One on the reading bucket list down. A must for the ancient world. Sparta versus Athens. Post Thermopylae history is primarily known because of Thucydides. I am still amazed that this history made it to us over the centuries. I am very happy I picked this one up and finally finished it off.

Let it first be said, in reference to that discipline involving the examination of events which, though passed, may have relevance to, or lessons for, the current era, or even perhaps future eras, that it is my primary interest and avocation to extend my own understanding of the various persons -- statesmen, generals, men of wealth and influence, and others -- who contributed to the origin and who shaped the outcome of these events; and also, when I may reasonably do so, to draw whatever general conclusions from such accounts as may, in the course of time, prove useful to me in better understanding my own life, the times in which I live, and those other times to which my attention might be applied with similar intent.

That, my friends, is my attempt to share my own experience of how Thucydides writes. He beats even Hegel on the "average number of clauses per sentence" metric. He digresses within his digressions. He qualifies his qualifiers. What's more, in the translator's introduction, that worthy artisan confirms with some chagrin that all of this is there in the original Greek; that in fact two millennia of critical analyses have failed to untangle in any satisfactory way some of Thucydides' more ambitious grammatical performance art.

Put simply, this book was a long, hard slog. As an avid student of history, I had been meaning to read this seminal work by the Father of History for decades, and in fact I am very glad I did so -- but wow, that was a lot of work. Compounding the complexity of the style is the tendency of the text to drop into pages of excruciatingly boring lists of people and places with barely a linking action verb to be found between them. I very often had the experience of having my eyes reach the bottom of a page, only to sheepishly realize that I had actually registered none of what I had "read" there. I will freely admit that I revived the skimming skills I last used regularly in college in order to finish the book before the sun reaches its red-giant phase.

And again, all that being said, I am glad I read this. For when Thucydides takes a break from listing every commander in a minor battle or the fleet sizes of every city in the Aegean, he delivers wonderful, brilliantly worded insights into eternal truths of politics, war, and society. He is not often a "poetic" author, but his wrenching, carefully escalating description of the catastrophic Plague of Athens broke my heart. The speeches quoted (and, he admits, reconstructed) from various luminaries are riveting, brilliantly worded, and full of examples of rhetoric at its most finely honed. That they all sound the same, and thus very likely all sound like Thucydides, is a small cavil indeed.

Being a great admirer of Tides of War, a carefully researched historical novel set during the same period addressed by Thucydides, I was especially interested in seeing Thucydides' portrayal of Alcibiades, a remarkable man who managed during his tumultuous life to lead and betray most of the major parties in the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides' account was (of course) sparser than Pressfield's and rather jumbled, but it captured the essence of this complex figure. I came away with a fresh appreciation for both authors.

For all its faults (which are examined at length in the introduction), this work stands as the first attempt to write history in the modern mode -- analytical, dispassionate, and evidence-based. It falls far short of those goals in countless ways, but to even conceive of this task in 400 BCE is evidence of genius. His successes are far more remarkable and important than his failures. Despite the many times this book came close to being bounced off the far wall of my living room, I am happy that I took the time and effort to read it. If you have the same interests and stamina as I, you may find the same. Otherwise, stick to Pressfield. Or Wikipedia.

It's a unique experience, worth reading if you're into history

This is the best book on geopolitics ever written.  It’s very difficult, too.  His style isn’t that difficult and the subject matter is straightforward.  The difficulty, as the school of Leo Strauss would later point out, is a dialectic between a surface reading and a deeper reading.  

Part of the book’s popularity is the parallel to the American Empire, prompting such devices as a “Thucydides Trap.” Will American overextend itself and force China to attack it?  I think that line of questioning is wrong, but the parallels remain.  America, like Athens, is a sea-based power (in the classical Halford Mackinder sense).  America, like Athens, believes in spreading Democracy by force whether others want it or not.  America, like Athens, doesn’t really practice democracy.

We also see in Athens the “rhetoric of empire.” We must rule you because if we don’t someone will rule us. 

The fatal moment for Athens is the invasion of Sicily and the Battle of Syracuse.

