Running Head: ESSAY ON THUCYDIDES
Essay on Thucydides
Essay on Thucydides
For Thucydides, the statement “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” creates chance for the strong and powerful to do as they find suiting and subdue the weak to crumble as they should.
The Athenians spokesman attributes that it is the better that the strong rule a larger number of people as they are able to. The spokesman attributes the rule of the strong neutrally, as a natural hindrance; this is in the sense that he feels a pull in the opposite direction. The Melians acknowledge the human behaviour of the strong ruling over the weak for the benefit of all persons. Justice and fairness has to be considered for the person facing any form of demise. Justice has to be meted out on equal basis but when one of the sides is relatively stronger it may as well be over ruled since they are unequal (Cawkwell). Thucydides are traditionalists on justice, the war that arose on Peloponnesian with the desire of the Spartans feeling the desire to control the power that the Athenians had.
The Athenians on the other hand felt that they could not let power slide away from their hands which would result to they falling down of the cities that they once held. The war would be avoidable if the Athens Empire grew, but the Athens does not go hand in hand with this form of view. The Athenians tried to defend herself in the presence of the Peloponnesians that the weak are bound to be controlled by the relatively strong and powerful known as ananké. Fear and ambition is the outcome of such power, control and justice.
Such fear and ambition are termed to as strong motives that do not have any impact in stopping an event; they just do much to instill an art of inevitability to the principle individuals. The Peloponnesians war is seen to be unavoidable more so relying on the clues left behind by the Thucydides. The war could have been done away with if the sage advice was followed of Archidamus and could have followed the arbitration as an alternative which the Spartans did later note.
Athens was not supposed to grow as desired considering the reasons that they had issued. If Spartans had gone on as the leader or controller of the anti-Persian League it would have been coerced to an empire on the Athenian model. The Peloponnesians League did not translate to the Athenians model even adding to the fact that it was powerful and won the war.
This issue seems to be the Thucydides’ story and does not create any form of space for the said law of nature that the strong are in more often than not purposed to be victorious over the weak. According to this law, which has an Athenian basis, starts more specifically when the relatively strong and powerful have overreached and are fearful of the weak. The Spartans attribute nothing to anaké before attacking and pulling down the Plataea. Not a single person makes this plea and is more or less rejected by their less powerful opponents that are never convinced that it was an avoidable step to pull them down.
In considering the Plato and the Thucydides, the Athenians have all lost virtue in the process of the war; they however contrast in the causes and cures. They both attribute the reduction in the aspect of rise of democracy, rise of an empire and the aspects of morality. The Plato and the Thucydides attribute the gap between the moral ideals of the Greek and their knowledge about life. It is according to Plato that the moral decline of the persons as caused by poor company and minimal or no education at all (Thucydides). He says that the best way to handle this to create a society that revolves around moral education and attributes of strong controls of individuals with huge desires of persons so as to hinder their falling to avarice an overreaching of the strong.
Lacedaemonians, who are termed to as not being cruel by the Athenians, for instance use their position of leadership in Peloponnesus to manage issues in the cities for the benefit of themselves. If they had continued to stay longer as the leaders of the alliance that was formed against the Persians, one would be despised or looked down upon adding to the fact that their leadership would have been similarly painful to the allies. One would automatically be forced to rule with a strong hand, where if not so the person would be putting himself at a great disadvantage. This is a typical human nature where an empire is taken up as offered and then later refused to surrender it. This upholds the fact that one is bound to be overcome by the fear, ambition and self-advantage motives. This consequently it is a resulting fact that the weaker are bound to be controlled by the stronger. Following this form of human attribution of ruling over others one is on the desire to be praised in their application of additional justice than required. It has however been to one’s own demise that the praise has turned to contempt.
On the fact that Justice only pertains where power is equal between political communities, justice is termed to be an unchallenged good however it may be fragile. Justice is equal to power under the court of law. Justice involves the maintenance of the traditional law, the settling of disputes without the application of violence, the application of an agreement even with the interest of a single party, the avoidance of an overreaching and avarice and tyranny.
According to Thucydides, justice is portrayed as being subverted by power. Nature is termed to as being too powerful for justice. Thucydides follows the fact, though traditional, that nature is not good and should be more often than not being kept in check. For the normal application of life, justice ought to be present; it is proclaimed and praised more often by word than in action and more by the weak than the powerful. It is hence a result that exactness of the fragility of the goodness in human aspects when power is a component.
