the end of his book, Thucydides seems to increasingly take a dramatic turn; I refer to the Athenian expedition in Sicily, which ended fatally, where he clearly adds personal touches and heavily emphasizes the tragic outcome through his arrangement of the material.

There is no debate that this text, despite its rather dry character, is an exceptionally rich document that offers insight into the inherent (unpredictable) nature of wars, the complex nature of human psychology in times of conflict, the enormous importance of the power factor in human relations, the unique functioning of Athenian democracy, and so much more. But, in regard to reading pleasure: nope, this ain't the one.

For the specific historiographical aspects of Thucydides' work: see my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....

[Hadrian · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Oh God, Not the Peloponnesian War Again", lamented an article in Foreign Policy. To be honest, I understand where the author is coming from. Besides the fact that there is so much more of history to learn from and read about, Thucydides has been excerpted and misinterpreted almost to meaninglessness. Sentences, summaries, and single anecdotes from his book have been used as the basis for predictions on great power politics and the fate of China and the United States, like white noise over an actual discussion. I don't need to go over the fine detail about how the United States is different from Athens and China is different from Sparta.

Thucydides does not always help his own case. His prose style is dense and demands close attention; he recites distant place names and generals that can bewilder a casual reader. He is often excerpted, which helps to show the points of his narrative brilliance but also begets the risk of misinterpretation. A student who only reads to the sudden end of the text and then nothing else might overthink about how Sparta overtook Athens - but not know that Thebes would soon prove that Sparta was not invincible, or that Persia loomed over them both, or that Alexander the Great would soon fall upon them all like a lightning bolt or a tornado.

For all that Thucydides was talked about and debated made me realize how much I had forgotten, and so I decided to pick up this edition to reread him and recover some of what I had lost. This edition was better than I had hoped. The text is an older translation, but really there is no effort spared to guide the reader. This massive volume has the text, but a running banner at the top with the year, margins along the side summarizing and dating the events, references to other chapters in the text, eleven appendices on everything from dialects to naval warfare, dozens of maps, and a table in the back comparing events across different theatres of the war. It is an excellent teaching aid, and the rewards of this once inaccessible book are held out for the patient reader to grasp.

Thucydides' telling of the war is filled with battles, rituals, and so many literary speeches. He is a skeptic of Athenian democracy, almost in awe of certain figures like Pericles, and his is a brutish story of power politics, fear, and suspicion. Generals mak1e ruinous mistakes, political leaders talk their way in and out of trouble. There is talk of honor amid cold self-interest. There is stunning cruelty, and it becomes almost routine. It is a small, almost familiar setting - the loss of a few hundred or a thousand is a catastrophe, and the Peloponnesus itself is just smaller than New Jersey. Other people have summarized it better here, so I won't go into the details for the sake of discovering them for yourself. This is an excellent place to do it.

[Σωτήρης Αδαμαρέτσος · Rating 5 out of 5]

Όποιος αποφασίσει να διαβάσει, θα του πρότεινα την παρούσα έκδοση σε μεταφραστή του διπλωμάτη και συγγραφέα Αγγέλου Βλαχου. Παραμένει για μένα αξεπέραστη και προέρχεται από έναν διπλωμάτη που είχε διαβάσει και ασχολήθηκε με τον Θουκυδίδη και την αρχαιότητα όλη του τη ζωή.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

It has been said that Earthling civilization, so far, has created ten thousand wars, but only three intelligent commentaries on war—the commentaries of Thucydides, of Julius Caesar and of Winston Niles Rutherfoord.

—Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan

Some years ago, I waded through the Barnes & Noble edition of Herodotus’ Histories. It was one of the most painful reading experiences of my life. I blame 95% of this on the translator (G.C. Macaulay), who broke new ground in dry, prolix, knotty prose. The final result was to make Herodotus’ narrative—already full to the brim with digressions and asides—into a tangled mess that gave me a never-ending headache.

However, Donald Lateiner’s introduction to that edition was so good that I was left wanting to read more of him. So when I found out that the B & N edition of Thucydides’ famous history also featured an introduction by that scholar, I picked up a copy. But the memory of the pain wrought by Herodotus still burned. It took a few years before I could bring myself to give Greek history another go. But I’m glad I did.

In many ways, Thucydides is the polar opposite of Herodotus. Whereas the latter is relaxed and easygoing, Thucydides is forceful and dogmatic. Herodotus is more than willing to report an entertaining anecdote, to indulge in an aside, or to report multiple occurrences of the same event. Thucydides, by contrast, is always on topic, never indulgent. From the first few sentences, one is aware that he is cutting down and refining his material with ruthless precision. Every fact that makes it to the page has been culled from an ocean of information; every sentence has been written and re-written dozens of times.

The merits of Thucydides are twofold. The most obvious is that he virtually invented modern history—concentrating on political and military developments, and keeping scrupulously to verifiable facts. The other is his rhetorical prowess. From what I’ve been told, his Greek prose was cutting-edge. There is only the faintest echo of this quality in Crawley’s translation (which I still liked, by the way). Nevertheless, the History is at times as gripping as any good novel. The speeches (however closely they adhered to actual fact) are without exception masterpieces—both of drama and of political analysis. The battles, the intrigues, the plots, the strategies, the movements of men and ships—all come alive in Thucydides’ terse, muscular writing.

The Greeks were truly remarkable. In mathematics, Euclid was the standard textbook for over two millennia; in philosophy, Plato and Aristotle still cast their long shadows over the present-day; in literature, there are few authors whose influence can compare with Homer, Sophocles, or Aristophanes. And now we must add Thucydides to their ranks of geniuses. The man managed to set the stage for an entire field of enquiry, and do so with a book that remains both readable and relevant after over two thousand years. If America suffers the same fate as Athens, I at least hope we leave behind half as many great books

[Alcyone]

Favorite quote:
"The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest, but if it is judged worthy by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content.
In fine I have written my work not as an essay with which to win the applause of the moment but as a possession for all time." -Thucydides

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you ever wanted to tackle Thucydides, this is the way to do it. It's beautifully laid out, with helpful maps and other material. The reading experience is profoundly moving, not really for the style but for the sheer weight of human folly on display. This should be required reading for politicians of all stripes.