The first set of causes is the Corcyraen and Potidean affairs.  This put Athens in a bind.  On one hand, they were bound to a peace treaty and couldn’t get involved by helping Corinth.  They decided to risk open confrontation because they couldn’t risk Sparta’s allies gaining that much power (I.44ff).  Corinth, Sparta’s ally, saw this as Athen’s breaking a peace treaty (56).

Thucydides gives a penetrating analysis of Athenian democracy. He points out that democracy and empire are connected. In the aftermath both sides then recruit their vassals and allies to prepare for war against the other.

Key idea: “War is not so much a matter of armament as of the finance which gives effect to that armament, especially when a land power meets a sea power” (83).  Sparta fears that Athens is getting too powerful and has to act before it is too late (118).  Athens, on the other hand, knows (or at least believes) that it can “outspend Sparta to death.”

Platea was hostile to Thebes, so the Thebans launched a pre-emptive strike to seize the key ground (II.2). Athens saw this action as breaking the peace treaty, so she began preparing for war.

The highlight of the first year of war is Pericles’ speech to the Athenians (II.35). It’s beautiful, but whitewashed, since his noble talk of democracy doesn’t include slaves or women.

Sections 48ff show the effect of plague upon the war.  It hampered Athens’ war effort, but more importantly it illustrated the social decay.  In times of plague and crisis, men reduce to their natural levels (II.53).

The book ends with Athens in chaos.  Sparta could have really exploited the situation and conquered most of Greece.  Unfortunately, they didn’t.  The democracy in Athens begins eating itself, which I suspect is the nature of democracy.

Pericles is the main figure of this narrative.  He is honest about empire.  Athens is an empire.  We shouldn’t be fooled by silly talk about democracy.  The danger with empire is that when you lose it, your enemies smell blood.  Pericles notes: “The empire you possess is now like a tyranny--dangerous to let go” (63).

Later on Athens is even more crass (but honest) in its desire for empire. She tells the Melians: “If the independents survive, it is because we are (perceived) as too frightened to attack them….It is particularly important that we, as a naval power, should not let islanders get away from us, especially you in your weak position” (V:97).

If that leaves it in any doubt, Athens goes on to say, “We dominate people at home so that others should not control us” (VI:87).

Conclusion

It’s hard to overstate this book’s importance.  It isn’t simply military history.  It explores what happens to a society during war time.  Social morals often reflect external situations.

Idem si postaviť tropaion, že som túto knihu dobojoval...

I first read Thucydides in college, using Rex Warner's translation in the Penguin edition. As a frosh with little background in ancient history and political science, I didn't have the proper perspective to realize Th.'s critical place in western historiography and political thought. As a junior, I re-read Th., this time in a course on ancient historians. At that point, having had modest exposure to Hobbes, Machiavelli, Burke, Clausewitz and the like, I was better equipped to appreciate Th.'s method--particularly his analyses in the vein of what we'd call "realism" today. Last year I tackled Th. again, this time in Strassler's amazing Landmark edition, and I am grateful that it was available for my third go at probably the most difficult classical author I've run into.

I won't go into details on Th. himself--I'm not a historian and anything I say expounding on how great he was, etc. will of course come off as amateurish and pointless. I will go into how much I admire the product of Strassler's labor of love (he's an unaffiliated scholar) in producing the Landmark edition. First of all, the translation is refreshingly readable and doesn't have the relative stuffiness of an early 20th-century Oxbridge rendering (which, er, I actually rather enjoy every now and then :-)). Second, the marginal timelines, the extensive but not suffocating footnotes, and maps (all carefully placed next to the relevant narrative) make it unnecessary for the reader to flip pages and lose the flow of the story. Furthermore, its appendices are a treasure trove of ancillary information: there is background information on the Athenian polis and imperial administration and the corresponding systems on the Peloponnesian side; discussions of the more technical aspects of ancient warfare; and pages on other topics such as the currency, religion and ethnic groups of the Greeks, each written by a specialist.

In summary, I have nothing but good things to say about this edition--I only wish I'd been able to use it as an undergraduate. I also note that Strassler has just come out with a similar edition of Herodotus. Can't wait to check that one out...

