Athens v. Sparta (431 B.C.)
CAROL THOMAS -- – Ph.D. – Professor at University of Washington
Dear Dr. Kolkey,
Your perspective is certainly on track for Greece. You find it in Herodotus' account of the Persians War and reading Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War is very strong evidence for your thesis. I wonder if you know a fine study by W. Robert Connor "The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens." The first section is "Political Groups in Fifth-Century Athens" and the second is "Political Friendship and Civic Loyalty" while four is "Toward Revolution."....
Your purpose is very interesting.
Best wishes,
Carol"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. ROBERT CONNER -- Ph.D. – President, The Teagle Foundation
Hi Jonathan --
You're right, I'm sure, but let me mull it over and see if I have something more useful to offer than that simple affirmative! Meantime, you might read Ephorus' account of the outbreak of the Pel. War, in FGrHIst 70, which is basically Diodorus. Let's think about the contrast between Thuc, and Ephorus and see where it leads us....
So self interested factions get governments into wars? Sure. We know that. You don't need me to "validate" that. Do we need to document it again? Only if by doing so we can shed new light either 1. on a recurrent process in human history, [e.g. What circumstances are conducive to such factions achieving this dubious success?] or 2. on a specific society of special interest in its own right [ e.g. What is it about Athens / Sparta/ Corinth that made it vulnerable in this way?]. See what I mean? Can we formulate the question at the core of your inquiry in a way that is most genuinely illuminating?
The case study that is most illuminating in my view is the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. If you look at Aristophanes (quoted in Diodorus and almost certainly Ephorus) it looks as if some people in Athens in the late fifth century though that a self interested political faction manipulated Athens into war. That faction was Pericles and Company. Plenty of modern historians have thought so, too. But to me the most interesting feature is this -- Thucydides' account may be read as "revisionist history" that is as challenging, contradicting the thesis that an Athenian political faction pushed the city into war. Book I of Thuc. reads best as a challenge to an already dominant etiology of the war, the one that gets canonized in Ephorus, who, as David Lewis once said, became the "textbook history" of the period.
So one genuinely interesting question would be "Did Thuc. have a better answer to the question of the cause of the war than the thesis that the war was caused by Pericles and his faction?" To me an even more interesting question is "What do we (historians / citizens) gain and lose if we rely on the "faction thesis" to explain major geopolitical developments?" What's your answer to that question?
Must go to work now, but tell me what you think.
Bob
W. Robert Connor
President
The Teagle Foundation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HANS VAN WEES -- Ph.D. – Professor at University College of London
Dear Jonathan,
As for declaring war to serve factional interests, the account of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in Plutarch's Life of Pericles (as opposed to the version in THucydides) says precisely that Pericles started the war to solve his own internal political problems.
I hope this is helpful.
All very best wishes,
Hans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE MITCHELL -- Ph.D. – Professor at University of Exeter
Dear Professor Kolkey,
You are certainly right that at Athens at least politics was factional, and
tended to centre around groups of people tied together by personal
relationships. In this sense, Athenian politics was very 'personal' politics,
especially since these factions were not really driven by political ideologies
(there was no 'democratic party', for example, though there were people
interested in democratic politics, and they might tend to work together). We can
also see evidence of this personal politics in other states as well. It was
probably not universal, however. In some states, such as Thessaly, Macedon, or
even Corinth in the sixth century, politics was tightly controlled by one family
(who even inter-married - it was only regarded as incest if a child married a
parent; cf. Oedipus - marriages between uncles and nieces were acceptable, as
were marraiges between half-siblings). There could nevertheless be fierce
factional fighting within the family, especially since these families were
generally polygamous, and there was no right of succession.
There are also a large number of examples where civil wars were caused by
individuals and their factions pursuing their own interests (which they may or
may not have argued was aligned with the interests of the state as a whole).
Certainly, this is was Thucydides point about the civil wars in Athens and
Corcyra, and the same kind of understanding lies behind the text we call the Old
Oligarch (though he is describing a period of peace and propserity). In fact
there are numerous examples throughout archaic and classical Greece of one
faction driving out another.
