Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donald Kagan on the Peloponessian War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Donald Kagan on the Peloponessian War

    I read his book while at Uni (and his 'On the Origins of War'). Quite interesting to see him lecture.



    Basicly he rejects Thucydides main contention that the war was 'inevitable'. He thinks that Pericles was trying to avoid war in the Epidamnus dispute, if not with Corinth at least with Peloponessian League as a whole. He would also contend that WW1 was not 'inevitable' and in 'On the Origins of War' compares WW1 with the Peloponessian War as opposed to WW2 with the Second Punic War. The point is that he regards WW2 as continuation of WW1 and the Second Punic War similarly a continuation of the first.

  • #2
    snapper,

    e would also contend that WW1 was not 'inevitable'
    this i agree. had the war not broken out in 1914, within two years at the most the German economy would not have been able to afford to continue the massive militarization which had started in the 1908 timeframe (and vastly accelerated in 1912). the Socialists were about to take power, too.

    on a grander scale, part of the reason why Germany chose then and there to fight was because its own High Command figured that within a few years Russian industrialization would make an offensive war against Russia suicidal. which was frankly overestimating Russian capabilities, but the perception was there.

    two more years of peace and WWI would have not happened. this would be an interesting what-if to explore, because for germany and the UK, there was a LOT of very, very serious internal angst and issues that were papered over during the war.

    ---

    getting back to the topic at hand, i would agree with the sentiment that the most famous line from Thucydides, "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta", is false-- both in this case and a more general case with international politics.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #3
      A terrific lecture. He makes the times live and shows that nothing really changes in the community of states. I plan to listen to all of them. Thanks, Snapper, for sharing
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
        A terrific lecture. He makes the times live and shows that nothing really changes in the community of states. I plan to listen to all of them. Thanks, Snapper, for sharing
        You're welcome. Once you've studied Classics you never totally 'lose the bug'. I found the lectures very good... the 'colonisation phase' as it were leading onto the 'tyrant phase'. He almost goes to far as to suggest that the more colonies a city sent out the more likely it was to have a 'tyrant'; Sparta only ever had two colonies and never had a tyrant. A great lesson can be also be seen from the Spartan 'retrenchment' after the Persian Wars which in effect left the 'space' in which the Athenians built their 'Empire'.

        As for the 'two wars or one' theory: Kagan would argue that the Second Punic War (the Hannibal one) and WW2 were in effect continuations of the first wars. I think it was Keynes who called the Versailles Peace Treaty an 'armistice' but this neglects the fact that the Peloponnesian War was in itself TWO wars with a six year 'peace' in between. It was during the 'Peace of Nicias' that the Sicilian Expedition was launched, which was obviously a threat to the Peloponnesian allies as Syracuse was a colony of theirs (a Spartan officer was sent to lead the defense). Kagan would argue that the Second World and Punic Wars had more 'inevitability' than the first wars because of savage terms layed on the losers but the 'Peace of Nicias' in itself does not have 'winner' or 'loser' and recognises very much the 'Periclean standoff'. To my mind Kagan then has to explain why the war started again; granted Pericles was by that time dead and Nicias himself was against the Sicilian Expedition but the return to war does NOT fit the same formula of his theory of the Second World and Punic wars.

        Specifically on his comparison of the Second World and Punic Wars: In Hitler and Hannibal one can see clear similarities; Hannibal is made to swear undying hatred to Rome and Hitler experience in WW1 and the loss of Alsace Lorraine/eastern Sicily create clear parallels. There's also a general historical school of thought, which I partly subscribe to, that States who power derives predominantly from a land army (Rome or WW1-2 Germany for example) are less likely to be 'democratic' than States that rely on sea power and trade. Thus Britain and Athens are 'democracies' and even Carthage, while not being 'democratic' as such, is clearly not fully supportive of the Hannibal and the Barcids. Thucydides claims that Athens was NOT a 'democracy' and that Pericles was a form of 'populist tyrant' so I think Kagan has to do more to refute this claim. Certainly after Pericles died the debate on the Sicilian Expedition provides evidence of a democratic method.

        Kagan also calls Thucydides a 'revisionist' historian and I suspect would like to call him a 'political analyst' (which is not intended as a term of praise) largely because of the 'inevitability' that Thucydides claims. Personally I don't believe there is enough evidence of what others thought at the time to make such a claim. Thucydides clearly under emphasises the importance of the Megarian Decrees (a form of boycott of Megarian goods in the Athenian Empire) and clearly this was more important as causus bellum than Thucydides reports but it does not in itself contradict the terms of the 30 years peace so why, if the war were NOT about Athenian power and therefore 'inevitable', did the Peloponnesians decide to go to war then?

        Of course if Thucydides is right and the war is caused by Spartan 'retrenchment' after the Persian Wars, which leads to Athenian leadership of the Delian League and it's conversion into the Athenian Empire, then how Sparta deals with Athens itself after the war is telling: While both Corinth and Thebes want Athens treated a la Carthage after the Third Punic War, wiped off the face of the earth etc, the Spartans reject this option and do not interfere when shortly after Athens returns to democracy. It is also worth noting that in fact Sparta did later persue an 'Imperial' (or what Kagan calls a Lysander policy) policy in Asia when the Spartan King Agesilaus campaigned in Phrygia (at the same time as Xenophons 10,000). He was perhaps contemplating an Alexander - like attack on Artaxerxes II himself when he was recalled home to deal with Thebes where the Spartans later lost supremacy at the Battle of Leuctra. So in effect the Peloponnessian victory over Athens and settlement of the war, although they allowed Athens to remain, was unable to establish a sufficient 'balance of power' between Attica (Athens) and Boeotia (Thebes) to check each other; Thebes grew into the 'space' created by the end of Athenian power and was soon able to provide another - and this time more 'land based' - threat to Spartan supremacy. The subsequent history seems to me then, to support mostly Thucydides. Of course other factors should be taken into account and the decline of the Spartan population is often cited. At the start of the Peloponnessian War there are said to be around 3,500 'true' Spartans. When Agesilaus invaded Asia he took only 35 Spartiates and by the Battle of Leuctra there are said to be 1,000 Spartans in all. Also of course when Sparta 'goes east' and attacks the Satraps in Asia they lose the Persian funding which had enabled them to eventually overcome Athens at sea.

        Anyway those are some of my thoughts. I make no apologies for my love of Classical history. History does NOT change. The decision of whether to arm the Syrian rebels is not much different to that presented to the Athenians with regard to Epidamnus.

        The 'Melian Dialogue' can be found here if you're interested; https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm

        Comment

        Working...
        X