Books on war can be very tedious. Reading of the left flank moving around to the west while the center retreated to the river when one isn't familiar with the area is my idea of boring. There is a substantial amount of that in this 2500 year old work but it is relieved by the quotation of speeches and descriptions of the mood of armies, navies and commanders as the 27 year conflict unfolds.

Fortune is fickle. Victory or defeat can hang on small things that are unpredictable but that look obvious in retrospect. Morale, how troops and commanders feel about what they face, is critical making numbers and equipment only part of the calculation for victory. The reader will find many speeches of commanders employing psychology to urge on their troops and fleets.

In this war the Athenians initially had naval superiority. Athenian forces had been critical in defeating the Persians (called the Medes in this work) who planned to take over Greece with a huge army and navy, but were defeated at Salamis by the Athenian navy and at Marathon by the Athenian army. Because the Athenians had gone all out even to the point of evacuating Athens to defeat the Persians, they felt that they were entitled to have an empire over Greece and proceeded to exercise this by cruising the seas extracting tribute from other Greek city states.

Athenian rule was resented and the Lacedaemonians whose city was Sparta at the southern end of the Greek peloponnesus, a huge peninsula in the Aegean Sea, found a way to open a war against the empire. We read the claims and counterclaims of both sides. This was a war involving convincing or coercing city states to join one side or the other by offering rewards or threatening consequences while couching everything in eloquence in service to self righteousness. Loyalty is all. We did something for you so now you must reciprocate. You did us dirty so how can you expect anything but our attack?

The war at first was seldom at sea because of the power of the Athenian navy and limited to warm season occupations that would plunder for a few months without resistance and then be abandoned until the following year. This included land within sight of the city of Athens. Cities might fall from the intimidation of a fleet or an army might retreat from walls if a siege looked likely. The open field heavy infantry battles the Greeks had known were hard to come by.

The war favored the Athenians but as we know, power cannot see its limits. Feeling full of themselves, the Athenians decided to launch an expedition against Sicily, that large island by the Italian mainland so very far from Athens. Nicias, the Athenian commander, pleaded that it was a very poor idea to send large forces so far away while they were needed at home to prosecute the war with Sparta. But enthusiasm won the day, a huge fleet with a large army aboard set sail and got itself into a fix at Syracuse in Sicily for the lack of cavalry. Nicias wrote home to ask for a second expedition as large as the first to relieve the stalled effort. It was provided.

But it was all for naught. Inside the large harbor of Syracuse, the local navy destroyed the mighty Athenian fleet, stranding the Athenian army ashore with nowhere to go. Retreating from Syracuse but with no hope of finding friendly territory, the Athenian army was eliminated. For all the money and material and manpower invested, nothing remained to show for it and as could be expected, the destruction of Athenian power meant formerly obedient city states saw their chance for freedom from empire.

Thucydides relates the pride and passion, the sorrow and fear of the troops and sailors on all sides throughout. He himself participated as a commander for a time. There are a host of interesting characters but standing out among them is Alcibiades, an Athenian native with a command on the Sicilian expedition, who then deserts to the Spartans and becomes a high advisor to them, only to return to the Athenians and try to get the Persians (!) involved on the side of Athens once it looked like Athens would lose (it did).

There's plenty of action in this tale. Large groups of men and sometimes women and children can be put to the sword. Warfare is lots of hard slogging, lots of fortification building and always hand to hand combat in the end with the fear of running out of supplies putting a limit on any action. If you didn't bring it with you, you plundered to get it and once plundered, there was no more to be had and retreat would follow. 27 years of this with a brief interlude.

This is a classic epic that will not disappoint the modern reader.