Power on the other hand, in reference to the Thucydides, is termed to as the integration of wealth and the advancement of superiority. Speeches have in more instances than not have any effect in cases that interest interfere with one another. In local political matters of the community, the Thucydides has concern of the Athenians democracy. Speeches in certain instances have had little impact. Pericles was in a position to manage the community members to a certain length, his power though rested basically on his past actions and additionally power did not go well with him when the war had started on the Athenians. Alcibiades, considering his good speaking skills, delivered a good service for the Athenians that went a long way to stop the civil war.
Cleon on the other hand was different considering the fact that he held an uneasy perspective of the people. He was in a good position and successful enough to develop a talk with the people into advancing the war. He was however out done by Nicias in the instance when he termed to Cleon as a bluff on the issue of Pylos. It is apparent that in democratic aspects that power is reliant on the basis of human nature rather than on how to manipulate words. This hence qualifies that for justice to be an aspect of consideration, power does play a part in the community. In instances where Alcibiades and Thucydides had not succeeded, Nicias was successful. Nicias was cautious and was able to be above any form of loss of command though losing at the end.
In the instance where the Lacedaemonians apply their leadership advantage in the Peloponnesus to manage issues for the benefit of themselves. If they had been there long enough as leaders of the alliance against the Persians they would have received a bad treatment in his reign. There is the desire of justice at the end of it for the acquisition of an advantage. The application of more of the justice when ruling a section of the people with comparison being laid to power undermines the fact that justice only pertains when power is same for all the community members.
This has however called for contempt rather than fairness. The people that have empires are less subjected to their subjects, the possession of power results to the use of force as they see no need to follow the rule of law. The weaker ones are ones crying for justice to prevail with the availability of power to the government. The stronger ones in their position see that the weaker ones ought to give way to the stronger ones. The Persians did not follow just when ruling the community and it is even worse presently.
It is for this that the Melians acknowledge the plea by the Athenians for surrendering and consideration of their interests, which they may surrender for the interest of the Athenians. The Melians see the Athenian as having steps to pull them away from justice; they are attempting to persuade the Athenians that their interests are matching the interests of the Athenians. The Athenians on the other hand attribute power to be the only way that the good will in the society will prevail. An instance is in the Lacedaemonians who are more conversant of this; they lack trust and belief in their justice system.
Thucydides describes the events of the Athens and the occupants of the island of Melo. The Melian Dialogue represents a connection between the Euripides and Plato. It stands out and presents a well-managed place central to the Thucydides’ completed history which insists on the devastating antinomy of the Greek’s case. This section tries to focus on how the dialogue came to be in addition to the reasons as to why the Thucydides placed it into their works. The Athenians established war against the Melos otherwise known as the Melians. The Melians are a collection of Lacedaemonians and as a result did not want to be subjected to the rule of the Athens as other places had been. There initially, they lived peacefully but it is later that the Athenians presented the opportunity for war when they misused their land.
The Athenians, Cleos and Tisias created a camp in the Melian territory. It was before any attempt to engage in war that over the Melian land that the ambassadors were sent to set up discussions. The Melians on the other hand did not agree to present the ambassadors in the presence of the community. They alternatively decided to send message to some of the officials and leaders.
It is according to Thucydides that before the Melians established a war with the Athenians, which the Athenians desired a submission of control on noting that they would not be getting any form of assistance from Sparta who was their ally as they were purposed to keeping their base safe from external invasion.
The Thucydides termed international relations as being anarchic and immoral. The Dialogue expounds this view of an interstate politics that does not have regulation and justice. The Thucydides applied this dialogue in the works so as to present a contrast of the affairs of a city-state where laws and customs are followed so as to offer an equal treatment of both the weak and strong, with international disagreement where the relatively strong rule over the weak. This works moreover adds value to the theme of the Thucydides which entails tracing the ideals and realities of the Athenians policy as seen in the Peloponnesian War. The Dialogue acknowledges the right of the Melians as they are and that they are not indicted to the Athenian attitude that has a correlation to the Periclean speech and advancement and not a diversion from the political aspect of the Thucydides.
Works Cited
Cawkwell, George. “Political Theory.” Sage: Sage Publications, December 2000. Pp. 861-869.
Thucydides. On justice, power, and human nature: the essence of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing, 1993.
