[Doomhammer]

I am currently writing a final paper about the causes of war (i.e. the Peloponnesian War).

I have categorized some causes but I still need to read more. The thing is, Thucydides' (obviously the authority on the subject) account is merely repeated in most books I read. Can I hear your opinions or interpretations of the event? I am really sick of hearing "Sparta feared Athens' growth... and thus war was innevitable."

[Suska]

According to the professor Michael Grant the difference between Roman and Greek historiography is that the former began with politics and the state, while the latter sprang from geography and human behavior*. I mention this because there is a tendency to apply the Roman (therefore modern) method to the Greeks. The farther you look back the more isolated Greek polis seem to have been and the more religion and pride (read, tribute) seem to be the important concern. There were times when the Greeks really do seem to have one identity, but more often not - they claimed to have different racial origins and often emphasized different gods. As I see it the later classical conflicts which are easy for us now to read about were a development fairly out of character and this was synthesized by the Romans who to begin with lived in nearby settlements and emphasized connectivity.

Not sure if this helps, but as i see it it was always hard for Greeks to organize together. Athens was almost always the deciding factor in organizing, and plenty of states resented it.

*excerpted and paraphrased from The Face of Battle by John Keegan

[Doomhammer]

That sounds good. The school library seems to have "Face of Battle". I will look into it tomorrow. Thanks.

really do seem to have one identity, but more often not - they claimed to have different racial origins and often emphasized different gods

Yes, I noted something like down. The Spartans being Dorians and the Athenians being Ionic etc. There were some tensions.

Look, this is what I have so far:


Book called "Athenian Imperialism":
Athenian Imperialism undermined Spartan influence in Greece. Athenian imperialism was a source of fear for, among others, Sparta and Corinth and Athenian actions against cities in the Peloponnesian "sphere" led to tensions between the two camps. I could probably talk about realist theories here, although I am not sure if some of the newer variants and hypotheses of the grand tradition will be applicable to Ancient Greece.


"Warfare in the Classical World":
Potidea and Megara. But in the background you have Athenian imperialism and perception of threat by the Peloponnesians. You can add ideological conflict (oligarchy vs. democracy), racial differences, territorial expansionism (and things associated with that and loss of traditional hegemony by Sparta. I could again talk about realism but perhaps even talk about Organski's power transition theory.


"Thucydides and War":
1. Ste Croix argues that Sparta did not want to destroy Athenian power (demonstrated by the lenient peace treaty).
2. Pericles wanted territorial expansionism.
3. Again, fear.
4. Fatalism. There was a growing feeling of inevitability.
5. Alliance configurations.


Mind you, I still have a lot to read (including the John Keegen book you just recommended ;D ).

The major problem will be in organizing all this. I don't know if I should use a custom format or something like "levels of analysis". Dunno yet.

[peter_co]

I really loked The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan; His work is in great part based on Thucydides's work, but he provides much original commentary and the book is very lucidly written. In his book he emphasizes the human causes of the war. He shows how neither side really wanted the war and how many opportunities there were to stop it. As major causes he has lack of Athenian resolution (such as sending too few ships to deter Corinth but enough to cause resentment), Corinthian lobbying for war, Spartan unwillingness to go to arbitration over Megara and instead asking that Athens unilaterally withdraw.

[Doomhammer]

"The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War" by Donald Kagan..

Heh I already took it out. That is what I started reading several days ago.

[noemon]

I reckon you should certainly mention "the Spartan attitude towards their slaves", their general attitude had caused severe distress on the Pelloponessians. And the Athenians were more than happy to capitulate on their discontent in order to expand their own sphere of influence.

Then, you should certainly make mention of the Delian League and the how it turned out to become an Athenian Empire, under the narrow definition of "Empire", and how this as well caused discontent among the Greek tributaries.

In both the Pelloponesian League(Sparta) and in the Delian League(aka Athenian Empire), the rulers Athens and Sparta imposed a variety of negative measures to the tributaries and there was discontent among the "allies" in both camps. The politics are so diverse and complex that it was worse than today's international politics.

A document that you should certainly read is the -Panegyricus of Isocrates, this document is an exhortation to the Athenians and other Greeks to unite in order to fight Persia, it does not deal with the Pelloponesian War, however it was written when Sparta was ruling over Athens, and Isocrates tries to apologize on account of Athens to those Greek city-states that accused Athens of several crimes, which "led" to the Athenian defeat to Sparta.

Through this document you can glimpse on the Athenian nervousness, and the general attitudes that existed at that time. This document offers you little data and info but very helpful Athenian POV.

[Suska]

same idea i spoke of before but from a slightly different angle. if you speak of the war in terms of groups youll be speaking of greeks as if from a roman perspective. i think youll notice from the greeks there is always talk of specific people (not just leaders) making particular decisions, whereas it is the roman mode that discusses influences and groups with leaders. again im not sure if this really applies to what youre doing, but it always seems really unnatural to me to apply roman standards to pre-roman greeks.