The case for inter-state wars is harder. There is a level at which 'state
interests' operate (although this may again be created at some level by
individual drivers). There is a strong case for saying Corinth (an oligarchy)
bore most of the responsibility for the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War
because Athens was too strong in the Saronic Gulf. So the real issue here is
trade, but we are also talking about a fairly basic economy with no (or very)
little state control. So we can probably see wealthy oligarchs trying to
maximise their wealth. Thucydides, on the other hand, says that the real cause
for the war was Spartan fear of Athenian growth. It is also clear from
Thucydides and Aristophanes that Pericles wanted the war, and did a great deal
to make sure that it happened. I have never believed that Pericles was as
public-spirited as Thucydides suggests. However, even Pericles had to persuade
the Athenian assembly, and war was declared by the collective. However, they
*were* also persuaded. At Sparta, it is difficult to identify individual
interests in this war (it was difficult at Sparta for individuals to hold much
political power as individuals - interestingly in contrast to democratic
Athens), but some of the Spartan kings certainly pursued wars in their own
interests (Agesilaus in Asia, for example, in the fourth century, Cleomenes
against Athens in the sixth).
A final thought: the Greeks had a belief at some level that it was natural for
the strong to rule the weak, and that one ruled or was ruled. Therefore there
was a common interest in general terms in pursuing war....
Lynette
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN W.I. Lee --Ph.D. – Professor at University of California, Santa Barbara
Jonathan,
Yes, Greek history offers much of interest for understanding modern politics....
A less well known example is the debate at Sparta about the declaration of war in 431. Note the cautious attitude of Archidamos, which is overruled by the ephor Sthenelaidas playing to a domestic audience.
Another classic example is the behavior of Aristagoras of Miletos in instigating the Ionian Revolt (499-494). Read all about it in Herodotus.
There are many modern studies that examine these issues in more detail. You might start with Donald Kagan's work on the Peloponnesian War (three volumes), or Josiah Ober's Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens.
To me, there is one crucial difference between ancient and modern decision-making. When Athenians or Spartans voted to go to war, they knew that mean they would be sending their sons, brothers, uncles, even themselves to carry out the decision. In the modern world, the people who make decisions often have little personal stake in the consequences. Imagine how things might have gone differently in 2003, for example, if every member of Congress was also a serving member of the military. In our world, it's much easier for nations to send other people's children to die on our behalf.
Hope that helps.
Best,
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER TOLBERT ROBERTS -- Ph.D. Yale University – Professor at City College of New York
Dear Dr. Kolkey,
I am in agreement with your thesis. Much of the validation you see is, in fact, in Thucydides. You might also want to read Donald Kagan's work on the Peloponnesian War, either his one-volume history published by Viking or the four-volume history published by Cornell. The four-volume edition contains many bibliographical references. In addition, have a look at his book on The Origins of War, which compares the outbreaks of ancient and modern wars. Xenophon, of course, continues Thucydides' Greek history down to the 360s in his Hellenica, available in Penguin as The History of My Times....
Best wishes,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN J. PRICE -- Ph.D. – Professor at Texas A&M University
Dear Mr. Kolkey,
Your question is perfectly legitimate.
You will certainly find Greek states which in order to pursue their rivalries with other states invited war -- even the Persian war! Herodotus mentions several such examples.
Herodotus also mentions cases such as that of Aristagoras and Histiaeus who provoked the Greeks' "Ionian rebellion" against the Persian Empire (which ended with destruction and subordination for the Greeks) for narrowly personal reasons. And don't forget the expelled Athenian tyrant Hippias who also helped the bring the huge second Persian invasion to Greece in the hope of being restored.
Regarding purely intra-polis factional politics, Thucydides 3.82-3 mentions that factions in states tried to bring in outside powers to help them resolve their personal factional disputes. The case of Corcyra is just one example. Another is Athens itself, cf. the account in Thucydides Book 8.
There are further examples of this sort of thing in the 4th century, and probably many more I can't think of off the top of my head. You may want to direct your question to Josh Ober at Stanford.
Best wishes,
Jonathan Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL SCHOLARLY CONFIRMATIONS WILL BE POSTED AS SOON AS THEY ARE RECEIVED
