History of the Peloponnesian War: Books 1-2

I can't wait for his next book. This one ended on a cliffhanger.

For such a book the translator is vitally important so perhaps I am praising the translator but I found it very readable. Thucydides was an excellent historian. I did have significant problems with it.
In my Gutenberg Kindle version there were no maps, no extra notes. I seriously recommend getting a different version. One with maps and some sort of extra footnotes explaining who was who.
I'm not familiar enough with Greece to know even 25% of the locations mentioned and certainly almost none of the names.

I found the chapters on the war in Sicily superb. It was limited in geography and there were fewer individuals involved. I could follow those chapters much easier and I enjoyed them as a result. I will be buying another copy of the book that contains maps I can reference while reading. I would have probably given this 5 stars if I had read such a version.

Th destruction of Athens during the plague reminds me of the Bush years

If, like me, you are unable to read solely the Greek text, then the next best thing is to use the Loeb edition. The English translation, made by C. F. Smith in 1919, is excellent, and it is useful to be able to refer to the Greek on the facing pages.

I would recommend reading this along with The Landmark Thucydides, which also contains a fine translation, excellent notes and timelines, and, perhaps best of all, detailed maps.

Lastly, it is illuminating to consult Hobbes's translation along the way, as it is perhaps primarily through Hobbes that Thucydides's account of the Peloponnesian War has had the greatest impact on English-speaking culture, as well as on Western political philosophy.

I LOVED this book. It's a book I think everyone should read. The LandMark Thucydides has great notes (maybe too many) but this is the edition I read and loved.

"The Lacedaemonians voted that the treaty had been broken, and that the war must be declared, not so much because they were persuaded by the arguments of the allies, as because they feared the growth of the power of the Athenians, seeing most of Hellas already subject to them."

For all those people who believe that modern politics have changed concept since the Ancient years. They will be surprised to see how similar the epochs are..

Only read book II.

Accordingly, instead of telling us whether or not he approves of a given policy, Thucydides asks us to make our own judgments, and then to subject them to the testing that the war provides.

— History of Political Philosophy

Speeches in Book 1:

Corcyraean to Athenian: success.
Appealed to fear (Lacedaemonians are preparing for war against you guys!), honor (we are not the smart one here, you are) and interest (we have the third most powerful navy in Hellas).

Corinthian to Athenian: failure.
Asking for the return of a favor — and subsequently, exposed the "conferring favor" BS Pericles was spouting in his funeral oratory. Meanwhile unwittingly enhanced the fear that Lacedaemonians are coming for them. Accusing Corcyraean of performing unjust extrajudicial meddling is adding insult to injury because Athens is the ultimate extrajudicial meddler at that time. Just ask Megara.

But is Sparta really plotting for war? They didn't even mobilize.

Corinthian to Spartan: success in rhetoric, failure in military judgement.
The fearmongering was so effective, Spartan even excused an OK boomer. But that doesn't make up for the fundamental weakness of Corinthian casus belli and subsequently Archidamus called their bluff. Then again, given the track record, I wouldn't bet my money on Corinth to be the most strategic-savvy city-state in the room.

Athenian embassy to Spartan: FAILURE. STOOPID FAILURE.
Where do I even start with this one? "You want war? Try me" or "lol you guys were even worse leaders, remember Pausanias (who committed treason) and how Sparta was hated under his leadership?" or "you guys remember our navy commander Themistocles (who caused significant security issue to Sparta by forming a competing alliance in Argolis and lent a hand in the treason of Pausanias)?" ... are the Athenian embassy made of trolls????

Good job guys. Really stellar "diplomacy".

Archidamus to Spartan: failure in rhetoric, success in judgement.
I'm trying to find more information on the intellectual activities in pre-War Corinth. Corinthian rhetoric seemed to be very effective in provocation but wanting in wisdom and military acumen. Both Athens and Corinth were economic hubs in classical times, so it wouldn't be surprising that there were considerable intellectuals gathered in Corinth just like Gorgias, Polemarchus, Protagoras in Athens as appeared in Plato's dialogues. (Not to mention that Xenophon died in Corinth) Meanwhile Archidamus displayed a very keen judgement: the flaws he saw in Peloponnesian military, namely the naval inferiority, proved to be a much persistent issue in later battles (Battle of Rhium and Battle of Naupactus in Book 2). Corinthians got their asses whooped, twice, in their previous battles against Corcyraeans and Athenians (Battle of Epidamnus and Battle of Syvota) — yet they still believed that this inferiority can be easily made up for in the next speech.

Corinthian to Peloponnesian Assembly: success in rhetoric, failure in judgement.
Hope is not a strategy. I have to say, the way Corinthian reasoned (read: fearmongered) gave me deja vu — similar wishful thinking and blind optimism has been running rampant in current Western discussion of Russia-Ukraine conflict. Should this be counted as a success, or a failure of US liberal education? Those proteges, now sitting in various think tanks and superPAC groups, seemed to learn the content of these classical struggle by heart. Some might even whip out an obscure Latin phrase from time to time on Twitter. But their application of such content is so mechanical that it's more adjacent to "unreflecting imitation", which would no doubt strike Theodor Mommsen as "vulgar".

Pericles to Athenians: success in rhetoric, partial success in judgement.
Pericles obviously overestimated the temperance of Athenian people. Thucydides quite correctly called out the "fickleness of a multitude" in later chapters.

Speeches in Book 2:
Archidamus to Peloponnesian Army: success in judgement.
I'd like to see Archidamus vs Sun Tzu in a Red Alert live stream. I really do.

Pericles' funeral speech: I honestly believe this is Thucydides pulling a "friends, Romans, countrymen" on his readers, i.e. lying in every line yet forcing people to believe the lies.
What private griefs Thucydides had alas I know not that made him do it. But he left enough bread crumbs in his texts to refute every point Pericles raised. "Administration is in the hands of many not the few" — a few chapters later "Athens, though still in name a democracy, was in fact ruled by her greatest citizen". "Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us" — a few chapters ago Athens denied the sovereignty of Thasos because Thasos has silver mines. "[W]e are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes" — right at the beginning of Book 1 Thucydides noted how Athens, even in ruins, "would strike the eye". I could go on but I think my point is made. If that's not enough evidence, note that Thucydides turned to the Plague of Athens in the immediate subsequent chapters. His account of this plague was equal in length of Pericles' speech. The kalos thanatos in words was placed in sharp constrast with the real "dusty death". This arrangement was deliberate, for Thucydides would, if he wanted, downplay this episode or keep it away from being associated with Pericles' speech in the reader's mind (cf. how he broke up the story of Themistocles in Book 1).

Pericles' self-apologia to Athenians: success in rhetoric, failure in something more fundamental.
Pericles in his speech unintentially exposed serious flaws in Athenian characters — which will eventually be their downfall in their military enterprise. Pericles, according to Plutarch and Donald Kagan, was the one who moved tributes of Delian League from Delos to Athens and spent it on Athenian purposes, which is a form of theft. He garnered support from Athenian citizen by constructing public architectures that "would strike the eye" and appeal to the vainglory of citizens. The vainglory giveth, the vainglory shall take it away. I don't know why he expected such spoiled citizens should become virtuosi in temperance during wartime, and planned his whole strategy on such flaky premise.

Peloponnesian Generals' speech before the Battle of Naupactus: success in rhetoric, failure in judgement.
Phormio's speech before the Battle of Naupactus: successin rhetoric, success in judgement.
These two are very rich in their implications — especially the discussion on the nature of courage by Plato in Laches and the Republic. It's been almost a decade since I last read those two texts so I shall refraine from commenting for now.