Table of Contents
<html>
<a href=“http://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki/doku.php?id=submission_page”><img src=“http://lucianofsamosata.info/images/contact.png” /></a>
</html>
Thucydides Book 1: Debate at Sparta
<html><p xmlns:dct=“http://purl.org/dc/terms/”><a rel=“license” href=“http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/”><img src=“http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png” style=“border-style: none;” alt=“Public Domain Mark” /></a><br />This work (by <a href=“https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki” rel=“dct:creator”>https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki</a>), identified by <a href=“http://meninpublishing.org” rel=“dct:publisher”><span property=“dct:title”>Frank Redmond</span></a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p></html>
Authored by Frank Redmond, 2005
An Analysis: Athens v. Sparta
In the Debate at Sparta, Thucydides is clearly trying to show how different the Spartans and the Athenians are from each other. During the three speeches of the section, he sets up a dichotomy with one faction on one side and the other faction on the other. He wants to show how different and dissimilar Athens is from Sparta and visa-versa. Thucydides does this by consistently giving both sides their own attributes. In a nutshell, the Athenians are seen in an entrepreneurial light and the Spartans in a more traditional light.
SPARTA
In the Corinthian’s speech, we are told right away that the Spartans are set in their ways and are unwilling to heed new advice. As it says, “Spartans, what makes you somewhat reluctant to listen to us others, if we have ideas to put forward, is the great trust and confidence which you have in your own constitution and in your own way of life” (1.68). Unlike Athens, Sparta is all closed ears; they just assume that since they have a working constitution and a way of life that suits them well, they do not have to change their ways to confront this new issue. While this attitude is seen as being “moderate” (sophrosune) (1.68) by the Corinthians, it is alternately seen as childish in a way, for it shows a kind of “ignorance (amathea) […] when dealing with foreign affairs” (1.68). In a word, the Spartans need to wake up and heed warning to the Athenians, who are going full-throttle. If the Spartans fail to see that Athens is an imperial power ready to vanquish her opponents, they will come up short and will be grossly unprepared for the inevitable war with Athens and her allies.
In line with this thinking, the Corinthians further plug away at the Spartans for being too calm in the face of adversity. The Corinthians make the point that Spartans have the reputation of being safe and secure as a power, but they also make it clear that this way of doing things will only lead to ruin. In fact, it has almost led to ruin in the past against the Persians: “The Persians, as we know ourselves, came from the ends of the earth and got as far as the Peloponnese before you were able to put a proper force into the field to meet them” (1.69). This procrastination is condemned as the Corinthians make the point that the Athenians, due to their close proximity to Sparta, can take advantage of this indecisiveness and make a run for it.
But this discipline which the Spartans command should not be seen in an entirely negative light. Perhaps, in response to the Corinthian rebuttal, slowness and cautiousness are positive attributes, for they can be seen as both “wise” and “sensible” (sophrosune emphron) (1.84) ways of doing business. Perhaps this well-ordered life leads to bravery and courage, because “self-control is based upon a sense of honor, and honor is based on courage” (1.84). It is this discipline which separates the Spartans from other Greeks, as well as the barbarians. The Spartans, too, place value in not being too highly educated so as to not question the foundations of Spartan society. This prevents dissention and chaos from prevailing.
So, in all, there are parts of Spartan society which are to be blamed, and others which are to be praised. Depending on the circumstances, that slowness and cautiousness can be a positive or be a negative. But, since they are facing an enemy like the Athenians who pride themselves on be fast-paced and entrepreneurial, this attitude may not be the best one to have. However, as history tells us, the Spartans win the war, so perhaps their attitude is warranted. Perhaps patience and courage outmatch the Athenian’s way.
ATHENS
Athens is presented in the opposite light than Sparta. We are told: “An Athenian is always an innovator (neoteropoios), quick to form a resolution and quick at carrying it out” (1.70). The first thing to notice is the sharp difference between the two sides. Sparta is presented in the next sentence in precisely the opposite manner: “[Spartans] are good at keeping things as they are (sozo); you never originate an idea, and your action tends to stop short of its aim” (1.70). What is evident is that the Athenians are pioneers of both idea and action. They tend to like to bring things to a close, a quick ending, whereas the Spartans are more of a stagnant party, unwilling to complete an action. Now this is a very large dichotomy. But it would too easy to consider the Athenians as superior. Their ways in fact lead them to be careless. The Corinthians say, in rebuttal: “Athenian daring will outrun its own resources; they will take risks against their better judgment, and still, in the midst of danger, remain confident” (1.70). So, in effect, the Athenians, due to their risk-taking, can become foolhardy and take enormous risks which do not pay off. The Spartans, by not giving in to these situations, would remain impervious. Thus, the advantage is in Spartan hands, at least whenever the Athenians become foolhardy.
However, the Corinthians also say, to the benefit of the Athenians, that new problems require new solutions. And only the Athenians, with their philosophy of action, are capable of tackling these new scenarios. The Spartan way would do no good. As it says: “When a city can live in peace and quiet, no doubt the old-established ways are best: but when one is constantly faced by new problems, one has also to be capable of approaching them in an original way. Thus Athens, because of the very variety of her experience, is far more modern state than you are” (1.71). This places the Athenians in an interesting predicament, in regards to her place in the thick of things. She is accused of being foolhardy because she takes risks against her better judgment, but she is also praised for being intelligent enough to recognize new challenges and seeing the need to develop new solutions for them. I think Thucydides’ intention is to show that if the Athenians show some prudence in regards to their actions, they will succeed. However, if they become impulsive and rash, they will crumble under the solid might of Sparta.
So, for Athens, it is clear that their success depends on whether or not they can maintain control over their situations. The Athenians must run a tight ship in order to be successful. If Athens can be that innovator and also be successful at maintaining control over their affairs, they will be successful in the greater war. It is essential for the Athenians to manage and streamline their operations lest they will get out of hand. For the Athenians, it is all about control, self-control and external control.
ULTIMATE SUCCESS
So who will ultimately, given the attributes both sides have, come out on the top? As someone who has already read the book and knows the answer, I cannot be a fair judge of this. However, I must say that Thucydides presents the Athenians in a more positive light, at least in the beginning. The Spartans, to him, are a sluggish bunch, incapable of taking up new challenges. And challenges and taking up these challenges are what war is all about. For example, when he says: “You Spartans are the only people in Hellas who wait calmly on events, relying for your defense not on action but on making people think that you will act. You alone do nothing in the early stages to prevent an enemy’s expansion; you wait until your enemy has doubled his strength” (1.69). The lack of initiative at Sparta is a huge issue. For Thucydides, one must have initiative in order to succeed in wartime. The Athenians have plenty of initiative and drive to go to war and conquer. This is seen throughout the text. As such, Thucydides seems to have more respect for the Athenian way. However, Thucydides also knows that the Athenians will go too far in their entrepreneurial quest, and they will fail because they will make terrible decisions based on their feelings rather than on reason.