[Doomhammer]

I'd like to hear your thought about one of the most important wars in the ancient world:

What are your thoughts about the Peloponnesian War?

Which side do you support and why?

What do you think would have happened if Athens never made the mistakes it did and won the war?

Do you think Thucydides is a good historian?

Which consititution do you think was better, the Spartan or the Athenian?

[Alfsigr]

I would not have supported either side, the Athenians were corrupt and decadent, the Spartans a race of slave-owners. The slavery issue put to one side, however, the Spartan system had more merit than the Athenian, being a well-balanced mixture of aristocracy, democracy and oligarchy. Their citizenship rules were far to harsh, however, leading to a rapid and disasterous population decline.

As to what would have happened had Athens won, I dont think much would have changed. Sparta would have been annihilated sooner, but Sparta was always an inward-looking society and had little influence past the Peloponesian wars anyway. The Spartans were magnanamous in victory and did little lasting damage to Athens, so it would make no real difference either way, in the long term.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I would not have supported either side, the Athenians were corrupt and decadent, the Spartans a race of slave-owners. The slavery issue put to one side, however, the Spartan system had more merit than the Athenian, being a well-balanced mixture of aristocracy, democracy and oligarchy. Their citizenship rules were far to harsh, however, leading to a rapid and disasterous population decline.

As to what would have happened had Athens won, I dont think much would have changed. Sparta would have been annihilated sooner, but Sparta was always an inward-looking society and had little influence past the Peloponesian wars anyway. The Spartans were magnanamous in victory and did little lasting damage to Athens, so it would make no real difference either way, in the long term.

Ummmm, you clearly don't understand the nature of Sparta. Sparta's citizens were soldiers, they did nothing else but fight. Everyone else was a slave, a helot. Internally Sparta's militery elite was orginised as an absolute monarchy , although the monarch was in the unique position of having no coercive means of forcing the other Spartans to obey him by force.

If I had to support someone, I'd support Athens though of course I have no love for either bunch of them. Sparta was a monsterous state of thugs and sadistic psycopaths that ruled by terrorising the rest of the population into submission.

[ZeusIrae]

I will only respond on thucydides.He's still considered to be one of the first true historians and one of the best.
I only read the beginning of his book but even today it's easy to unerstand what he's talking about.He explained clearly the issues of his time and was impartial.

Definitely a monument of world history.

[Spin]

although the monarch was in the unique position of having no coercive means of forcing the other Spartans to obey him by force.

There were two kings, and they were the generals of the army.

[Monkeydust]

I did this in school, but I can't remember too much about it. If I'm right in saying this, the Athenians finally lost only after a massive blunder - essentially they left their fleet abandoned unaware the Spartans were nearby, and, inevitably, their ships got nicked.

As to which side I support, it has to be the Athenians. The Spartans were great soldiers, but what else? Athens gave us great playwrights, philosophy, art, architecture, pottery, history, and, let's not forget, democracy.

I haven't actually read Thucydides, but he's generally considered to be the first 'proper' historian. He's certainly much more thorough and, well, cynical, than his predecessor Herodotus.

[Swagman]

A victory for Athens would have undoubtedly meant further colonial expansion in the Med and empire building.

A likely revenge conquest of Persia (without Alexander) and square offs with both Rome and Carthage would have been inevitable.

Then who knows...no cristianity? no Islam, no dark ages?

Hell, we might be living in outaspace?

Yeah, I studied this a while back as well and made the odd comparison to the cold war. Athens being the USA and Sparta the USSR (and as an Aussie thru Australia in as the faithful Platea)

Will Iraq be the USA's Syracuse?

[Spin]

Is China Corinth then?

And who's Macedon?

[Attila The Nun]

A victory for Athens would have undoubtedly meant further colonial expansion in the Med and empire building.

The problem is, after such a costly war, can you really see Athens having a great future as a leader? Also, how is Athens suddenly able to form an empire which can rival Carthage or Rome when it failed to do so for so many years?

[Swagman]

Is China Corinth then?

And who's Macedon?

They didn't really feature in my comparison.

The problem is, after such a costly war, can you really see Athens having a great future as a leader? Also, how is Athens suddenly able to form an empire which can rival Carthage or Rome when it failed to do so for so many years?

Hypothetically speaking for Athens to have won the war their disaster in Syracuse would almost certainly have had to have been a success.

With possessions in Sicily they were well on their way to empire.

Trade and conquest would recoup their costs and strategic alliances (say Thebes and/or the Macedonians) would increase their military strength.

There would have been an inevitable clash with Persia and victory there would have created a huge power that would have swallowed both Rome and Carthage.

[Thunderhawk]

An Athenian empire would not have survived long in my opinion.


Rome, Persia, Babylon.. all of them used their military power for more then just trade and border disputes. They built empires by assimilation and subjugation, with occupied enforcement untill the people assimilated into the empire.

Athens used its military prowess to force open trade and to ensure its independance. Their empire would never have lasted long. Even if they defeated Persia I doubt they would exploit that into real empire building.


(Ive been trolling this thread for a while now.. finally a topic within I can post about )

[Monkeydust]

I'm not so sure about the Athenian empire. I don't think they'd be able to hold down an empire in the style of Rome - with provinces held in the tight grip of the center with stationed armies and governors sent from the capital. But they could have perhaps maintained some kind of confederation, where states are essentially independent but allied by trade links and common interest. And this could have resulted in an even greater dispersal of Athenian culture and politics.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The problem is, after such a costly war, can you really see Athens having a great future as a leader? Also, how is Athens suddenly able to form an empire which can rival Carthage or Rome when it failed to do so for so many years?

