Download T he P elo P onnesian W ar

The Peloponnesian War
Aristotle
was the first to
attempt a careful explanation of how historical writing
differs from other types of writing. In his day,
this meant distinguishing historical writing from
epic poetry, which was the only other type of writing
about the past known to him.
The distinction between historian and poet is
not in the one writing prose and the other
verse—you might put the work of Herodotus into verse, and it would still be a
species of history; it consists really in
this, that the one describes the thing
that has been, and the other a kind
of thing that might be. Hence poetry
is something more philosophic and
of graver import than history, since
its statements are of the nature rather
of universals, whereas those of history
are singulars (Aristotle, Poetics 9).
Thucydides does not neatly fit Aristotle’s
notion of history. He saw the singulars of
history as a window to universals. Thucydides believed that the specific events of
the Peloponnesian War manifested
the general way humans
2
O
m n i b u s
IV
will act in similar circumstances. The human impulses
that animated Athens and Sparta in the fifth century b.c.
are the same impulses that guided human behavior in
the Punic Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic
Wars, the Second World War, and America’s war in Iraq
at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
General Information
Author and Context
What little we know of Thucydides comes from autobiographical traces we find in his work. He was Athenian,
son of a man named Olorus. Thucydides operated gold
mines in Thrace which gave him wealth and influence
(1.1.1, 4.104.3). He began recording the events of the war
immediately from the time it first began in 431 b.c. (1.1.1)
and pointed out that at that time he was “of age to comprehend events” (5.26.5). These remarks suggest that he was
in his early adulthood at the outbreak of the war, which
would mean that he was born sometime in the 450s.
When plague hit Athens in the summer of 430, the disease
afflicted Thucydides, but he survived (2.48.3). We find him
commanding Athenian forces in Thrace in 424 and 423
b.c. During his command the city of Amphipolis, an Athenian ally in Thrace, defected to the Spartans. Thucydides
claims he reacted to the crisis as soon as possible, and
thanks to his quickness he prevented nearby Eion from
defecting to Sparta as well (4.106.3–4). Nonetheless, the
people of Athens held Thucydides responsible for losing
Amphipolis and imposed a 20-year exile upon him.
Thucydides reports that his exile proved advantageous
for the writing of his history because it gave him access to
the Peloponnesian view of events, which was unusual for
an Athenian (5.26.5). Indeed, Thucydides was aware that
his judgment could be clouded by the fact that he was a
participant in the war. “I did not even trust my own impressions,” he said (1.22.2). The Roman Lucian praised Thucydides’ relentless pursuit of objectivity:
There stands my model, then: fearless, incorruptible, independent, a believer in frankness and
veracity; one that will call a spade a spade, make
no concession to likes and dislikes, nor spare any
man for pity or respect or propriety; an impartial
judge, kind to all, but too kind to none; a literary
cosmopolite with neither suzerain nor king, never
heeding what this or that man may think, but setting down the thing that befell.1
Thucydides’ attitude toward truth and objectivity exem-
plifies an intellectual movement that moved among some
elites at the time. Proponents of this movement were
highly skeptical of supernatural claims and sought truth
through the careful observation of nature. A good illustration is Thucydides’ highly clinical description of the
plague that swept through Athens in 430 b.c. (2.48–54).
Among Thucydides’ contemporaries who also adhered
to this secular and rationalistic view of knowledge and
reality were the physician Hippocrates, the philosopher
Anaxagoras, and Pericles the Athenian statesman.2
Thucydides’ earlier contemporary, Herodotus, did not
share these ideas.
Significance
Secretary of State George C. Marshall was the architect
of U.S. foreign policy immediately following World War
II when the U.S. entered into a tense Cold War with the
Soviet Union. He also read Thucydides. In 1947 he contemplated a new global situation that placed the United
States as a global superpower. He said, “I doubt seriously
whether a man can think with full wisdom and with deep
conviction regarding certain of the basic international issues today who has not at least reviewed in his mind the
period of the Peloponnesian War and the fall of Athens.”3
Thucydides’ analysis of the Peloponnesian War
has shaped intellectuals and statesmen alike throughout modern times. His outlook deeply influenced early
modern political theorists such as Niccolò Machiavelli
and Thomas Hobbes. It also guided many nineteenthcentury heads of state in Europe, most notably Otto von
Bismarck. Twentieth-century advocates of Thucydides’
outlook include Hans Morgenthau and Edward Carr.
Among American statesmen, we see his influence in the
policies of Secretary of State George Marshall, ambassador to the U.S.S.R. George F. Kennan, and Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger. Thucydidean ideas have also been
proposed as a guide for U.S. policy for the post-Cold War
era by Dennis Ross, who held influential diplomatic posts
in the administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush and Barack Obama.4 Whether you agree
or disagree with Thucydides’ perspective, it is a perspective that has shaped many statesmen and is one that we
must take into account.
Main Characters
The second half of the fifth century b.c. is often called
the “age of Pericles,” so named after Athens’ leading man
of the era. We first encounter Pericles in history when he
sponsored the playwright Aeschylus in around 472. Ten
years later he came to prominence in Athenian politics
The Peloponnesian War
when he opposed a faction that wanted Athens to befriend Sparta. Beginning in 460 and for 29 years thereafter, the Athenians annually elected Pericles to the office
of military archon, or strategos (often translated into English as general). His policies led to a string of skirmishes
against Sparta that are collectively known as “The First
Peloponnesian War” of 461–446, which concluded in
the “Thirty Years Peace.” Pericles also oversaw a massive
public building campaign that included the construction
of the Parthenon. He died in a plague that swept through
Athens in 429.
Thucydides had great respect for Pericles, but
little respect for Athenian leaders who
came after him. Among them was
Cleon, who figures prominently in books 3 and 4. Thucydides uses Cleon as a foil
to set up Dodotus’s
brilliant speech in
book 3, and also
blames him (and
the Athenians
who supported
him) for refusing a generous
offer of peace
from Sparta, a
peace that Pericles would surely
have
accepted
(4.17–22, 41.4).
While Cleon is
leading Athens in some
bad decisions, Brasidas,
an effective Spartan leader,
enters the narrative. Brasidas
was important because he seems
to be the only Spartan who understood
how to defeat Athens: not by a direct invasion of
their territory, but by supporting rebellions among Athens’
subject states. Athens’ allies were the source of Athenian
strength (cf. 2.13.2, 65.7). Thucydides recognizes Brasidas’s
valor in a few places (e.g., 2.35.2, 3.79.3, 4.11.4) and shows
that his leadership was especially effective in a campaign
through Thrace (book 4).