[Cleo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thucydides account of the war between Sparta and Athens falls just after the events recounted in Herodotus’ The Histories. Athens, high on her victory over the very powerful Xerxes, king of Persia, during the Persian Wars, is feeling rather self-important and she appears to be rushing around with her forces, conquering states here and subduing enemies there. And while Athens becomes more powerful, the Lacedaemonians of Sparta are left to conduct their somewhat mundane and traditional existence. But Athens’ power begins to worry them and while they were allies during the Persian Wars, this brotherhood appears to be heading towards a separation that could prove bloody as well as costly.

Thucydides, indeed, gives a fascinating account of a mega-war between two superior powers that were at the height of their military powers, a war that would not only engulf their nations, but many of the city-states surrounding them and would even spread to Italy with the disastrous Sicilian expedition launched by Athens. At first, the reader perhaps can sympathize that Athens might want to expand her influence or that Sparta might want to assert herself for balance, but soon the war grows like a cancer wherever it touches, prompting Thucydides to make an insightful observation:

“Think, too of the great part that is played by the unpredictable in war: think of it now, before you are actually committed to war. The longer a war lasts, the more things tend to depend on accidents. Neither you nor we can see into them: we have to abide their outcome in the dark. And when peole are entering upon a war they do things the wrong way round. Action comes first, and it is only when they have already suffered that they begin to think.”

How right he was! One goes into a war with laudable intentions, but soon enough greed and power and hegemony begins to infect the general purpose and beyond anyone’s control the conflict becomes a nine-headed hydra.

After reading Herodotus, Thucydides’ narrative at first felt dry and sparse. It definitely took determination and some plodding through a literary desert to keep going, but the reward was unexpected and quite amazing. The fact that Thucydides did not colour the actions of others with his own palate (or at least, very little) allowed these actions and decisions to stand out in stark contrast and emphasized the selfless bravery, the strategic plotting, the blind stubbornness of leaders, the diplomatic brilliance, the plain stupidity of many, and the various other exploits of all those involved in this lengthy and tragic war.

Probably 4.5 stars due to Thucydides dry narrative but an awesome read. Political stupidity has not changed.

[Y · Rating 5 out of 5]

Courage in the face of reality ultimately distinguishes such natures as Thucydides and Plato: Plato is a coward in the face of reality--consequently he flees into the ideal; Thucydides has himself under control--consequently he retains control over things. ------Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first read Thucydides in college, using Rex Warner's translation in the Penguin edition. As a frosh with little background in ancient history and political science, I didn't have the proper perspective to realize Th.'s critical place in western historiography and political thought. As a junior, I re-read Th., this time in a course on ancient historians. At that point, having had modest exposure to Hobbes, Machiavelli, Burke, Clausewitz and the like, I was better equipped to appreciate Th.'s method--particularly his analyses in the vein of what we'd call "realism" today. Last year I tackled Th. again, this time in Strassler's amazing Landmark edition, and I am grateful that it was available for my third go at probably the most difficult classical author I've run into.

I won't go into details on Th. himself--I'm not a historian and anything I say expounding on how great he was, etc. will of course come off as amateurish and pointless. I will go into how much I admire the product of Strassler's labor of love (he's an unaffiliated scholar) in producing the Landmark edition. First of all, the translation is refreshingly readable and doesn't have the relative stuffiness of an early 20th-century Oxbridge rendering (which, er, I actually rather enjoy every now and then :-)). Second, the marginal timelines, the extensive but not suffocating footnotes, and maps (all carefully placed next to the relevant narrative) make it unnecessary for the reader to flip pages and lose the flow of the story. Furthermore, its appendices are a treasure trove of ancillary information: there is background information on the Athenian polis and imperial administration and the corresponding systems on the Peloponnesian side; discussions of the more technical aspects of ancient warfare; and pages on other topics such as the currency, religion and ethnic groups of the Greeks, each written by a specialist.

In summary, I have nothing but good things to say about this edition--I only wish I'd been able to use it as an undergraduate. I also note that Strassler has just come out with a similar edition of Herodotus. Can't wait to check that one out...

[Sense of History]

This review focuses primarily on the historiographical aspects of the work of Thucydides (second half of the 5th century BCE). For certainly for classical historiography in 19th-century Europe, he was for a long time the benchmark and reference point for impartial narrative history writing, to put it in the words of Leopold von Ranke: “wie es eigentlich gewesen…” (“as it really has been”). Even in our time, he still finds admirers, as I gathered from the work of the French classicist Jacqueline de Romilly (La construction de la vérité chez Thucydides).

Thucydides explicitly asserted that he wanted to present the truth and nothing but the truth, and that – unlike his predecessors – he had indeed achieved it: “we can rest satisfied with having proceeded upon the clearest data, and having arrived at conclusions as exact as can be expected in matters of such antiquity.” In this quote, “the clearest data” is of great importance. For that was his epistemological premise: if only you can ascertain the facts exactly, then you can establish correct connections, create the perfect reconstruction, and finally draw the right conclusions from it. That sounds very logical to our minds that are still heavily marked by positivism. However, there are some snags, as becomes apparent from an analysis of Thucydides' work.

To begin with, regarding the gathering of facts: there is no doubt that Thucydides made great efforts to collect as many testimonies and documents as possible. Certainly, after spending a long period in exile in 421 BCE (in northern Greece), he would have had the time and opportunity to do so. However, ultimately, this would always have been merely a selection of all potentially available sources. It would have been impossible for him to speak with all the key players, visit all relevant locations, and consult all important documents (insofar as they existed). Especially since Greece at that time was a motley patchwork of city-states deeply attached to their own identity, which, moreover, were constantly at war with one another.