So many years? The Athenian empire was still very young by the time the war broke out - and during that time it had been nothing short of a spectacular success. Athens was well on the way towards establishing herself as the undisputed superpower in the region. And as Thucydides argued, it was for this reason more than anything else which motivated Sparta to go to war. At the time war was declared, Athens was at the peak of its power. The one thing that changed Athens fortunes - more than anything else in my opinion, was the plague which wiped out about one third of the Athenian population. The sheer magnitude of this outbreak, if not the cause, was clearly a product of the war itself as the population huddling within the confines of the long walls - to avoid the Spartan invading force - became the ideal environment for a most devastating epidemic.

Obviously the war itself had a debilitating effect on Athen's power, but most of her tribute paying allies remained loyal until the very end. And despite the most devastating military losses - most notably in Syracuse, Sparta and her allies were continually unable to make a breakthrough, and Athen's naval superiority remained until the final year or so - and even then it remained a worthy match for Lysander.

All in all, its reasonable to assume that in the absense of a war which heaped disaster upon disaster upon Athens, Athens would have continued its rapid expansion and influence, creating an empire that would have raised her as the undisputed regional superpower.

[Far-Right Sage]

Without a doubt, I would have fought for/supported the Spartans.

[dugfromthearth]

The war between the Delian League and the Lacadaemonians and their Allies?

Clearly before the war the Delian League was the most progressive. Putting down piracy and helping establish trade. The main issue was whether the league had a right to force islands to join them. It is one of the problems of being an international police force - they paid dues to put down piracy. If other islands benefited from the reduction of piracy but did not have to pay dues, it was not a fair system.

So as a capitalist I have to side with the Delian League. The Spartans were interested in keeping things disorganized and preventing progress. They were not trying to make the world better, they were trying to maintain their own power by keeping everyone else suppressed.

If Athens had won the war they would not have taken over Greece, they just would have maintained the Delian League and expanded it. Assuming the invasion of Syracuse counts as one of their mistakes, the league would have been contained in the Aegean. Most likely Philip would still have invaded and conquered Greece and history would have been largely the same.

Assuming that Athens conquered Syracuse, then Sicily would have all fallen. Carthage would have been contained in north africa, Athens would have championed southern Italy against the Romans. Except again most likely Philip would still have invaded and conquered Greece and history would have been largely the same.

Thucydides was a good historian in that he provides a clear picture of what was going on. Unfortunately we have no idea from his work how much he made up (he even says he made up the speeches if he didn't hear them himself). So he tells us what we want to know, we just don't know if it is true.

Both constitutions were terrible. Athenian is marginally better.

[Efstratios]

Hmm..it's sort of like WW2 with Nazi's and Communist's. (left v right).

Sparta were like the Nazi's and had pwnage soldiers ^_^
Athenians were more into logical thinking and philosophy, arts etc..

Though I'm not saying Athens didn't have great soldiers too or vice versa.

[Smilin' Dave]

Sparta were like the Nazi's and had pwnage soldiers ^_^
Athenians were more into logical thinking and philosophy, arts etc..

Sparta was actually a bit less eugenicist and a bit more democratic than popular history portrays, thus making them less Nazi than you might expect. I'm not sure who the Athenians are supported to represent in WWII based on your description.

[Potemkin]

I would not have supported either side, the Athenians were corrupt and decadent, the Spartans a race of slave-owners.

The Athenians were also a race of slave-owners (as was every other empire or civilisation of that period). And the Spartans were notorious for being easily corrupted whenever they came into contact with wealth or luxury outside Sparta.

The slavery issue put to one side, however, the Spartan system had more merit than the Athenian, being a well-balanced mixture of aristocracy, democracy and oligarchy. Their citizenship rules were far to harsh, however, leading to a rapid and disasterous population decline.

Agreed. The Achilles heel of Sparta was the rigid division of their society into helots and citizens. But I would certainly not describe the Spartan political system as "well-balanced".

As to what would have happened had Athens won, I dont think much would have changed. Sparta would have been annihilated sooner, but Sparta was always an inward-looking society and had little influence past the Peloponesian wars anyway.

Agreed.

The Spartans were magnanamous in victory

No they weren't; far from it in fact. The members of the Delian League quickly discovered to their dismay that the Spartans were even more oppressive and brutal than the Athenians had ever been. And Athens was treated very harshly by the Spartans.

and did little lasting damage to Athens, so it would make no real difference either way, in the long term.

Agreed, but this was mainly because the Spartans quickly lost their power and influence because of their short-sighted brutality and oppression towards their new subjects. The Athenians might have made their victory over Sparta stick, especially if they exploited the division between the citizens and the helots of Sparta. The Spartans failed to make their victory over Athens stick, because of their deficiencies as administrators. Basically, the Spartans didn't have a fucking clue how to run an empire.

[AlexHarrison]

Hmm..it's sort of like WW2 with Nazi's and Communist's. (left v right).

Sparta were like the Nazi's and had pwnage soldiers ^_^
Athenians were more into logical thinking and philosophy, arts etc..

Though I'm not saying Athens didn't have great soldiers too or vice versa.

I'm sorry, but that was complete and utter bullshit. This has NOTHING to do with WW2 and I don't understand why you are comparing them together? Athens was a sesspool for corrupt politicians and greedy merchants, however Sparta was just focused on it's Military (America comes into my mind here )