Other significant characters include Nicias and Alcibiades, who are discussed below.
Summary and Setting
Our name for this conflict, the “Peloponnesian War,”
was coined a few centuries ago. It reflects the western
affinity for classical Athens that pervaded early modern
Europe. (What Americans refer to as “the Korean War”
is surely not what Koreans call it!) Interestingly, though
Thucydides was Athenian, he called the conflict by a less
partisan name than we give it: “the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians” (1.1.1). This great war
lasted from 431 to 404 b.c.
Some people today mistakenly think of the Peloponnesian War as a civil war because it was a war in which
Greeks fought Greeks. But this overlooks the fact that
Greek cities in this era were separate political entities,
distinct from one another. Thus the Peloponnesian War was an international conflict
that convulsed the entire Greekspeaking world. Even Persia,
the great near-eastern empire of that age, became
Thucydides
thought highly
of Pericles, the
Athenian leader
who consistently opposed
Sparta.
Among other
notable acts,
he sponsored
the playwright
Aeschylus and
oversaw the construction of the
Parthenon.
deeply involved. From
the Greek perspective, this
was literally a world war.
In book 1, Thucydides outlines his
approach and then addresses the causes
of the war. This book is divided into five sections.
The first is a brief introduction in which Thucydides asserts that the war between the Peloponnesians and the
Athenians was the “greatest movement” in history up to
his time (1.1.2). Then follows the second section, called
the Archaeology, in which Thucydides defends his “greatest movement” claim while at the same time he explains
methods of fact-finding (1.2–23). Here he reviews the
most important Greek wars of the past, the Trojan War
and the Persian Wars, in order to minimize their greatness in comparison to the war he is writing about. At the
end of this section (1.23.5–6), Thucydides distinguishes
two causes of the Peloponnesian War, which form the
structure of the remainder of book 1. The first cause is
3
4
O
m n i b u s
IV
the pretext for war, or the grievances each side had against
the other. It boils down to a quarrel over who broke a treaty
to which they had agreed back in 446 b.c. Then Thucydides mentions the “real cause,” kept hidden, that actually
motivated Athens and Sparta to fight one another. In the
third part of book 1 Thucydides recounts the first kind of
cause, or the pretext for war, which features Corcyra and
Potidaea (24–88). In the fourth part, Thucydides narrates
background to what he deems to be the war’s real cause,
which is the growth of Athens and the fear it aroused in
Sparta (89–117). Finally, in the remaining fifth part of
book 1, he returns to the pretext for war, describing negotiations prior to the outbreak of war (118–146).
Thucydides turns to the war itself beginning in book
2. The first phase of the war is called the Archidamian
War after the Spartan king Archidamus. The Archidamian war lasted from 431–421 b.c. and spans books 2
through 5.24 in Thucydides’ account. This first phase
concluded when Athens and Sparta reached an agreement called the Peace of Nicias, named for the Athenian
leader who represented Athens in the negotiations. Tensions continued under the Peace, which Thucydides describes in the rest of book 5. Books 6–7 recount Athens’
magnificent but ill-fated expedition to Sicily. Many have
said that Thucydides’ account of the Sicilian expedition
is the greatest narrative in all western literature. Toward
the end of the expedition, Athens and Sparta came to
blows once again, shattering the Peace of Nicias. This
brought the war into its final phase from 413–404 b.c.
This phase is called the Decelean War, so named because
an important strategic feature of this phase was the Spartan occupation of Decelea, a small city dangerously close
to Athens. The final book of Thucydides, book 8, opens
with events in 413 b.c. and continues to an abrupt end
in the middle of 411 b.c. Leaving his work unfinished,
Thucydides does not record the final seven years of the
war. The Greek historian Xenophon, not Thucydides, is
our most important source for the end of the Peloponnesian War and the fall of Athens.5
Worldview
Historians inevitably infuse their own understanding
of human nature and society into their narratives of the
past. This is certainly true of Thucydides. He believed that
political ties are more important to one’s identity than
ties of kinship, friendship, religion or business. He saw
the office of citizen as more important than the office of
mother or husband. Not surprisingly, his history focuses
on politics to the exclusion of other dimensions of society
and culture. In this way he differed sharply from Herodotus, who wrote a good deal about religion, diet, marriage
and child rearing, clothing, and other aspects of culture.
Thucydides’ approach to history resembled that of many
modern historians from the enlightenment era through
the nineteenth century. A good representative is Edward
Gibbon, who wrote in his famous Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire that “wars, and the administration of public affairs, are the principal subjects of history” (ch. IX).
Like many who came after him, Thucydides saw this as
the most rational or scientific way to look at human society. We find almost nothing in his work about private life,
religion or kinship. As an observer of politics, however,
Thucydides has much to offer.
Thucydides sometimes refers to himself in the third
person, as though he as a writer stands with Olympian
detachment from the events he describes (1.1.1, 4.104–
106). He cleanly separates Thucydides the historical actor from Thucydides the writer of history. Indeed, Thucydides believes that history is made up of an objective
body of facts about the past, and that these facts can be
accessed and understood by any observer who employs
the proper method to get at them. Any intelligent observer should see the same facts the same way. Thus, in the
age-old debate over whether history should be grouped
among the sciences or the humanities, Thucydides is a
science man.
A key assumption underlying any scientific pursuit is
that the thing being studied behaves in a law-like manner—it acts consistently, predictably. This is how chemists and physicists think about the natural world, or at
least the parts of it they study. Some disciplines treat humans in a similar way. Sociology and modern economics
are good examples. Practitioners of these social sciences
treat human actions as data points, compile and organize
them, analyze them with statistical tools, and use the results to form theories about human behavior in general.
Social sciences arose a little over a century ago. Around
the turn of the nineteenth century, intellectuals began
viewing humans as part of nature rather than above,
distinct from, or different from nature. If humans function within the ordinary operations of nature, then they
can be studied using the same methods we use to study
nature—that is, with scientific methods. Out of this intellectual transformation came many new developments in
the nineteenth century, including an evolutionary view
of human origins, advances in modern medicine, and the
rise of the social sciences. Thucydides would probably
have been comfortable with these changes. While he
seldom used numbers, averages or statistics (though one
place where he does is 1.10.4–5), he certainly analyzed
the past in a systematic way in order to theorize about
human behavior in general. For Thucydides, social and
political laws are like natural laws. This is why, for more
The Peloponnesian War
Thucydides
believed that no
city-state answered
to any law higher
than itself. This
means that the
realm of international relations is
a free-for-all. Put
simply, the world is
in a perpetual state
of international
anarchy.
than a century now, scholars have described Thucydides’
approach to history as “modern.”