When we are considering “the correct connections” from the quote, we naturally think of what we now call ‘causality’. It is without dispute Thucydides’ great merit that he—perhaps deliberately—presented a secular version of the course of the war. The religious is certainly present in his work, in the form of oracles for example, but not causally. Thus, there are no divine intentions or interventions as was (indirectly) still the case with Herodotus. For Thucydides, history was clearly a human construct, and in that sense, he can be considered absolutely modern. His causality is, however, very person-oriented, and in that sense, psychological factors absolutely carry significant weight: bravery, sense of responsibility, patriotic love, envy, fear, jealousy, lust for power, vindictiveness, calculation, and so on are the elements that were decisive for him in the actions of war and drove the chain of events. These are elements that were also emphasized in the middle of the last century in the so-called Realistic school of geo-diplomacy (Henry Kissinger, for example, relied very explicitly on Thucydides).

At the level of reconstruction, we inevitably arrive at the narrative aspects that have attracted so much attention in recent decades in the slipstream of postmodernism (“the narrative turn”). And here we notice that Thucydides really does his best to do justice to the complexity of the war situation (the various parties involved, the different fronts, etc). But here, too, he inevitably had to make a choice and connect simultaneous developments. It is especially in this area that, in my opinion, the perspectival nature of his reconstruction is most evident. To name just one example: Thucydides himself served briefly as strategos, military commander of a part of the Athenian fleet, and because he could not prevent his Spartan counterpart Brasidas from capturing a city in northern Greece, he was deposed and banished. It is almost certain that the particularly positive portrait Thucydides paints of Brasidas and his strategic genius is, in part, a form of self-justification post factum. And so there are quite a few other elements to mention where Thucydides took the path of opinion and was not nearly as impartial as he pretended to be (his admiration for Pericles and Nicias, for example, and his outspoken dislike of Alcibiades).

We now arrive at the final aspect: drawing conclusions. Jacqueline de Romilly (to whom I referred earlier) considers this one of Thucydides' most important merits: by starting from the concrete and unique, and—by his own account—recording that unambiguously and objectively, he moved toward the general and universal in human nature, with statements (the so-called “gnomai”) from which lessons could be drawn for future generations, and through which Thucydides’ ambition to produce a work for eternity (“ktèma es aiesi”) was realized. In general, this is certainly correct, but it stands or falls with that premise: the recording of the correct facts and the correct connections, and strict impartiality. And that is inevitably where the problem lies: we now know that this simply is an impossible task.

In this context, I would like to return to Herodotus once more: in many respects, he was certainly less modern than Thucydides, and not only because of the role of the gods in his historical account. However, he compensated for this by giving us insight into how he constructed his story and the sources on which he based it; where necessary, Herodotus even provided different versions, with or without his own judgment. That testifies to a striking insight into the precarious nature of historical information and the possibility of different perspectives. Not so with Thucydides: we simply get his version of the facts, without source attribution and without reservation; “The truth and nothing but the truth.” And that is truly no longer of (our) time. For those who still need a conclusive argument: in Thucydides’ historical narrative, only ‘free’ men appear, no women, and rarely (and then only indirectly) slaves. That says enough about the perspectival nature of his work.

It has long been customary to engage in Thucydides-bashing, and I certainly do not wish to fall into the same trap. For “The Peloponnesian War” remains an impressive work (however tough to read), from which much can be learned. But as a historical account, it must inevitably be approached with the necessary critical sense.

For a general review on the Landmark-edition I read: see the review in my general account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....

[Darwin8u · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are going to read Thucydides, the Landmark version is the best place to start. I read this after I became a fan of Strassler's The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories. For me, there is not much better than Thucydides' speeches. "The Funeral Oration of Pericles", "Diodotus to the Athenian Ecclesia", "Demosthenes to his troops at Pylos" & "Nicias before the last sea fight" are all some of the most interesting, moving and inspiring speeches and harangues EVER written.

Thucydides' HOPW (Landmark edition) is filled with enough maps, appendices, marginal notes and summaries that Strassler well-girds the modern student of the Peloponnesian war for the challenge that is Thucydides. Strassler (and his team) has updated and improved the Crawley translation (which is a gem). This book is a must for students of the classics, politics, history and war. Hell, even if you are just interested in a good story, Thucydides tells a good one. This is an amazing and beautiful piece of history.

[Joaco · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is impossible to review but I still wanted to give my opinion on this as I try to do with every outstanding book I come across. I mean impossible because this book is the cornerstone for different disciplines, mainly History and International Relations. This is no surprise as Thucydides was intending to provide a historic account of the greatest war of his time, the war between Sparta and Athens while not focusing on any superstitious beliefs. Being the first historian, he set about trying to understand this great powers struggle over control of the Greek world paying no attention to prophecies (unless it impacted the actions of the actors, as it usually did with Sparta).

Having framed the book on its actual importance, I am left with my impressions. I had assumed the book was going to be a boring account of ship and hoplite numbers per battle as well as one or two mentions to Greek commanders. Obviously, I had completely underestimated Thucydides' skills as well as the great job the translators have done since its time of publication (I guess we owe Hobbes the bulk of it back on the 17th century). The book does have that, but it is so much more.

