Thinking about War — The many faces of Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War (Part I)
While reading the Peloponnesian war, you hardly realize how rich and dense the text is. I mainly read the text as a war narrative and for the brilliant speeches, however, I recently came across a course that dealt with understanding strategy through reading Thucydides. The course which is called ‘Masters of War, Histories’ greatest historical strategists’ lists down a great range of strategic thinkers and what we can learn from them.
Who is a strategic theorist?
A person who is:
Historically conscious &
Uses study of history to accustom the mind to critical analysis
Was Thucydides a strategic theorist?
Historically conscious
In his book, Thucydides relates the events not only as a narrative but also expresses history in the form of instruction. In the opening pages, he mentions that the causes of Athen’s defeat should be a lesson for future generations who could avoid these mistakes.
War as a political purpose
Thucydides also highlights the political origins of war. He looks into the detail of the political objectives of both the countries involved:
Sparta’s reasons
- Athens backed the city of Corcyra against Corinth, where Corinth founded Corcyra and was an ally of Sparta.
- Athens imposed economic sanctions for Megara which also Sparta owned.
- Megara geostrategically important to Sparta, and Athens attacked it.
Thucydides reason
Thucydides argues that these were more catalyst than truest reasons for Sparta to enter the war, the growth of the power of Athens and to further prevent the rise of Athens was the main war.
Difference between Sparta and Athens
Sparta’s prosperity came from Helots who were forced to till lands and generated an agricultural surplus. The insecurity of constant threat of revolting. Sparta mainly trained for war and was highly military in strength. They did not want war except for honorable purposes. For them then, this war was mostly for freedom from Athens and to establish their status quo.
On the other side, Athens was an unruly empire, which was constantly engaging in small wars and war was not a big deal for them.
Speeches of Pericles — King of Athens
Sell the war to the citizens, Spartans cannot sustain war, given the nature of its economy. They have been forced to attack due to their allies- Corinth’s.
The strategy of Pericles — Prudence and self-restraint
Pericles frustrate Sparta, the main strategy is to refuse to meet Spartans in a land battle. It is pursuing a Negative end strategy to get back to the status quo. He instead attacks the coasts for punitive measures.
Pericles is a brilliant leader who tries to restrain the martial heroism of Athenians. He is successful in commanding the Athenians to follow him. He also subordinated his strategy for the bigger picture of Athenian imperialism.
Leadership and subordination of military action to political power
Pericles knows Athens and Spartans, he is eloquent enough to convince Athenians to follow the wisdom of that strategy, painful and protected into implementation.
King of Sparta- Archidamus II.
He states that for Spartans it would be a very hard war. Athens is everything in which Sparta wasn’t. Countrymen have underestimated the pain which the Athenians can bear. Athens has great naval power.
However, Athens’s nature as a democracy entailed proving protection by having the greatest fleet. Given the greatest strength of Athens was their naval power, dismantling the Athens, Spartans needed a fleet.
Thucydides tries to understand the strategy of the two sides.
Spartans march straight into Athens to compel Athens to meet them in the battle. Athens, however, refuses to comply.
What is a better strategy then?
A decisive victory or attack his alliances. Direct vs Indirect strategy.
Thucydides explains the role of chance
He understands how the decision in a war is influenced by chance, fate plays a great part.
The first stroke of accidence — people were crammed behind the walls and plague ravaged the city and the death of Pericles. Without Pericles, Athens was divided into three camps — negotiate with Spartans, follow Pericles’ strategy, a war more aggressive than previously.
The second stroke of Fate — back in Athens, Cleon promises quick victory and he succeeds as he defeated Spartans, take 100 hoplite prisoners, which causes a huge blow to Spartans.
Spartans change strategy- ‘Free the Greeks to free our Greeks’
Athenians have their success
Athenians offer terms which were their initial strategy, overreaching their success as Cleon demands even greater concessions. He wants to hold on to hostages, in order to hold Sparta on the bay while he hopes offensive on them.
Spartans have a counter-attack
Spartans approve a plan by the generals to take their mercenaries to march over to the lands of Athenians to create trouble. He succeeds capture Amphipolis. This is a critical point for Athens — as it is the gateway for 3 of their main imports of Athens — grain silver and timber?
Finally, there is peace
Thucydides — why nations seek peace and how hard it is to achieve durable peace?
Three chances of making peace
During the plague Athens sort terms but Not Spartans. After Cleon’s victory, the opposite happened. After the last war, both sides have leverage now, the ideal circumstance of exhaustion and leverage.
On paper — Athens comes out very well. Sparta makes the biggest concessions. By renouncing their free their Greeks, they lose their credibility. However, still Amphipolis is held in hostage and so far:
- Trade hub in hostile hands.
- Athens view as pause and not a settlement.