Thucydides believed that anyone who understands
the general rules or common habits of human action will
be able to predict how people (or nations) are likely to behave in certain situations. He measured the value of his
work by how well it fostered this skill: “. . . if it be judged
useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge
of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future,
which in the course of human things must resemble it if
it does not reflect it, I shall be content.” Thucydides’ project was far more ambitious than merely setting forth a reliable account of the Peloponnesian War. He treated the
war as a lens through which to study the general workings of human society, which can be applied to any age.
“I have written my work,” he says, “not as an essay which
is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession
for all time” (1.22.4).
Political science is the social science that captured
Thucydides’ attention. His political philosophy can be
summarized in five basic principles. The first principle
is the most important. Thucydides held that nations act
according to three basic motives: fear, honor, and interest. When Peloponnesian cities complained about Athenian supremacy, Athenian representatives explained
that their city’s actions were grounded in these three mo-
tives. When the Greek cities invited Athens to lead them
in their campaigns against Persia, Athens accepted the
invitation—as any city would have—because it suited
her interest to do so. Later, when their leadership became
irksome to the various Greek allies, Athens tightened her
grip on these allies because she feared what could happen if they lost control of cities that despised her leadership. These disgruntled allies would surely look for help
from Athens’ rival, Sparta, thereby causing Athens to lose
face (honor), not to mention the tribute she received from
these allies (interest). “It follows,” they explained,
that it was not a very remarkable action, or contrary to the common practice of mankind, if we
did accept an empire that was offered to us, and
refused to give it up under the pressure of the
three strongest motives, fear, honor, and interest.
And it was not we who set the example, for it has
always been the law that the weaker should be
subject to the stronger (1.76).
Notice that Athens’ policy toward her allies accorded
with “the common practice of mankind” and reflected
an unchanging “law.” This is a law of national behavior
that the Spartans themselves followed, just as any nation
would (1.75–76).
In Thucydides’ outlook, the motives fear, honor, and
5
6
O
m n i b u s
IV
interest sometimes converge, but at a given moment one
may be more prominent than the other two. Interest is the
motive that seeks national gain, whether it is a gain in
wealth, strategic advantage, or honor. Fear is the motive
that seeks to prevent the loss of any of these qualities.
Honor is a motive that seeks prestige, eminence or “face.”
It has more to do with a nation’s standing relative to others
than with being known as a virtuous nation. Of the three,
honor is the most confusing to us because our western
notion of honor is laden with Christian underpinnings.
Remember that Thucydides lived in Greece five centuries
before the arrival of Christianity. In Thucydides, Pericles’
speeches illustrate the motive of honor nicely. He urged
Athens not to yield to a trifling Spartan demand, saying,
“. . . make them clearly understand that they must treat
you as equals” (1.140.5). He praised Athens in his famous
funeral oration by saying, “Our constitution does not copy
the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to
others than imitators ourselves” (2.37.1). This same sense
of honor figures prominently in Homer’s Iliad. Achilles
quarrels with Agamemnon and leaves the battle because
Agamemnon slighted his honor.
Second, Thucydides believed that nations (or in his
Greek context, city-states) are truly sovereign. No nation
answers to a law above itself. Thus, when two nations
come into conflict, there is no higher court of appeal that
can rightly claim jurisdiction over both. No legitimate
authority exists that can preside over and adjudicate the
dispute. This means that the realm of international relations is a free-for-all. Put simply, the world is in a perpetual state of international anarchy.
Third, in the absence of an enforcer to which all the
nations are beholden, nations work out their differences
by appealing to power or force. This does not mean that
nations will always fight all the time, as many mistakenly assume. Fighting is often disadvantageous to one
or both sides in a dispute. Nonetheless, weaker nations
tend to make concessions to stronger nations, and stronger nations tend to place demands upon weaker nations.
Thucydides filled his work with examples of such complex power relationships among the Greek cities.
Thucydides acknowledged that nations justify their
policies by appealing to justice and morality. Every nation
will claim that it is always “doing right.” This is certainly
true of nations in a dispute with one another. Thucydides
believed that, in the end, neither justice nor righteousness can settle the dispute. But power can, and always
will, settle such disputes. The cleanest summary statement of this principle appears in an Athenian speech to
the ignorant leaders of the puny island of Melos: “. . . you
know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only
in question between equals in power, while the strong
do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”
(5.89). Thucydides believed that morality has a place in
political events, but only a subordinate place. Power sits
in the driver’s seat.
Fourth, Thucydides believed that hegemony brings
order and peace among the nations. Hegemony is a condition in which one nation is preeminent and exercises
control or influence over the others. The presence of a
hegemonic power diminishes the chaos of international
rivalry due to several factors. Less powerful nations will
either ally with or oppose the hegemonic power. Allying
with the powerful nation brings trade and military protection to a smaller nation. The small nations who dislike
the hegemonic power are unlikely to take up arms against
it for fear of being crushed. The hegemonic power, in
turn, shapes its own policies to preserve its superiority.
Because war tends to disrupt the status quo, a hegemonic
power is unlikely to instigate war. If war does break out,
the strongest nation will step in to contain it and bring it
to a speedy end.
Thucydides credits hegemonic power with the highest attainments of Greek antiquity. For example, in the
Minoan era, King Minos of Crete wielded hegemonic
power over the Aegean islands. He expelled the Carians
(who were pirates that disrupted trade) and through his
power he ushered in a heyday of trade and communication among various Greek peoples (1.4, 7–8). Thucydides
had a similar view of Mycenean power under Agamemnon’s leadership during the Trojan War. According to legend that survives in Homeric epic, leaders of the Achaean
armada assembled against Troy to fulfill an oath. But
Thucydides attributes the fleet to Agamemnon’s “superiority in strength;” those who followed his command
did so out of fear (1.9). During the half-century interval
between the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War,
Athens became the greatest hegemonic power in Greek
history (1.10.3; cf. 1.118.2, 3.10–12, passim), an assessment that figured into Thucydides’ claim that the Peloponnesian War was the greatest disturbance yet known.
The fifth principle has to do with the political order
within a nation rather than between nations. Thucydides
believed that it is advantageous to align the personal ambition of a capable leader (or leaders) with the national
interests of his city. In Thucydides, this principle plays
out in the careers of Pericles and Alcibiades.