Thucydides was an important Athenian figure during this conflict. He was a general while one of the greatest Spartan commanders -Brasidas- was fighting in Thrace and he lived some time on Sparta as well after being exiled by the Athenians. This allowed him to provide insight on the conflict while not being completely one sided. Additionally, his involvement in the everyday struggle the leaders had, allowed him to provide a unique account on human nature of his time. The book immerses you in this conflict in a way that I thought impossible to do. You will hear the speeches of the Athenian politicians; you will feel the disgust Thucydides had when writing about the demagogue Cleon, as well as Cleon exploits of his fame and good fortune against the Spartans on Sphacteria; you will smell the sea, sweat, and tears of the Athenians fighting for their survival on Syracuse; all this embedded on a page turning narrative where diplomacy, treason, political maneuvers, and personal traits of different leaders shaped the world.

This is an excellent book that anyone interested in the ancient Hellenic world must read.

[Smiley · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

Finally I could finish reading this book after many intervals of being content with what I knew, I didn’t claim I enjoyed all of eight-book Thucydides’s account. Compared to the other history classic of similar stature, Herodotus’s “The Histories” translated by Aubrey de Selincourt, I think, is more enjoyable and impressive regarding the world as viewed by the Greek historian in the fifth century B.C. Contrastively in a smaller scale, Thucydides has ambitiously depicted the twenty-seven year conflicts between Athens and Sparta with innumerable sieges, commanders, strategies and so on till we simply can’t help getting confused, praying when each book would ever end.

The reason why I decided to read it is that many years ago I read some excerpts of Pericles’ funeral oration somewhere and longed to read it in full. Definitely one of the greatest orators in history, he has since impressed posterity to the extent that few can surpass him as we read from his 7.5-page oration (nos. 35-46). It’s a bit lengthy, I think, for those who would read him for the first time; therefore, the following three extracts should suffice in the meantime.

First, his opening statement:
Many of those who have spoken here in the past have praised the institution of this speech at the close of our ceremony. It seemed to them a mark of honour to our soldiers who have fallen in war that a speech should be made over them. I do not agree. These men have shown themselves valiant in action, and it would be enough, I think, for their glories to be proclaimed in action, as you have just seen it done at this funeral organized by the state. Our belief in the courage and manliness of so many should not be hazarded on the goodness or badness of one man’s speech. … (p. 144)

Then, in praise of those fallen soldiers:
This, then, is the kind of city for which these men, who could not bear the thought of losing her, nobly fought and nobly died. It is only natural that every one of us who survive them should be willing to undergo hardships in her service. And it was for this reason that I have spoken at such length about our city, because I wanted to make it clear that for us there is more at stake than there is for others who lack our advantages; also I wanted my words of praise for the dead to be set in the bright light of evidence. And now the most important of these words has been spoken. I have sung the praise of our city; but it was the courage and gallantry of these men, and of people like them, which made her splendid. … (p. 148)

Finally, in conclusion:
… I have now, as the law demanded, said what I had to say. For the time being our offerings to the dead have been made, and for the future their children will be supported at the public expense by the city, until they come of age. This is the crown and prize which she offers, both to the dead and to their children, for the ordeals which they have faced. Where the rewards of valour are the greatest, there you will find also the best and bravest spirits among the people. And now, when you have mourned for your dear ones, you must depart. (p. 151)

In brief, I think reading this book should inform and inspire its readers on the futility in terms of atrocities of war, being those ancient, medieval, premodern or modern ones till we wonder if there is really peace to all humankind and when.

[Meem Arafat Manab · Rating 5 out of 5]

যুদ্ধের একপাশে অষ্টাদশ শতকের ব্রিটিশ রাজ, যে আপনার রাজরাজড়াদের পগারপার করে দিয়ে এরপর আপনাকে শেখাবে গণতন্ত্র, আপনাকে করবে এথেনীয় কায়দায় শিক্ষিত, বিনিময়ে নেবে কর, আর অন্যদিকে আছে বিংশ শতকের মার্কিনী সাম্রাজ্য, যার কাজ করও নেয়া না, আপনাকে গণতন্ত্র খিলানোও না, শুধু জায়গায় জায়গায় মনঃপূত পুতুল নবাব বসানো। কে জেতে এই যুদ্ধে, বিলেত না মার্কিন? অ্যাথেন্স না স্পার্টা? এই কথা জানানোর আগেই এই বই শেষ হয়ে যায়, শেষদিকের মাঝপথে, আচমকা।

কিন্তু যতক্ষণ চলে, চলে ফুল গিয়ারে। ম্যাপ দেখতে দেখতে আপনি তড়তড় করে সামনের দিকে আগায়ে যাবেন, আর আবিষ্কার করবেন, এইটুক একটা জায়গার মধ্যে পৃথিবীর সব দেশ সেঁধিয়ে বসে আছে, ছোটো ছোটো শহর, আর তাদের নিজেদের মধ্যে যুদ্ধ যুদ্ধ খেলা, শুধু কি খেলা, ট্র্যাজেডিও, দুর্ভিক্ষ আছে, আছে বারবার যুদ্ধে বাঁক বদল, আছে অগণিত জোট নিজেদের ভেতর। একটু বড়, পড়তে পড়তে এক পর্যায়ে বইটারে জীবনের চেয়ে দুই কাঠি বড় মনে হয়, সত্য। লেখক সেই যুগে এই ঢাউস বই কী করে লিখলেন জানি না, কোত্থেকে এতো তথ্য পেলেন না জানা গেলেও তার মধ্যে একটা সাংবাদিকসুলভ বলে যাওয়া আছে, আবার বেশ একটা ভেঙে দেখবার ক্ষমতাও আছে। আর বাড়তি পাওনায় আছে অসংখ্য ভাষণ, যেগুলি সত্যনিষ্ঠ না হোক, ভাষণের বাড়া।

শুনলাম যুদ্ধের শেষে অ্যাথেন্স হেরে যায়। স্বাভাবিক, সাম্রাজ্যবাদের দুই চেহারার মাঝে মার্কিনীরাই আগায়ে থাকবে, যদিও মানুষ মনে রাখবে ব্রিটিশ রাজরেই, স্পার্টা নিয়া বড়জোর দুই চারটা আমেরিকান স্নাইপার আর ব্ল্যাক হক ডাউন বানানো সম্ভব। সেও শুধু হলিউডে।

[Kenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

I need more stars! Thucydides is the man. In 1947, George Marshall "doubt[ed] seriously whether a man can think with full wisdom and with deep convictions regarding certain of the basic issues today" without having read this book. The parallels between the Cold War and the Peloponnesian War as T. describes it are certainly striking. My two favorite sections of this book are the civil war in Corcyra, which T. describes as representative of many civil wars going on in the Aegean at the time--and which he would not be at all surprised to learn was a pretty good description also of many 20th century internecine conflicts; and the siege of Plataea.
The sociological insight of the Corcyra section is breathtaking, as T. describes the values of a society crumbling as its citizens adapt to the demands of a war with no fronts, in which every friend might secretly be an enemy and anything is justified in the name of the faction's cause.
The siege of Plataea is, in T.'s telling, by turns exciting, inspirational, terrifying, and heart-rending. Both sides show great ingenuity in their attempts to outwit each other; there is a great escape story; and it ends with the battle of political, religious, patriotic and ethical motives as the Spartans must decide how to deal with their prisoners.
I could go on and on. The point is, read it! The "Landmark" edition with the maps and stuff is the best one.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

For over three years I was a history major at Grinnell College. In the junior year only one course requirement remained, historiography, a course taught by only one faculty member. That was fine by me until we got to Augustine's City of God which, at the time, I thought was absolutely crazy and unreadable (I've since read it). Having almost completed the requirements for a religion degree as well by then, I switched majors and graduated on schedule.

Although Augustine was unsupportable, I very much enjoyed being made to read Thukydides' History as anyone would because of how his seems so modern and objective an account.

What is interesting in this regard is how unique Thukydides is. To my knowledge, no other historian approaches what we regard as serious historical scholarship until the Enlightenment, until more than a thousand years later. Read Herodotos, Diodoros, Livy or Suetonius to see what I mean. Tell me if you can think of an exception. The only one who comes to mind is Caesar whose account of the Gallic Wars approaches history.

[Antonios Athenaeus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War is not just a chronicle of ancient battles — it’s one of the first truly analytical works of history. His style is dense and demanding, but every page rewards the reader with insight into human nature, politics, and power. What stands out most is his realism: wars are not driven by ideals, but by fear, honor, and interest.

I especially admired how Thucydides examines leadership and decision-making under pressure, showing how ambition and emotion can destroy even the greatest states. Reading it today, you can still see echoes of his ideas in modern strategy, diplomacy, and international relations.

It’s not an easy book, but it’s a masterpiece — essential for anyone who loves history, strategy, or wants to understand how civilizations rise and fall.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great story of why mankind goes to war but doesn't know how not to go to war.

[Xander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War is a fascinating and gripping account of the war between the Delian League and the Peloponnesian League, with democratic Athens and oligarchic Sparta respectively at the head of these alliances. This was a was a drawn out, brutal, thuggish and opportunistic war of Greeks against Greeks with the respective state models (democracy versus oligarchy) having nothing to do with the actual politics of the war. As Thucydides mentions in the beginning of the book, Sparta and her allies decided to wage war against Athens because of the growth of Athenian geopolitical power at the time. In this sense, the Peloponnesian war was a pre-emptive one.

Thucydides describes events as they happened year to year, summer to winter. Some reviewers on Goodreads find his choice to be problematic - I love it. He takes readers all across the theatres of war and from event to event as they happened chronologically. This helps (a lot!) to grasp the spatial and temporal dimensions of the war. It also emphasizes all the limitations and conditions of warfare in the Ancient world: the (small) scale of warfare, natural boundaries and limitations, dependencies on seasonality and geography, importance of community for survival, political tensions, the mythical foundations of 'poleis' (mostly relating to the Trojan War) etc.

Truly a masterpiece in Ancient literature. The only reason why I won't give 5 stars is the final chapter which is unfinished and unedited. This is a minor disappointment.

[Phoenix2 · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Peloponnesian War is something that historicly interests me the most from the ancient greek history, so this book was something that I've read with ease. In addition the writing is quite understandable and easy to follow.

[Bettie · Rating 3 out of 5]

BABT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05s2pbm

Description: 'My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last for ever,' Thucydides

Ancient Greek historian Thucydides' spellbinding first-hand account chronicles the devastating 27-year-long war between Athens and Sparta during the 5th century BC. It was a life-and-death struggle that reshaped the face of ancient Greece and pitted Athenian democracy against brutal Spartan militarism.

Thucydides himself was an Athenian aristocrat and general who went on to record what he saw as the greatest war of all time, applying a passion for accuracy and a contempt for myth admired by historians today. Looking at why nations go to war, what makes a great leader, and whether might can be better than right, he became the father of modern Realpolitik. His influence fed into the works of Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbs and the politics of the Cold War and beyond.

Thucydides' masterful account of the end of Greece's Golden Age, depicts an age of revolution, sea battles, military alliances, plague and massacre, but also great bravery and some of the greatest political orations of all time.
Today: With Spartan distrust of the rising power of Athens, is war inevitable?

Abridger: Tom Holland is an award-winning novelist and historian, specialising in the classical and medieval periods. He is the author of 'Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic', which was shortlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize, as well as 'Persian Fire', 'Millennium: The End of the World and the Forging of Christendom', 'In the Shadow of the Sword', as well as several novels. His latest non-fiction book, 'Dynasty', chronicling the Roman Emperors, will be published in 2015.
He has adapted Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides and Virgil for the BBC. His translation of Herodotus was published in 2013. In 2007, he was the winner of the Classical Association prize, awarded to 'the individual who has done most to promote the study of the language, literature and civilisation of Ancient Greece and Rome'."
Reader: David Horovitch
Producer: Justine Willett.