যুদ্ধের একপাশে অষ্টাদশ শতকের ব্রিটিশ রাজ, যে আপনার রাজরাজড়াদের পগারপার করে দিয়ে এরপর আপনাকে শেখাবে গণতন্ত্র, আপনাকে করবে এথেনীয় কায়দায় শিক্ষিত, বিনিময়ে নেবে কর, আর অন্যদিকে আছে বিংশ শতকের মার্কিনী সাম্রাজ্য, যার কাজ করও নেয়া না, আপনাকে গণতন্ত্র খিলানোও না, শুধু জায়গায় জায়গায় মনঃপূত পুতুল নবাব বসানো। কে জেতে এই যুদ্ধে, বিলেত না মার্কিন? অ্যাথেন্স না স্পার্টা? এই কথা জানানোর আগেই এই বই শেষ হয়ে যায়, শেষদিকের মাঝপথে, আচমকা।

কিন্তু যতক্ষণ চলে, চলে ফুল গিয়ারে। ম্যাপ দেখতে দেখতে আপনি তড়তড় করে সামনের দিকে আগায়ে যাবেন, আর আবিষ্কার করবেন, এইটুক একটা জায়গার মধ্যে পৃথিবীর সব দেশ সেঁধিয়ে বসে আছে, ছোটো ছোটো শহর, আর তাদের নিজেদের মধ্যে যুদ্ধ যুদ্ধ খেলা, শুধু কি খেলা, ট্র্যাজেডিও, দুর্ভিক্ষ আছে, আছে বারবার যুদ্ধে বাঁক বদল, আছে অগণিত জোট নিজেদের ভেতর। একটু বড়, পড়তে পড়তে এক পর্যায়ে বইটারে জীবনের চেয়ে দুই কাঠি বড় মনে হয়, সত্য। লেখক সেই যুগে এই ঢাউস বই কী করে লিখলেন জানি না, কোত্থেকে এতো তথ্য পেলেন না জানা গেলেও তার মধ্যে একটা সাংবাদিকসুলভ বলে যাওয়া আছে, আবার বেশ একটা ভেঙে দেখবার ক্ষমতাও আছে। আর বাড়তি পাওনায় আছে অসংখ্য ভাষণ, যেগুলি সত্যনিষ্ঠ না হোক, ভাষণের বাড়া।

শুনলাম যুদ্ধের শেষে অ্যাথেন্স হেরে যায়। স্বাভাবিক, সাম্রাজ্যবাদের দুই চেহারার মাঝে মার্কিনীরাই আগায়ে থাকবে, যদিও মানুষ মনে রাখবে ব্রিটিশ রাজরেই, স্পার্টা নিয়া বড়জোর দুই চারটা আমেরিকান স্নাইপার আর ব্ল্যাক হক ডাউন বানানো সম্ভব। সেও শুধ��� হলিউডে।

Great book, only read parts, but would be interested in reading it completely at a later date.

Wszystko już kiedyś było, wszystko się już kiedyś wydarzyło i wszystko już zostało kiedyś opisane.

Ta myśl nasuwała mi się natrętnie przy czytaniu "Wojny peloponeskiej" napisanej zaledwie 2500 lat temu. Przywódcy USA i Chin powinni czytać Tukidydesa by nie powtórzyć błędów Sparty i Aten, a my zwykli śmiertelnicy dla mistrzowskich przemówień, którymi tekst jest naszpikowany oraz spokojnej, niewywyższającej się mądrości samego Tukidydesa, który stojąc z boku wielkich wydarzeń, spisał je możliwie obiektywnie i z wielkim wyczuciem tego co naprawdę istotne.

Na zachętę próbka uniwersalizmu i ponadczasowości Tukidydesa, tak bardzo aktualna:

"Walki partyjne wstrząsnęły państwem (...) nierozumna zuchwałość uznana została za odwagę, przezorna wstrzemięźliwość za szukające pięknego pozoru tchórzostwo, umiar za bojaźliwość, a kto z zasady radził się rozumu uchodził za człowieka wygodnego i leniwego, bezmyślną zuchwałość uważano za cechę prawdziwego mężczyzny. Ten kto się oburzał i gniewał zawsze znajdował posłuch, kto mu się sprzeciwiał był podejrzany. Większą też radość sprawiało móc się na kimś zemścić, niż w ogóle nie doznać od nikogo krzywdy. Wszelkie układy zawarte miały wartość tylko do chwili, gdy jedna ze stron nie poczuła się silniejsza. Przywódcy polityczni jednej i drugiej partii posługiwali się pięknymi hasłami, mówili o równouprawnieniu wszystkich obywateli, ale w rzeczywistości, mówiąc o sprawie ogólnej walczyli między sobą o swe prywatne interesy. Źródłem tego wszystkiego była żądza panowania, dażąca do zdobycia bogactw i zaspokojenia ambicji. Tak więc walki partyjne stały się źródłem wszelkiego rodzaju zbrodni w Grecji (tudzież w Polsce)*.