Thucydides admired Pericles for exercising independent control over the Athenian people, going so far
as to say that during his tenure Athens was a democracy in name only (2.65.9). Pericles urged Athens not to
give in to Sparta’s ultimatum, thereby bringing on the
war (1.139–146). He also orchestrated Athenian strategy in the early years of the war (2.13.2, 65.7), a strategy
The Peloponnesian War
Thucydides believed would have brought success. After
Pericles succumbed to the plague in 429 b.c. , various factions fought to fill the void of leadership he left behind.
It was the petty squabbling of these factions that caused
Athens’ downfall (2.65). Thucydides believed that petty
factions are the bane of democracy.
To illustrate the ills of faction in a democracy, Thucydides uses prominent Athenians who came into leadership after Pericles. None of these successors possessed
Pericles’ ability to exercise independent control over the
Athenian people. Among them was Cleon, whom
Thucydides describes as “a popular leader of
the time and very powerful with the
multitude”—which are negative attributes in Thucydides’ outlook (4.21.3;
cf. 3.36.6). Another leader was the
incompetent Nicias, whom the
Athenians placed in leadership because he was nice
and pious, in contrast to the
highly capable Alcibiades.
Alcibiades came under fire
because his ostentatious
personal habits offended the
Athenian people. When Nicias attacked Alcibiades’ character on this point, Alcibiades admitted to being ambitious. But he
was quick to add that the fame he
sought for himself brought fame to
Athens as well, and this benefited all
Athenians (6.12.2, 4.16). This reasoning reflects Thucydides’ own outlook.
But Athens did not embrace this principle, to her own destruction. Once the
Sicilian expedition got
underway, a faction of
Alcibiades’ opponents
implicated Alcibiades in a scandal. Because they loathed
Alcibiades’ personal
habits, the simpleminded Athenian
people were duped.
They recalled Alcibiades from the
expedition, though
he was an outstanding military leader,
and they kept the
incapable but virtu-
ous Nicias in command. By preferring Nicias over Alcibiades, the naïve Athenians sided with morality over competence. In Thucydides’ assessment, the factional squabbling
caused the Sicilian expedition to end in disaster for Athens
(cf. 2.65.11 and 6.15.4).
In Federalist #10, the most famous of the Federalist Papers, James Madison took a page from Thucydides
when he criticized democracies for their inability to
control the violence of faction. Madison, of course, preferred a republic. Thucydides did not mind republican
rule so long as a voice in government was given to only
those who had a direct personal or financial
investment in the nation. Rulers who directly benefit from their position have
a personal stake in the well-being
of the state. Thus they have personal incentive for the state
to succeed (cf. 8.97).6 Many
of America’s early founders
agreed, and applied this principle by extending voting privileges only to those who owned
land. This principle fell into disfavor during the Jacksonian era.
These five principles about
nations (they are motivated by
fear, honor and interest; they are
sovereign over their own affairs; they
will appeal to force if not forced to
peace by a greater power; the hegemony of one nation over many others
brings order and peace; and that wise
states align the personal interests
of ambitious and able
Does personal
morality matter in a
leader? While leading the Athenian
military expedition
in Sicily, Alcibiades
was recalled to
Athens after
being charged in
a scandal. Rather
than returning,
he defected to
the Spartans. The
loss of his leadership was a blow
to the Athenians
and contributed
to their calamitous
defeat in Sicily.
7
8
O
m n i b u s
IV
leaders with the interests of the state) show up repeatedly
in the speeches of Thucydides. Thucydides uses speeches
as an effective tool to represent the motives behind personal and state action. These principles are also evident
in occasional editorial remarks that Thucydides offers.
By studying these principles and how they played out in
the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides believed that it is
possible to discern the basis for the political maneuverings of any nation in practically any age.
Thucydidean principles run afoul of just war theory
that developed within the context of Christian culture in
the Middle Ages. Early just war principles were articulated by Cicero, and Augustine developed them
within the context of Christian thought.
These principles were further refined in the Middle Ages, especially by Gratian in his
Decretum, the basis for
church law, and by
Thomas Aquinas
in the thirteenth
century (Summa II.a.II.a.e.
Q.40). There
are various
formulations of just
war principles, but
they
basically include
these: War may
be waged (1) only
by a legitimate authority, and (2) only to punish
wrongdoers; (3) peace and righteousness must be the goal of war; (4) use no more force than
necessary to achieve that goal. Other just war principles
address the treatment of prisoners and non-combatants,
fighting on the Sabbath, and using certain types of weapons. Some of these principles have carried into modern times and have taken on a secularized form in the
Geneva and Hague conventions.
—Chris Schlect
The hoplite was the infantryman in ancient Greek warfare. His armor was made of bronze up to half an inch
thick, providing great protection from the blows of the
enemy. The large and heavy hoplon, or shield, could
be carried with one hand, allowing the other hand
freedom to wield a spear or sword. While arranged in
a tight formation called a phalanx, each hoplite’s shield
protected not only himself but his neighbor on the left.
The Peloponnesian War
For Further Reading
Connor, W. Robert. Thucydides. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1984.
2.
Crane, Gregory. The Blinded Eye: Thucydides and the New
Written Word. London: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996.
3.
Crane, Gregory. Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity:
The Limits of Political Realism. Berkeley, Calif.: University
of California Press, 1998.
Dewald, Carolyn. Thucydides’ War Narrative: A Structural
Study. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2006.
Forde, Steven. The Ambition to Rule: Alcibiades and the
Politics of Imperialism in Thucydides. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press, 1989.
Hornblower, Simon. A Commentary on Thucydides; Vol. I:
Books I–III, and Vol. II: Books IV–V.24. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991 and 1996.
4.
5.
that this attribute does not describe Thucydides’ approach to the past.
Though Thucydides was Athenian, why did he believe he could faithfully represent both sides of the
war in his account?
How did Athens function as a democracy during the
height of Pericles’ rule? How did it not?
Explain how Thucydides reasoned that democracy contributed to the failure of Athens’ expedition to Sicily.
Though World War II began in 1938 or ’39, the
United States did not enter the war until December of
1941 following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Briefly explain the United States’ motives for entering
World War II in terms of the Thucydidean motives of
fear, honor and interest.
Reading Assignment:
The Peloponnesian War, Book 1.1–46
Hornblower, Simon. Thucydides. Baltimore, Md.:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.
Kagan, Donald. The Peloponnesian War. New York:
Viking, 2003.
Orwin, Clifford. The Humanity of Thucydides. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Rood, Timothy. Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization. Seventh Edition.
Belmont, Calif.: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009. 73–78.
Veritas Press History Cards: New Testament, Greece and
Rome. Lancaster, Pa.: Veritas Press. 14.