Machiavellian long before that book, and even earlier, by ~200 years, than 孫子兵法: The Art of War.

1. War Begins
2. From Funerals to Plague
3. Spartan Surrender at Pylos
4. An Athenian Atrocity
5. The Beginning of the End

[Paul of Bethesda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historians everywhere owe an incalculable debt to Thucydides of Athens, because of the spirit of rigorous, evidence-based inquiry in which Thucydides set down his history of the Peloponnesian War in which Athens and Sparta fought from 431-404 B.C. Whereas Thucydides’ illustrious predecessor Herodotus sometimes states that an event from antiquity took place because of the intervention of the Olympian gods – “It was the will of Zeus” and all that – Thucydides refuses to settle for deus ex machina explanations. In Thucydides’ system of reasoning, when something goes wrong for Athens, or goes right for Sparta, it is because some power-hungry politician subverted the Athenian democracy, or because some Spartan general made good strategic and tactical decisions. His spirit informs and inspires every modern historian who plies his or her craft in search of the truth.

Few people of his time would have been better suited than Thucydides to write this book, as the historian himself makes clear in Book Five:

“I lived through the whole of it, being of an age to understand what was happening, and I put my mind to the subject so as to get an accurate view of it. It happened, too, that I was banished from my country for twenty years after my command at Amphipolis; I saw what was being done on both sides, particularly on the Peloponnesian side, because of my exile, and this leisure gave me rather exceptional facilities for looking into things.” (p. 364)

That passage well captures Thucydides’ voice – direct, no-nonsense, confident without being arrogant, dedicated to accuracy above all. Just the facts, ma’am.

Book I of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War sets forth how disagreements over the allegiance of places like Corcyra (modern Corfu) revealed fissures in Athenian-Spartan relations, even though these two leading city-states had been allies in the two Persian Wars decades before. When a Spartan ultimatum is rejected by Athens, the stage is set for the outbreak of a war that will be longer and more costly than either side anticipates.

A highlight of the History of the Peloponnesian War, for many readers, is likely to be the Funeral Oration given by the Athenian leader Pericles at the end of the war’s first year. Pericles’ Funeral Oration pays tribute to the dead soldiers of Athens, to be sure – “[W]hat we ought to remember first is their gallant conduct against the enemy in defense of their native land” (p. 149). Beyond that, however, Pericles also presents a brilliant defense of Athens’ democratic values: “Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people….[E]veryone is equal before the law” (p. 145).

Small wonder that Pericles’ Funeral Oration has inspired many leaders on similar occasions in the 2400 years since Thucydides wrote his history – as when U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, asked to deliver “a few appropriate remarks” on the dedication of a national cemetery for Union soldiers killed at the Battle of Gettysburg, consulted Pericles’ Funeral Oration in preparing what has become known to history as the Gettysburg Address.

If only the wise and eloquent Pericles had lived on – the Peloponnesian War might have been much shorter, and its outcome might have been quite different. Unfortunately, however, he died of plague in the war’s second year, and subsequent years were marked by the rise to power of the demagogue Cleon, of whom Thucydides writes that “He was remarkable among the Athenians for the violence of his character, and at this time he exercised far the greatest influence over the people” (p. 212). In stark contrast with Pericles’ expression of rationalism and defense of democratic values in the Funeral Oration, Cleon responds to a revolt by the Athenian-allied city of Mytilene by calling for the killing of all the Mytilenians. While Cleon’s proposal is ultimately defeated, his words provide a chilling reminder of all the subsequent periods of history when demagogues have called for indiscriminate mass violence in hopes of fomenting a “get-tough” spirit against real or perceived enemies.

Indeed, Cleon’s cruelty and incompetence, as chronicled by Thucydides, emphasize a subtle but important theme of the History of the Peloponnesian War: that Thucydides, even though he fought bravely and well on the Athenian side, may have felt that Athens deserved to lose. This theme comes through with special force when one contrasts Cleon’s despicable behavior with that of the Spartan commander Brasidas. A true soldier, Brasidas is courageous in battle, solicitous for the welfare of his men, and generous toward his adversaries. A characteristic example of Brasidas’ soldierly virtues occurs when, just before the Spartan capture of Amphipolis in 423 B.C., Brasidas “put forward very moderate terms, making a proclamation to the effect that all who wished to do so, whether Amphipolitans or Athenians, could remain in the city with possession of their property and full political rights guaranteed to them; and those who did not wish to remain could take their property with them and leave within five days” (p. 328) – a proposal that impresses everyone in the city by its generosity, and one that Brasidas honors in every particular once Amphipolis has surrendered.

Another of the most famous features of the History of the Peloponnesian War is what has come to be known as the Melian Dialogue. Here, Thucydides uses dialogue format to dramatize the Athenians’ surrender demands against the island of Melos, a colony of Sparta that wished to remain neutral in the war. All of us who like to think of Athens as the capital of philosophy and rationalism are likely to be disheartened by the Athenians’ brutal invocation of might-makes-right realpolitik in the dialogue, as when they say to the Melians that “it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can….We are merely acting in accordance with it” (pp. 404-05). And when the Melians ask why the Athenians “would not agree to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side”, the Athenians implacably reply that “if we were on friendly terms with you, our subjects would regard that as a sign of weakness in us, whereas your hatred is evidence of our power” (p. 402). Perhaps, over the course of writing his history, Thucydides had come to conclude that the side for which he had fought so valiantly had become an empire not worth preserving.

And anyone who has seen his or her country set forth on a poorly planned military venture will be struck by Thucydides’ account of Athens’ ill-fated expedition against the Spartan city-state of Syracuse in Sicily. Begun in 415 B.C., against a background of lavish promises that an attack on Spartan Syracuse would be the proverbial “game-changer,” the Athenian expedition ended two years later as “the most calamitous of defeats; for they were utterly and entirely defeated; their sufferings were on an enormous scale; their losses were, as they say, total” (p. 537).

