Essay about Thucydides vs Plato

What qualities of Athenian life does Pericles mention? How do these contrast with those that Archidamus points out for Sparta? The qualities of the Athenian life that Pericles mentions are that they are far from practicing a jealous surveillance over each other because they do not feel like they should be angry with there neighbors for doing what they like, but all there private relations does not make them lawless as citizens. He also say’s that they provide plenty of means for there mind to refresh itself from the business, that they celebrate games and sacrifices all the year round. On the other hand Sparta is war-like, because they have self control and they honor bravery. They are also educated with the laws and with a self-control to

Pericles, the Athenian leader, avoided land battles and concentrated on control of the sea. After Pericles' death, the Athenians signed a fifty year truce called the Peace of Nicias in 421. This provided that each side restore captured places and prisoners and remain at peace with each other. This was soon supplemented by an actual Athenian-Spartan alliance, which concluded for fifty years. The intention was chiefly to give each power a chance to put its own alliance in order while secure from an attack by the other. The war had been marked by numerous acts of brutality on both sides; prisoners had been slaughtered or enslaved, and agreements broken in a way that were shameful. (Winks)

Pericles would have been willing to negotiate had not the slow-moving but deliberate Spartans backed him into a corner with their ultimatum. The outbreak of the war occurred when the Spartans issued ultimatums to Athens, which the men of the Athenian

In his ambitions to conquer Sicily and then move on to Italy and the Peloponnesus, he also shows this thirst.12 The Athenians recognized Alcibiades's brilliance and ruthlessness so they elected Nicias as a general to "[temper] his rashness."13 Alcibiades resorted to violence to gain glory, Pericles, on the other hand, attempted to prolong peace and settle matters with diplomacy. He once tried to persuade the cities to send delegates to meet in Athens to discuss restorations of temples destroyed during the war with Persia, but nothing came of his plan because of Spartan opposition.14 He even went so far as to bribe the chief magistrates of Sparta to buy time to prepare for war, which he knew was inevitable.15

Action from necessity is a constantly recurring theme in Thucydides’ The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. A sentiment used to explain the growth of the Athenian Empire which some Athenians espoused to an assembly at Sparta best quantifies necessity, “. . . we were necessarily compelled at first to advance the hegemony to where it is—especially by fear, and then by honor, and later by benefit.” (Selected Passages 1.75.3). This claim, referred to as the Athenian Thesis, is used to advance the two following implications: all states act with the motivations of fear, honor and interest and no one can condemn a state for doing so. The Athenian Thesis influences the way many of the Athenian elite structure their patterns of reasoning in both noticeable and subtle ways.

The battle between Sparta's well-built army and Athens's exemplary navy was like a battle between a bear and a shark. If the bear goes into the water, the shark wins. However, if the shark enters land, the bear will kill it. The Athenian general and military genius Pericles knew this. Therefore, he devised a strategy that was based on the strength of his navy and the Spartan inability to battle him on sea; he devised a strategy of attrition where they would sit at home, and outlast the enemy (Kagan 52). In his mind, if Athens disregarded the Spartan land attacks, and instead survived off sea trade from their allies, the enemy would be unable to cause much damage. He wanted to drain them out psychologically, to get them to surrender from attacking the Athenian Empire (Kagan 52). One of the most important steps in doing this was to connect Athens to its navy city and their port. They did this by building walls that connected them, later known as the Long Walls (Kagan 9). Back then, walls were almost impregnable to attacks, and were one of the best defenses in the ancient world. Therefore, the addition of the Long Walls made both Athens and the port extremely hard to crack; they were ready for any Spartan land attack that would come their way. When the war finally started and the Spartans did come, they found that their attacks were not going to work. Their strategy of totally crushing the Athenian Empire and fighting a battle of annihilation was countered by the

"Just before the Peloponnesian War began, Pericles of Athens and King Archidamus of Sparta provided net assessments of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the two sides. Evaluate their projections."

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

In the Aftermath of the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta, Pericles, Athens’ general and statesmen, delivered a powerfully comforting eulogy to the polis of Athens, assuring the people that their city state is in good hands, and easing the pain of all the families and relatives of the deceased. He uses several rhetorical devices throughout his speech to gain a positive emotional appeal by his audience and makes assertions in the attempt to enhance and transform the perception of him by the audience.

Pericles’ profound rhetorical skills were displayed within his Funeral Oration honoring Athenian soldiers who demonstrated extraordinary valor. Although the subject of his speech was in honor of the fallen soldiers who died gloriously defending Athens, he primarily praised Athens and everything it stood for. Within his speech, Pericles focuses on acting for the greater good of the city, which included sacrificing oneself much like the modeled sacrifice the dead had displayed through their valor. Through praising Athens and the fallen soldiers Pericles idealized the dead, showing their modeled behavior as honorable and glorious, which further appealed the sacrifice of dying for Athens. Pericles idealized motives continuously praised Athens: the dead, ancestors, and the city. Theses motives were intended to explain why Athenians should love their city and willingly sacrifice to ensure continued happiness and freedom.

Pericles continues even further, explaining that this sacrifice was an example of Athenian greatness. His speech discusses further that Athenians would rather die resisting than to live submitting. They fled only from dishonour but never from their enemies intent on destroying them. Pericles words further praise there brave soldiers who perished in battle. Pericles goes on to say that Athenians vengeance upon their enemies was to be desired more than any personal blessings. He says that war with Athens’ enemies was to be the most glorious of hazards. They had accepted the honorable risk again and died a glorious death. He conveys again to the Athenians citizens that destroying their enemies was the highest honor an Athenians could hope to obtain. Pericles encourages the audience to live up to the standards set by their fallen Athenians. Pericles offered his comfort but didn’t express condolences to the families of the fallen who were present in the crowds.

Athens is a major Greek city-state in European history. It was a great center of cultural and intellectual development, and thus home to philosophers. Socrates and Pericles, two of these philosophers, had polarizing opinions about the city-state and its citizens. While Pericles chooses to praise the Athenian citizen, Socrates criticizes Athens’ people. Pericles gave his opinion at a funeral during the first battles of the Peloponnesian War, while Socrates gave his during the trial that ultimately led to his death. The Athenian city-state has become a model for today’s systems of government and a hearth for western philosophy, so Pericles’ opinion seems to be the one that is more accurate.

Making use of rhetoric devices and compromising the ideals of democracy breach the ideals of traditions in the Greek society. Unlike that in the “Clouds”, Thucydides does not show any sign of flaws of the traditional values.

Pericles’s funeral oration was given to honor the soldiers lost in war by commemorating the military accomplishments of the Athens government and to distinguish the roles of men and women in Athens society. Pericles’s speech was given in 430 B.C.E at the end of the first year of war. He then died a year late in 429 B.C.E. Pericles’ Funeral Oration is included in Thucydides’ writing titled History of the Peloponnesian War.

The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.