[noemon]

If you read Isocrate's arguments from the Panegyricus, you will understand perfectly what you are trying to paraphrase from Keegan's book, the extent of the common Hellenic identity, the extent of the Athenian "nation", and how these 2 interacted and interconnected, and on what grounds according to Isocrates, Athens and Macedonia(see the Philippus) are the "objective" natural leaders of Hellas. In all propability, this particular document is Keegan's primary source. Or actually if you read Isocrates's works, you will fully clarify the process and the extent of the common identity inside the Greek communities.

[Doomhammer]

Through this document you can glimpse on the Athenian nervousness, and the general attitudes that existed at that time. This document offers you little data and info but very helpful Athenian POV.

Will do. Most accounts usually look at how Sparta and her allies felt about Athens and not vice versa.

I reckon you should certainly mention "the Spartan attitude towards their slaves", their general attitude had caused severe distress on the Pelloponessians. And the Athenians were more than happy to capitulate on their discontent in order to expand their own sphere of influence.

From what I understand, the Spartans abandoned their drive for complete hegemony and decided not to challenge Athenian naval supremacy following Hateomaridas' suggestion and merely tried to maintain a hegemony of sorts on land. This failed for several, human-related factors, but oh well. It might be possible to mention the Helots in this context. The Spartans shyed away from hegemonic status and the responsibility that comes with it to ensure that the army never went too far away from Sparta as to provide an invitation to the Helots or other hostile parties to overrun the city.

f you speak of the war in terms of groups youll be speaking of greeks as if from a roman perspective. i think youll notice from the greeks there is always talk of specific people (not just leaders) making particular decisions, whereas it is the roman mode that discusses influences and groups with leaders. again im not sure if this really applies to what youre doing, but it always seems really unnatural to me to apply roman standards to pre-roman greeks.

To be perfectly honest, I writing the human element (i.e. talking about the individual level of analysis) but I must. I have two different essay structures in mind but I am not sure which one to pick.

Either repeat the format of Kagan's book with some alterations or adopt the format that was forced into the minds of innocent IR students at Bilkent by foreign policy analysis professors: levels of analysis. I guess it would be the most convenient way to talk about individuals-groups, internal happenings inside states and the alliance system.

The only problem I see with the levels of system approach is in determining what would constitute the international system at the time (i.e. will I just take Hellas or do I take into account the Persians to the East and the Carthaginians to the West?) and how do I determine the polarities? Will I say it was bi-polar; which it kinda was, but then you have Persia. Plus the Peloponnesian alliance wasn't really a very unified thing and cities like Corinth and Thebes (regardless of Persia) still make the system appear more multipolar than anything. Ahh. Too many problems.

[peter_co]

The only problem I see with the levels of system approach is in determining what would constitute the international system at the time (i.e. will I just take Hellas or do I take into account the Persians to the East and the Carthaginians to the West?) and how do I determine the polarities? Will I say it was bi-polar; which it kinda was, but then you have Persia. Plus the Peloponnesian alliance wasn't really a very unified thing and cities like Corinth and Thebes (regardless of Persia) still make the system appear more multipolar than anything. Ahh. Too many problems.

I'm not sure what model you'll prefer, but the levels approach is certainly solid. As for your question about the international system, I would definitely say constrain your analysis to Hellas and call it bipolar. Of course, it wasn't a perfect bipolar system, but it's as good an example of such a system as you'll ever get; in fact this is one of classical examples of such a system usually provided. Although Corinth was in the outer layers of the Spartan alliance system and had some autonomy, they nevertheless remained deeply entrenched in the Spartan alliance and wouldn't have dreamed of moving (against Athens specifically) alone.

[Doomhammer]

constrain your analysis to Hellas and call it bipolar.

Yeah, you are right. There really is no need include the rest. Most groupings of people were quite isolated back then anyway.

they nevertheless remained deeply entrenched in the Spartan alliance and wouldn't have dreamed of moving (against Athens specifically) alone.

That's true. Okay. Bipolarity it is.

[noemon]

Constrain your analysis to Hellas and call it bi-polar

The reason that allowed the bi-polarity, is the major cause of the Pelloponesian war.

The reason that allowed multi-polarity, which in turn turned to bi-polarity, is in a nut-shell: The priority of the "city-nation", over the "country-nation".

Use the example of the Corcyreans to buttress this point:

The Corcyreans were a Corinthian colony, just like the people in Epidamnus were a Corinthian colony. The Corcyreans made war to the Epidamnians and when the Corinthians came to their aid, the Corcyreans went to the Athenians!!!