The story of how the Syracusan campaign went from promise to disaster for the Athenians makes for compelling reading. And it is against the background of the mutual recriminations over Syracuse that one learns about the oligarchic coup of 411 B.C., in which “the democracy in Athens had been brought to an end” (pp. 573-74). No reader who cares about the survival of democracy in the modern world can read about the destruction of the Athenian democracy without feeling a certain chill in the blood.

Helpfully furnished with maps and appendices, this Penguin Books edition of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War provides the modern reader with an opportunity to get to know a classic historical work that remains strongly applicable to the world of today.

[Matthew Ted]

77th book of 2023.

I began this, without realising, exactly two months ago in April. I then stopped for a duration of time as my girlfriend and I flew to Athens and I spent the next two weeks exploring, island-hopping, etc., those who follow me already know all this. At one point, on an island, I was right across from the Peloponnesian region of the mainland; in fact, it was so close between the mainland and this island, it looked swimmable. It's taken me some time to get back into it, and I've mostly read the rest of this book whilst at work in short but concentrated bursts around, well, work.

The fact that we can read this is fascinating enough, some two-thousand odd years later. Thucydides was a general in the Peloponnesian War (an Athenian), and dedicated himself to writing an unbiased history book* about the 20+ years of the War. He mostly succeeds, though certain scholars far smarter than I am see through his supposed unbiasedness. The most interesting fact about the text are the many speeches, that are like Shakespearean monologues, littered throughout, from generals and politicians. Many of these Thucydides would have heard in the flesh, others by word-of-mouth; the world was still very much orientated around the oral tradition, so though their validity can be questioned, I imagine the essence of the speeches are very much intact. Thucydides takes us through the war chronologically, apparently a fairly modern concept in history telling, and reports as the seasons pass. In many respects, large portions of this are dry, dense and crammed with information and names. I'm no stranger to ancient texts or names as I studied Classical Civilisation for three years myself at college, though my focus was on the Romans and my study revolved around writers like Cicero, Suetonius and Tacitus (the last of whom I dreaded). Suetonius and Cicero were more readable and compelling, particularly the former, and I would recommend both of them as ancient writers before Thucydides, though they are of course Roman. My trip to Greece has fuelled my interest in Ancient Greece and I will explore more primary sources in the years to come. In my final year of college I did study The Odyssey, but that's as far as I got with Greek history/epics. I'd say this is a book for those who are truly interested and not an easy window into the primary sources; that said, I found it worthwhile and interesting, if not long and slow-going.

After mooching around on some islands my girlfriend and I went back to Athens and went to the park where Socrates's prison is held. Not far from there is the entrance to a tomb, where two bodies were buried. One of these was Thucydides himself. Below is the single photograph I took of the site.



_____

*This is, by many, considered one of the earliest 'history books' ever, if not the first. Thucydides is, as we would understand, a sort of 'modern' historian in his unbiased and chronological telling of the War and its events.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best book on geopolitics ever written.  It’s very difficult, too.  His style isn’t that difficult and the subject matter is straightforward.  The difficulty, as the school of Leo Strauss would later point out, is a dialectic between a surface reading and a deeper reading.  

Part of the book’s popularity is the parallel to the American Empire, prompting such devices as a “Thucydides Trap.” Will American overextend itself and force China to attack it?  I think that line of questioning is wrong, but the parallels remain.  America, like Athens, is a sea-based power (in the classical Halford Mackinder sense).  America, like Athens, believes in spreading Democracy by force whether others want it or not.  America, like Athens, doesn’t really practice democracy.

We also see in Athens the “rhetoric of empire.” We must rule you because if we don’t someone will rule us. 

The fatal moment for Athens is the invasion of Sicily and the Battle of Syracuse.

The first set of causes is the Corcyraen and Potidean affairs.  This put Athens in a bind.  On one hand, they were bound to a peace treaty and couldn’t get involved by helping Corinth.  They decided to risk open confrontation because they couldn’t risk Sparta’s allies gaining that much power (I.44ff).  Corinth, Sparta’s ally, saw this as Athen’s breaking a peace treaty (56).

Thucydides gives a penetrating analysis of Athenian democracy. He points out that democracy and empire are connected. In the aftermath both sides then recruit their vassals and allies to prepare for war against the other.

Key idea: “War is not so much a matter of armament as of the finance which gives effect to that armament, especially when a land power meets a sea power” (83).  Sparta fears that Athens is getting too powerful and has to act before it is too late (118).  Athens, on the other hand, knows (or at least believes) that it can “outspend Sparta to death.”

Platea was hostile to Thebes, so the Thebans launched a pre-emptive strike to seize the key ground (II.2). Athens saw this action as breaking the peace treaty, so she began preparing for war.

The highlight of the first year of war is Pericles’ speech to the Athenians (II.35). It’s beautiful, but whitewashed, since his noble talk of democracy doesn’t include slaves or women.

Sections 48ff show the effect of plague upon the war.  It hampered Athens’ war effort, but more importantly it illustrated the social decay.  In times of plague and crisis, men reduce to their natural levels (II.53).

The book ends with Athens in chaos.  Sparta could have really exploited the situation and conquered most of Greece.  Unfortunately, they didn’t.  The democracy in Athens begins eating itself, which I suspect is the nature of democracy.

Pericles is the main figure of this narrative.  He is honest about empire.  Athens is an empire.  We shouldn’t be fooled by silly talk about democracy.  The danger with empire is that when you lose it, your enemies smell blood.  Pericles notes: “The empire you possess is now like a tyranny--dangerous to let go” (63).

Later on Athens is even more crass (but honest) in its desire for empire. She tells the Melians: “If the independents survive, it is because we are (perceived) as too frightened to attack them….It is particularly important that we, as a naval power, should not let islanders get away from us, especially you in your weak position” (V:97).