Session I: Prelude
A Question to Consider
How would you think Thucydides would react to this
statement by Theodore Roosevelt? Roosevelt wrote, “War,
like peace, is properly a means to an end—righteousness.
Neither war nor peace is in itself righteous, and neither
should be treated as of itself the end to be aimed at. Righteousness is the end.”7
From the General Information above, answer the following
questions:
1. What did Aristotle mean when he said that the statements of history are “singulars”? Explain how it is
Session II: Discussion
The Peloponnesian War, Book 1.1–46
A Question to Consider
In book 1 Thucydides traces some of the events that
led up to the Peloponnesian War. At points, participants in
these events seem to take the coming of the war as something almost predestined. In some of the Star Trek movies,
there is an inevitable conflict scenario—the famous Kobayashi Maru Flight Simulator Test. In this test there is no
possibility of victory. War and defeat are inevitable—or so
everyone seems to think.8 Are events inevitable?
Discuss or list short answers to the following questions:
Text Analysis
1. What caused the conflict between Corcyra and
Corinth to erupt?
2. Why did the Epidamnians seek help from the
Corinthians?
3. Why did the Corcyraean and Corinthian envoys end
up in Athens?
4. What arguments did the Corcyraeans make to attempt to win Athenian support?
5. What arguments did the Corinthians make to encourage Athens to refuse support to Corcyra?
6. What decision did the Athenians make? Why did
they make this decision?
9
10
O
m n i b u s
IV
Cultural Analysis
1. Where do you see examples in our culture of conflicts that are deemed inevitable?
2. How does our culture view genetics as an inevitable
cause of actions?
Biblical Analysis
1. What was the string of events that led Cain to kill
Abel? Do these events exonerate Cain (Gen. 3)?
2. Do pagans have an excuse for the sins that they commit? Why not, if they have never heard someone
preach the gospel (Rom. 1:18–22, Acts 17:30)?
3. Was the crucifixion an inevitable event? Does God’s
hand in the event exonerate those who crucified Him
(Acts 2:22–23)?
Session III:
Student-Led Discussion
The Peloponnesian War, Book 1.47–117
A Question to Consider
Is it ever wrong for a person or a country to act in its
own best interest?
Students should read and consider the example questions below that are connected to the Question to Consider above. Last session’s assignment was to prepare three
questions and answers for the Text Analysis section and
two additional questions and answers for both the Cultural and Biblical Analysis sections below.
Text Analysis
Summa
Write an essay or discuss this question, integrating
what you have learned from the material above.
Does understanding that God is sovereign over
all events make them easier to bear?
The next session will be a student-led discussion.
Students will be creating their own questions concerning
the issue of the session. Students should create three Text
Analysis Questions, two Cultural Analysis questions, and
two Biblical Analysis questions. For more detailed instructions, please see the chapter on the Iliad, Session III.
Example: How did the Athenians justify the accumulation of power and the creation of their empire?
Answer: They did not apologize for it. On the contrary,
they claimed they were simply acting in their own interest. They reminded the Spartans that everyone would hate
them too if they had had the good fortune to have built an
empire. They argued that they had been more gentle and
considerate of others than they had had to be. In summary, they claimed it is only natural to act in one’s own
best interest and that is all they have done (1.72–78).
Cultural Analysis
Issue
Acting in one’s own best interest
Reading Assignment:
T he Peloponnesian War,
Book 1.47–117
Thucydides believed naval power was a key factor in
Athenian dominance in the Aegean Sea. He himself
had commanded a squadron of triremes. These light
but strong ships were used for ramming enemy ships
with their reinforced prows. Their name (trieres, “threefitted”) comes from the three levels of rowers who
powered
and maneuvered the ship.
Example: Where do we see people acting in their own interest in our society today? Is this often wrong? When is
it wrong?
Answer: We see this everywhere. We can note that it occurs in business—one businessman tries to sell more
widgets than his competitor by selling for less. Customers shop ceaselessly for widgets, plasma screen TVs, and
candy bars, trying to find the best deal, because keeping
their money is in their own best interest. We see this in
politics where speakers carefully measure their words to
try to communicate their message without offending any
voters, because they wish to be re-elected. Often acting in
one’s own interest is fine so long as it is done within the
The Peloponnesian War
confines of God’s commandments. If we look at the world
as He does and see our best interest in light of His perspective, we can see that our best interest and righteousness will always coincide. Seeing this, however, is often
difficult. One large problem that has prevailed since the
Enlightenment is that we tend to see the world (and reckon our interests) individually rather than covenantally.
Other cultural issues to consider: Capitalism v. socialism, supply and demand, pre-nuptial agreements (which
are not in one’s best interest) and focus groups.
Biblical Analysis
Example: In Proverbs 22:7, it says that the “borrower is
slave of the lender.” If we want to be humble and avoid
“acting selfishly in our own interest,” should we then become the borrower?
Answer: This is not what the Scripture is trying to convey. It recognizes that debt can turn the borrower into a
slave. While the Scriptures recognize that sometimes we
can not avoid debt and slavery, it recommends that we
avoid debt-slavery and commends savings, hard work,
and frugality. The Bible expects us to act shrewdly with
the resources that we are given. It commends reasonable
risk so that we can make a profit and use that profit to
further serve God. Remember, all that we have belongs to
the Lord—not just the tithe. He gives to us that we might
give to others.
Other Scriptures to consider: Genesis 12:1–3; Proverbs 14:1; Hebrews 12:2.
Summa
Session IV: Recitation
The Peloponnesian War, Book 1.1–146
Comprehension Questions
Answer the following questions for factual recall:
1. What caused the Greeks to colonize?
2. Who was the first city-state to develop the trireme?
3. What was the cause of the Peloponnesian War according to Thucydides?
4. What started the strife between Corcyra and
Corinth?
5. Which side—the Athenians/Corcyraeans or the Corinthians—erected trophies and celebrated victory at
Leukimme?
6. What did Athens tell the Potidaeans they must do?
7. What arguments did the Corinthian envoys use to
convince the Spartans to defend Potidaea?
8. What did King Archidamus of Sparta wonder concerning the conflict with Athens?
9. Why did Themistocles go to Sparta to discuss the Spartan demand that Athens not rebuild their city wall?
10. When the Helots revolted against their Spartan masters,
what did the Athenians do? What became of this?
11.What are “The Long Walls?”
12.Whom did the exiled Themistocles end up serving?
13. What did Pericles recommend concerning the Spartan
pressure on Athens to rescind the Megarian Decree?
Reading Assignment:
T he Peloponnesian War, Book 2.34–65,
71–85 and Book 3.1–21
Write an essay or discuss this question, integrating
what you have learned from the material above.