* Wstaw dowolne państwo

77th book of 2023.

I began this, without realising, exactly two months ago in April. I then stopped for a duration of time as my girlfriend and I flew to Athens and I spent the next two weeks exploring, island-hopping, etc., those who follow me already know all this. At one point, on an island, I was right across from the Peloponnesian region of the mainland; in fact, it was so close between the mainland and this island, it looked swimmable. It's taken me some time to get back into it, and I've mostly read the rest of this book whilst at work in short but concentrated bursts around, well, work.

The fact that we can read this is fascinating enough, some two-thousand odd years later. Thucydides was a general in the Peloponnesian War (an Athenian), and dedicated himself to writing an unbiased history book* about the 20+ years of the War. He mostly succeeds, though certain scholars far smarter than I am see through his supposed unbiasedness. The most interesting fact about the text are the many speeches, that are like Shakespearean monologues, littered throughout, from generals and politicians. Many of these Thucydides would have heard in the flesh, others by word-of-mouth; the world was still very much orientated around the oral tradition, so though their validity can be questioned, I imagine the essence of the speeches are very much intact. Thucydides takes us through the war chronologically, apparently a fairly modern concept in history telling, and reports as the seasons pass. In many respects, large portions of this are dry, dense and crammed with information and names. I'm no stranger to ancient texts or names as I studied Classical Civilisation for three years myself at college, though my focus was on the Romans and my study revolved around writers like Cicero, Suetonius and Tacitus (the last of whom I dreaded). Suetonius and Cicero were more readable and compelling, particularly the former, and I would recommend both of them as ancient writers before Thucydides, though they are of course Roman. My trip to Greece has fuelled my interest in Ancient Greece and I will explore more primary sources in the years to come. In my final year of college I did study The Odyssey, but that's as far as I got with Greek history/epics. I'd say this is a book for those who are truly interested and not an easy window into the primary sources; that said, I found it worthwhile and interesting, if not long and slow-going.

After mooching around on some islands my girlfriend and I went back to Athens and went to the park where Socrates's prison is held. Not far from there is the entrance to a tomb, where two bodies were buried. One of these was Thucydides himself. Below is the single photograph I took of the site.



_____

*This is, by many, considered one of the earliest 'history books' ever, if not the first. Thucydides is, as we would understand, a sort of 'modern' historian in his unbiased and chronological telling of the War and its events.

It's hard to review such a monumental work but I'll say a few words.
Thucydides is truly worthy of being called one of the greatest historians. His work is complex in narrative and profound in his insights into human and political realities. His speeches and dialogues are fantastic with the Syracusan, Mytilene, and Melisan dialogues and speeches being among my favourite.
While I loved the entire book the most spectacular for me are books 6 and 7. Thucydides treatment of the Sicilian expedition is by far the most spectacular portions of his work. These books took on a more 'emotional' feeling than the more objective telling of the other portions of this work. The triumphs and complete failures of the Syracusans and Athenians were profound and truly made me feel for the Athenians. Feeling for figures in classical history is something that is difficult for me to do, so in my opinion it speaks the the prowess of Thucydides to engage the reader.
This work is by far the most complex history I've read to date (and I've studied Tacitus' works) and I feel like I need to reread it to get a better understanding of the ways in which Thucydides jumps between events in space and time in his narrative. The same can be said about his speeches and the brief glimpses of the author that jump out throughout the narrative.

Finally, this entry into the landmark series was slightly disappointing. The footnotes were almost entirely devoted to repeating the map locations of the same cities and regions instead of focusing on more insightful ideas and points in the text. The few footnotes that do elucidate the text are very well done. Finally, the essays at the end of the book are well written and help give insight into the politics, culture and warfare of the period