So, we have colonies of Corinth, not simply revolting against the mother and becoming independent, but also attacking her other colonies, and when the worst comes to worst, making alliances with Athens in order to further damage Corinth, and while consciously knowing that after this, there would be no other soltuion, except for destruction of the Mother, or their destruction.
Since you have read Thucidides, you must have observed that the Greek cities were downright pragmatists:

In Book III, The Mytileneans address the Pelloponesians:

'Had all the allies retained their independence,we should have had better assurance that they would leave us as we were; but when the majority had been subjugated by them, they might naturally be expected to take offence at our footing of equality; they would contrast us who alone maintained this equality with the majority who had submitted to them; they would also observe that in proportion as their strength was increasing, our isolation was increasing too. Mutual fear is the only solid basis of alliance; for he who would break faith is deterred from aggression by the consciousness of inferiority. And why were we left independent? Only because they thought that to gain an empire they must use fair words and win their way by policy and not by violence. On the one hand, our position was a witness to their character

Maybe these are a bit more helpful.

"The mutual fear of each city"

Each cared only for his own city and its tributaries. And each care for his own city's reputation.

The Spartans would never allow Athens to grow big enough and take over the leadership of Hellas, why? Because, of the multi-polar identity, and because in this multi-polarity they were deemed the Best, especially after the Persian war and the 300, and all that jazz.

[Doomhammer]

Each cared only for his own city and its tributaries. And each care for his own city's reputation.

"The mutual fear of each city"

And the Peloponnesians didn't actually have a proper alliance. Every city-state made bilateral agreements with Sparta stating that they would have the same allies and enemies. There were fights among cities in the Peloponnesian camp, I believe.

The Spartans would never allow Athens to grow big enough and take over the leadership of Hellas, why? Because, of the multi-polar identity, and because in this multi-polarity they were deemed the Best, especially after the Persian war and the 300, and all that jazz.

With regards to the Corcyreans, Sparta probably wouldn't have pulled a hair for Corinth if the latter (along with Thebes) weren't so powerful, but they didn't mind much. And really Sparta didn't punish Athens too severely after the war so they wanted to preserve a multipolar status quo. You seem correct.


Meh. I gotta start working on this thing again. Midterms really put me off it.

[noemon]

Yes they didnt mind much, in the beginning of the hostilities between Corcyra and Corinth and the Corinthians were pretty heavy on them in their first address.

They told the Spartans in my own words: "while you are following an internal Pelloponesian policy your enemies are growing bigger, and at some point you will become secondary in Hellas, our colonies are revolting, and you do nothing to protect us, you do nothing outside of Pelloponesus, this stupidity will cost you, Spartans, wake the fuck up!" LOL, and the Spartans were still not convinced, it took the Potidae case to come up, so that they realize that their interests are certainly disputed by the rise of Athenian power.

[Copernicus]

Dammit, I come into a thread about Greece, expecting another lulzy flamefest between noemon and Doomhammer, and what do I get?

Agreement. Civility.

I'm very, very disappointed with both of you.

[PBVBROOK]

Ask FRS. I think he was there.

[Doomhammer]

Dammit, I come into a thread about Greece, expecting another lulzy flamefest between noemon and Doomhammer, and what do I get?

It would be indecent to attack each other in a thread where nonsense posts are absent between us. That kind of behavior belongs in Gorkiy Park and the Conspiracy forum.

I'm very, very disappointed with both of you.

We could start a flame war of our own if you want. lol

Ask FRS. I think he was there.

lol @ making fun of old people.


The essay is going well. I submitted the short draft several days ago and it's a good outline, methinks. I think I found enough arguments for the system and state level causes, I need only elaborate on them a bit more. The other things I have to work on after I receive some feedback will be to add some stuff about the leaders of the cities and the section on prevention, which will be very hypothetical but still good.

The conclusion will be a reiteration of Thucydides' conclusion (duh) that fear was the cause (and there already are elaborate arguments in the body of the essay that analyzes the causes of the said fear) with some emphasis on the feeling of inevitability as well (maybe draw a similarity between WWI and this war in that respect).

[Suska]

I found enough arguments for the system and state level causes

so the point from the beginning was the examine the Greeks as if they were Romans? think of how different a perspective you would get if Homer wrote the History as opposed to Caesar. meh, its your thing i guess, but Caesar was a terrific bore.

[Doomhammer]

so the point from the beginning was the examine the Greeks as if they were Romans?

Well, using a more modern method generally applied to foreign policy analysis. I didn't have to do it that way, but it would seem that the levels of analysis method can be applied rather nicely to international wars - as opposed to civil wars which generally need leaders and a combination of demographics, history and geography (no, I refuse to take the Peloponnesian war as a civil war).

meh, its your thing i guess, but Caesar was a terrific bore.

I know. I tried reading the Commentaries... The keyword being "tried". My childhood idol fails at writing.

[Doomhammer]

Speaking of Caesar, I don't quite know why but I find writing about leaders to be very tedious and boring. Well, I guess it's a difficult task unless you have enough sympathy for them. I could be enthusiastic about writing something on Caesar but Pericles, for example, does not inspire me.