With so many people shouting so many ideas
today, how can we determine our best interest?
Reading Assignment:
The Peloponnesian War, Book 1.118–146
Session V: Writing
Speech for the Nation
The Peloponnesian War, Book 2.34–65
This session is a writing assignment. Remember,
quality counts more than quantity. You should write no
more than 1,000 words, either typing or writing legibly on
one side of a sheet of paper. You will lose points for writing more than this. You will be allowed to turn in your
writing three times. The first and second times you turn it
in, your teacher will grade it by editing your work. This is
done by marking problem areas and making suggestions
for improvement. You should take these suggestions into
consideration as you revise your assignment. Only the
grade on your final submission will be recorded. Your
11
12
O
m n i b u s
IV
grade will be based on the following criteria: 25 points
for grammar, 25 points for content accuracy—historical,
theological, etc.; 25 points for logic—does this make
sense and is it structured well?; 25 points for rhetoric—is
it a joy to read?
results of revolution? Particularly, how does revolution affect the meaning of words, the perception of
masculinity, promises and oaths, and nobility?
8. What motive drives the destructive forces of
revolution?
Your objective is to imagine yourself as the leader of
your country or the speech writer for the President. Imagine that your country is at war and that you are speaking
at the memorial service for a number of fallen soldiers.
Write a speech imitating Pericles’ Funeral Oration.
Cultural Analysis
Optional Activity
Watch another interesting example of a speech inspired by Pericles’ Funeral Oration in the movie City Hall
starring Al Pacino. Pacino plays the mayor, and he is eulogizing a child killed by gang violence. Note, however,
the similarities and differences between what Pericles
and Pacino say in their speeches. Both are talking about
the state and virtues and problems of their cities.
You can watch the speech online.9
Reading Assignment:
The Peloponnesian War, Book 3.22–85
Session VI: Discussion
A Question to Consider
When is revolution (the overthrow of an established
government) justified?
Discuss or list short answers to the following questions:
Text Analysis
1. After the Athenians put down the revolution in Mytilene,
Cleon and Diodotus argued for very different treatment
of the rebels. For what did they each argue?
2. What did the Athenians decide concerning Mytilene?
3. When the Plataeans surrendered to the Spartan siege,
what did they hope to receive from Sparta? What did
the Thebans want for the Plataeans?
4. What did the Spartans decide concerning Plataea?
5. What did the Corcyraean oligarchs do in the summer
of 427 b.c. ?
6. How did the Peloponnesians and the Athenians
again become involved in Corcyra’s politics?
7. In book 3.82–85, how does Thucydides describe the
1. Where do you see a lust for power in our political
culture?
2. Where do you see greed at work in our culture—particularly in people using force to take property from
their enemies?
Biblical Analysis
1. Does Adam’s rebellion against God count as a revolution (Gen. 3)?
2. Why did the people rebel against God’s leadership and
demand a king “like the other nations” (1 Sam. 8)?
Summa
Write an essay or discuss this question, integrating
what you have learned from the material above.
How can we oppose the forces of revolution in
our days? When should we become the forces of
revolution?
The next session will be a student-led discussion.
Students will be creating their own questions concerning
the issue of the session. Students should create three Text
Analysis Questions, two Cultural Analysis questions, and
two Biblical Analysis questions. For more detailed instructions, please see the chapter on the Iliad, Session III.
Issue
How the strong should treat the weak
Reading Assignment:
T he Peloponnesian War, Book 4.1–41 and
Book 5.84–116
Session VII:
Student-Led Discussion
A Question to Consider
How should strong groups of people treat weak
groups of people?
The Peloponnesian War
Students should read and consider the example questions below that are connected to the Question to Consider above. Last session’s assignment was to prepare three
questions and answers for the Text Analysis section and
two additional questions and answers for both the Cultural and Biblical Analysis sections below.
Text Analysis
Example: What does Thucydides think of the fact that
Athenians treated the Melians based on the principle
that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer
what they must?
Answer: Thucydides thinks this is simply the way the
world works. His observations have a lot of history behind them. Strong nations tend to do what they want to
do and then figure out ways to justify their actions after
they have accomplished their objectives (5.89).
Cultural Analysis
Example: In our culture where do we see the weak suffering at the hands of the powerful?
Answer: We see this in many places. It is typical of what
happens when political divisions occur within a society.
It also occurs often in wars. When stronger forces meet
weaker ones, they typically have their way with them—
even if the results are atrocious. We also see this sort of
oppression financially when people are trapped in debt.
Other cultural issues to consider: Abortion and euthanasia, families trapped by gang violence, war.
Biblical Analysis
Example: In 1 Samuel 11, Nahash the Ammonite besieged God’s people at Jabesh Gilead. What were Nahash’s terms for a treaty? Why did the people consider
complying? How were they spared?
Answer: His terms were that he would only make a treaty
with them and break the siege if he were allowed to put
out the right eye—the eye used by the archers of Israel—
of all the men in Jabesh Gilead. This would both neutralize the men of Jabesh Gilead as a fighting force and “bring
disgrace on all Israel.” The men of Jabesh Gilead considered taking these terms because otherwise he might kill
all of them simply by keeping up the siege and starving
them to death. They, like Thucydides, realized the weak
often have to suffer terrible injustice. God, however, sent
Saul to break the siege and rescue Jabesh Gilead.
Other Scriptures to consider: Exodus 1, Exodus 20:8–
11, Matt. 23:14, James 1:27, Romans 5:8, Romans 14,
Proverbs 13:23.
Summa
Write an essay or discuss this question, integrating
what you have learned from the material above.
How should we as believers treat those weaker
than us? How should we act when we are weaker and others are stronger?
Reading Assignment:
The Peloponnesian War, Book 6.1–72
Session VIII: Recitation
The Peloponnesian War, Book 2.34–6.72
Comprehension Questions
Answer the following questions for factual recall:
1. In the Funeral Oration what did Pericles say that Athens was for Helles and what it was worthy to do?
2. In the Funeral Oration what did Pericles say should
be done by widows, and what did he say would be
done for the children of the dead soldiers?
3. Each year an army from the Peloponnesus invaded
Athenian territory, burning crops and homes. What
did Pericles say about this?
4. When the Peloponnesians attacked Plataea, what did
the Athenians ask the Plataeans to do?
5. Why did the Mytilenians join with the Athenians—and
what did they say was not the reason they joined them?
6. What happened when the Spartan, Salaethus, armed
the common people of Mytilene?
7. On what point of debate did Cleon and Diodotus
disagree?
8. What did the Spartans and Thebans do to Plataea
when they surrendered?