If that leaves it in any doubt, Athens goes on to say, “We dominate people at home so that others should not control us” (VI:87).

Conclusion

It’s hard to overstate this book’s importance.  It isn’t simply military history.  It explores what happens to a society during war time.  Social morals often reflect external situations.

[Mihai Zodian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is only about the Plague of Athens, interpreted by Thucydides in The Peloponnesian War.

One of the scariest pandemics on the record, the Plague of Athens was recorded by Thucydides in his famous History of the Peloponnesian War.

Why should one read this fragment? It offers a short and concise description, but one which contains ambitious ideas. It reminds us that the mix of war, pandemic and economic issues is not a novelty and that we should take all of them seriously. The typical Byronian motive also matters: who goes to Athens and meditates at the ruins has something to gain from the awareness that another disease has led to this. The reader should be wary that the depictions can be though.

The context is well known. Brief, the war starts between Athens and Sparta. The Athenian mastermind Pericles gathers the population behind the wall, impregnable at that time, gathers a big war treasury and uses the fleet to harass his enemies.

Then the plague strikes. Thucydides' story grows from the cold facts to deep conclusions about the basis of society and politics. It also has something to say about democracy and military strategy. He hoped that his description will be useful to future generations who try to understand not only plagues, but how communities work in times of stress, too.

This very old story still has something meaninful to tell us.

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

But none of these allowed either wealth with its prospect of future enjoyment to unnerve his spirit, or poverty with its hope of a day of freedom and riches to tempt him to shrink from danger. No, holding that vengeance upon their enemies was more to be desired than any personal blessings, and reckoning this to be the most glorious of hazards, they joyfully determined to accept the risk, to make sure of their vengeance and to let their wishes wait; and while committing to hope the uncertainty of final success, in the business before them they thought fit to act boldly and trust in themselves. Thus choosing to die resisting, rather than to live submitting, they fled only from dishonor, but met danger face to face, and after one brief moment, while at the summit of their fortune, left behind them not their fear, but their glory.

From The funeral oration of Pericles, once read by generation upon generation of European and American schoolboys who went on to become leader of their nations. No longer. As one watches the two great nations of Athens and Sparta destroy themselves fighting each other, one wishes everyone still studied Thucydides before they voted on members of Congress, or voted as Congressmen about whether to engage in squabbles around the world. This is not to say the United States should retreat to 19th century isolationism, but that it should ask hard questions before deciding whether to act, and think ahead about how to follow up victories and defeats in foreign countries.

Thucydides covers so vast a theater of war, with so many players, over twenty-six years (plus prologue) that it’s impossible to summarize it. Suffice it to say that the train-wreck spectacle is riveting, and his prose magisterial. I really wish I had read this decades ago. It makes one consider subsequent history in a whole new light. The speeches are stupendous for both eloquence and rhetoric, as you watch various populations be manipulated or ignore wise advice.

Also, I need to note that I read the Landmark Thucydides edited by Robert B. Strassler. Accept no substitutes. The notes and maps are fabulous. Strassler understands that a reader is most likely going to tackle this over several weeks, and won’t retain all the details from day to day. So he inserts very repetitive maps on almost every page so that the information you need is right in front of your face. You don’t have to flip wildly back twenty or thirty pages trying to figure out where Miletus or Abydos is. The side margins are full of helpful paragraph numbering and dates, along with a summary of every paragraph’s content/action. A running banner across the top of each page gives date, location and topic. Notes at the bottom of each page link text names to map locations and remind the reader with references to past events. Several appendices in the back describe ground and naval military procedures, governments, religious beliefs, monetary values, dates, etc.

Not a light undertaking, but well well worth the effort.

[Nikola Jankovic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Herodot jeste otac istorije, ali čitanje njegovih Istorija na trenutke podseća na čitanje bajki. A te bajke, skoro uvek jako zabavne, ponekad su bliže Homeru nego istoriji.

Tukidid je otprilike istorija kakvom je zamišljamo. Vikipedija neka ti bude pri ruci kako bi bolje razumeo kontekst, ali pred tobom jeste vrsni istoričar. Ovde možda imamo manjak romantike, ali dešavanja su opisana jasno i gusto - i mnogo približnije istoriografiji. Iz prepričavanja dešavanja razumemo da je neke događaje preživeo i sam, ali i da je potrošio godine razgovarajući sa ljudima sa atinske i sa spartanske strane. Opis ekspedicije na Siciliju je i detaljan i tragičan - a iako je bio jedno vreme atinski general, objektivan je, često i podsetnik da zlatno doba Atine i nije bilo toliko zlatno za sve koji su se s Atinom susretali u to vreme.

Osim što je odličan istoričar, Tukidid je i dobar pisac. Piše jasno, direktno. Možda mi se činilo da je negde štedeo na rečima - ali kad stigne do govora... Kakav je to vatromet svaki put! Da ovo delo sadrži samo govore državnika i generala, bilo bi vredno najviše ocene. Ma, vredelo bi i da sadrži samo Periklove govore (zašto političari danas ne govore tako?) Kako Tukidid kaže u jednom trenutku, trudio se da dođe do zapisa stvarno održanog govora, ali ako to nije moguće, sastavljao ga je onako kako najbolje odgovara govornikovoj ličnosti, situaciji i idejama strane koju govornik zastupa. Ti govori su filozofija za sebe - etika, moral, vrline, mane, retorika, religioznost...

Da bi potpuno uživao u Tukididu, treba da ti je jasna istorija 5. veka p.n.e. Pomoći će ako si čitao Herodota, Platona ili grčke tragičare. Još bolje ako si bio na mestima o kojima priča. Ali i da nisi... ova knjiga objašnjava zbog čega su neka dela - klasici za sva vremena.