9. When the Athenians had the upper hand at Pylos,
Spartan envoys offered terms of peace to Athens.
How did the Athenians react to these terms?
10. What tactic did Demosthenes use to defeat the Spartan
forces on Sphacteria? What was he trying to avoid?
11. What was the outcome of the Athenian siege of Melos?
12.Why was Alcibiades recalled from Sicily and condemned to death in absentia by Athens?
Tomorrow’s session will be a Current Events session.
Your assignment will be to find a story online, in a magazine, or in the newspaper that relates to the issue that you
discussed today. Your task is to locate the article, give a
copy of the article to your teacher or parent and provide
some of your own worldview analysis to the article. Your
13
14
O
m n i b u s
IV
analysis should demonstrate that you understand the
issue, that you can clearly connect the story you found
to the issue that you discussed today, and that you can
provide a biblical critique of this issue in today’s context.
Look at the next session to see the three-part format that
you should follow.
Issue
Personal life affecting national politics
Reading Assignment:
T he Peloponnesian War, Book 6.73–Book
7.19
Session XI:
Current Events
In The Peloponnesian War, we meet a number of leaders. Some of them are good leaders, others are failures. One
leader, Alcibiades, stands out because he works for both
the Athenian and Spartan side. He is young, brash, excessive, and proud. He is also able, but his flamboyant lifestyle earns him many enemies who believe that he wants
to overthrow democracy and introduce oligarchy or tyranny to Athens. He recognizes this fact, but simply claims
that his arrogant attitude comes from his own excellence.
Basically, he says, his pride is part of the package. This,
of course, alienates and aggravates many Athenians, who
hatch a plan to humiliate the proud Alcibiades. They use
a case of vandalism to trump up charges of blasphemy
against him. They delay the trial and stir up public sentiment against him before he returns to Athens, leaving
the Sicilian Expedition in the hands of Nicias, who has
few enemies but is not the caliber of general that Alcibiades is. Eventually, Alcibiades flees to the Spartan side
and helps them understand how to defeat Athens by
making them fight wars on two fronts, Syracuse and Attica. Thucydides recognizes Alcibiades’ abilities and sees
the ruin of Athens in Alcibiades’ excesses, saying, “. . . and
although in his public life his conduct of the war was as
good as could be desired, in his private life his habits gave
offense to everyone, and caused them to commit affairs
to other hands, and thus before long to ruin the city.” All
too often today,leaders want to divorce private and public
life. This, however, can not be done. Our private lives affect the trust that people have in us.
Issue
Personal life affecting national politics
Current events sessions are meant to challenge you to
connect what you are learning in Omnibus class to what
is happening in the world around you today. After the
last session, your assignment was to find a story online or
in a magazine or newspaper relating to the issue above.
Today you will share your article and your analysis with
your teacher and classmates or parents and family. Your
analysis should follow the format below:
Brief Introductory Paragraph
In this paragraph you will tell your classmates about
the article that you found. Be sure to include where you
found your article, who the author of your article is, and
what your article is about. This brief paragraph of your
presentation should begin like this:
Hello, I am (name), and my current events article
is (name of the article) which I found in (name of
the web or published source) . . .
Connection Paragraph
In this paragraph you must demonstrate how your
article is connected to the issue that you are studying.
This paragraph should be short, and it should focus on
clearly showing the connection between the book that
you are reading and the current events article that you
have found. This paragraph should begin with a sentence like
I knew that my article was linked to our issue because . . .
Christian Worldview Analysis
In this section, you need to tell us how we should
respond as believers to this issue today. This response
should focus both on our thinking and on practical actions that we should take in light of this issue. As you list
these steps, you should also tell us why we should think
and act in the ways you recommend. This paragraph
should begin with a sentence like
As believers, we should think and act in the following ways in light of this issue and this article.
Reading Assignment:
The Peloponnesian War, Book 7.20–87
The Peloponnesian War
Session X: Discussion
The Peloponnesian War, Book 6.1–7.87
A Question to Consider
How does a person or a country turn a defeat into a
ruinous calamity like the Sicilian Expedition?
Optional Session A:
Activity
The Democracy Game
1. How did Rabshakeh’s arrogance lead to a disaster for
the Assyrians? How did Hezekiah’s humility save his
people (2 Kings 18:9–19:37)?
2. How did Hezekiah’s pride lead to disaster (2 Kings
20:12–19)?
Athenian democracy was a model for future republics like America. We might have warm feelings in our
hearts when we hear words like “democracy.” Many philosophers down through the ages, however, have been terrified of it. Democracy in Athens was a dangerous game
for some who used the state for their own personal gain.
(Of course, this could not happen in America, right? Seriously, democracies can be swayed by demagogues. Constitutional republics, like America, have protections—like
hopefully having wise representatives—but we could
and sadly do see the American Republic being swayed
by demagogues in our day.) Often, politicians had a deep
personal stake in the decisions that the government was
making. Alcibiades longed for fame and fortune, thereby
burning through the trust of many.
Today, we are going to do an experiment that will
help us understand the dangers of democracy when people use the state for their own personal gain; to make it
fun and to sharpen our persuasive abilities, we are going
to play for some rewards.
Choose at least two, but preferably three, people as
speakers. Each speaker will be given a Position and Reward Slip—see Rule #1 below. (These slips can be found
in the Teacher’s Edition. Print out the page containing
them, cut out each slip, and distribute one to each speaker randomly.) If you are playing this game at home, you
may limit the speakers to two. Parents and siblings are
welcome to play. There should be at least one person in
the audience. The audience will decide which position
they will support after hearing the speeches. One person
must be designated as the G.O.C. (Guardian of the Candy)
and must, in fact, actually guard it until the game is over.
This should be a teacher or parent if at all possible. The
winning proposition will be the one with the most votes
in the election. To begin this activity the G.O.C. is given
a candy bar for each participant and one dollar is given
to each participant. (If you have time and resources, play
more than once with different speakers).
Summa
Rules
Write an essay or discuss this question, integrating
what you have learned from the material above.
1. Each of the speakers has received a Position and
Reward Slip. It tells them the position they must persuade the audience to support and what reward they
(and possibly the audience) are to receive if they successfully get the most votes for their position.
2. All participants have been given one dollar. At the end
of the game you might be allowed to keep it, or make a
Discuss or list short answers to the following questions:
Text Analysis
1. How did Nicias try to convince the Athenians to reconsider their decision concerning the invasion of
Sicily? What did his argument do?
2. Who was chosen to lead the expedition? Why was
one of them recalled? Why?
3. How did Nicias display his indecisiveness after Gylippus’ arrival?
4. Why did the Spartans fortify Decelea? What effect
did this have on the Athenians?
5. What was the structural advantage of the new Corinthian triremes?
6. On what strategic steps did Demosthenes and Nicias
disagree? What sorts of things were convincing Nicias that he was correct?
7. How did the different sides seek to motivate their
fighters before the final battle?
8. What was the outcome of the Sicilian Expedition?
Cultural Analysis
1. Where do you see short-sighted or wrong-headed actions being taken by governments today?
2. Where do you see leaders avoiding hard decisions in
order to curry the favor of the people?
3. Where do you see pride at work in the leadership of
our culture?
Biblical Analysis
How can we help our nation avoid disasters like
the Sicilian Expedition?
15
16
O
m n i b u s
IV
purchase with it, depending on the outcome of the vote
and the reward on the winning speaker’s slip.
3. Each speaker will have two chances to speak.
4. The speakers will present their speeches in turn. During the second round of speeches they will speak in
reverse order.
5. Each speech will be limited to two minutes.
6. After all the speeches are completed there will be a
short time for questions and answers.
7. Speakers should vote, but they may not vote for their
own proposal.
8. Speakers may not reveal what the reward is or anything about the reward promised on their slip.
9. After the speeches hold the election to determine the
winning speaker. If there is a tie, hold a run-off election between those speakers only.
10.When the game is over, each speaker reads the reward on his slip. Follow the instructions for the winner’s reward.
The Question
questions and answers for the Text Analysis section and
two additional questions and answers for both the Cultural and Biblical Analysis sections below.
Text Analysis
Example: In 1.23 Thucydides says that the cause of the
Peloponnesian War was Sparta’s fear of growing Athenian power. Should the Spartans have feared the growth
of Athenian power?
Answer: Yes, they should have. The Athenians consistently proved that they wielded power unapologetically
in their own interest. This interest might mean the total
destruction of another city. When a group of people say
that “the strong will do what they can and the weak will
suffer what they must,” it makes those who are seeking to
keep their own freedom nervous. The Athenians continued to act arrogantly throughout the war. They wiped out
Melos. They started a new war in Syracuse. They rejected
generous peace terms on the part of Sparta.
Should participants in this game receive a candy bar?
Cultural Analysis
Consider the following questions after the game is over:
Example: Where are the forces of empire loose in our
world today?
1. What types of arguments were persuasive? (Did
people argue emotionally or rationally? Did they twist
people’s arms to try to get their votes?)
2. Did personal interest corrupt the process?
3. Was the interest of the entire group served by the
final decision or not?
Optional Session B:
Student-Led Discussion
The Peloponnesian War
A Question to Consider
In The Peloponnesian War, we see a battle between
the Athenian empire and the forces led by Sparta. Athens
was a democracy, but she ruled her empire as though it
were made up of slaves. Sparta was an oligarchy, but for
many Greek city-states Spartan victory meant freedom
from Athenian oppression. Which then is better: an empire (if you can have it) or a confederacy where one party
does not have to submit to the other?
Students should read and consider the example questions below that are connected to the Question to Consider above. Last session’s assignment was to prepare three
Answer: Since the end of World War II—and especially
since the end of the Cold War—America has held a sort
of hegemony over the nations of Europe and over the rest
of the world. Our temptation is to act increasingly like
an empire—rather than being a republic. Today, we are
tempted to insert ourselves into many conflicts across the
globe. Our interests are broad. America must carefully
consider its place in the world and whether we should
continue on the path of empire or look more to be the
republic that our Founders envisioned.
Other cultural issues to consider: U.S. aid for foreign
countries, peacekeeping, international treaties, internationalism, American Empire.
Biblical Analysis
Example: What form of government did ancient Israel
have? Does this tell us anything about God’s perspective
on empires (singular or narrow freedom) or confederacies (freedom being spread more broadly)?
Answer: Israel was much more confederacy than empire.
For most of the history of the nation, the leadership of
each tribe was critical to the functioning of the state. Elders, since the time of Moses, were the functional local
government of Israel. During the reign of Solomon, Israel
became more centralized. After Solomon, however, Re-
The Peloponnesian War
hoboam was asked to decrease the control of the central
government. Sadly, he rejected the wise counsel of the
older men and tried to increase the centralized control
(and worked the people like slaves). This rejection of wise
advice led to the schism between the northern tribes, Israel, and the southern tribes, Judah. God, however, makes
it clear that His people can thrive under the rule of many
different kinds of governments. Still, governments, if they
wish to please God, need to be servants of their people,
protecting their freedom and liberty to serve Him and do
what is righteous.
Other Scriptures to consider: Deuteronomy 17:14ff, 1
Samuel 8, Jeremiah 29:7, Isaiah 9:6–7, Revelation 11:15.
2
3
4
5
6
Summa
Write an essay or discuss this question, integrating
what you have learned from the material above.
As we have influence over our government, what
type of government should we desire, hope for,
and work to have?
Endnotes
1
Lucian, “The Way to Write History” 42, in The Works of Lucian,
trans. H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, four volumes (Oxford University Press, 1905), vol. 2, 129.
7
8
9
Plutarch, Life of Pericles VI.
“Feb. 27, 1947,” Time (10 March 1947).
See Alexander Kemos, “The Influence of Thucydides in the
Modern World,” Point of Reference: A Journal of Hellenic
Thought and Culture (Harvard University, Fall 1994), available
at http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html; also Dennis Ross,
Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World
(Union Square West, NY: Ferrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007). Ross
does not mention Thucydides, but his outlook is laden with
Thucydidean practicality.
See Xenophon’s Hellenica I–III.
Thucydides praised the rule of the 5,000 that Athens instituted
in 411 b.c. (8.97.2). Aristotle informs us that an important feature of this government was that members of the 5,000 needed
to have a personal or financial stake in Athens. “The whole of
the rest of the administration was to be committed, for the period of the war, to those Athenians who were most capable of
serving the state personally or financially, to the number of not
less than five thousand” (Athenian Constitution, 30).
Theodore Roosevelt, Fear God and Take Your Own Part. (New
York: George H. Doran Co., 1916), 66.
Film clips concerning the infamous the Kobayashi Maru Flight
Simulator Test (the test where victory was impossible) from various Star Trek movies both old and new can be found through
Links 1 and 2 for this chapter at www.VeritasPress.com/OmniLinks.
Watching the scene online is best because the movie was not
memorable and has some vulgar language and violence. A
video of this speech is available through Link 3 for this chapter
at www.VeritasPress.com/OmniLinks.
17