Download War in Athens

Haslam 1
Easton Haslam
MAJ Garriott
ERH 201WX-02 Rhetorical Traditions I
2 October 2015
Help Received: See works cited page
The Impact of Warrior Culture on Rhetorical Development in Athens
The warrior culture exhibited in classical Athens used rhetoric to push its agenda forward
and build the strength of the army. This was displayed by the expansion of the cavalry around
435 BCE. The power of rhetoric on military thinking and strategy is also displayed in the courts
of Athens, men used rhetoric to convince the demos that they were patriotic against all evidence
to the contrary. Rhetoric also came into play in the commemoration of those killed in war. Grand
speeches were used to commemorate the war dead and paint a picture of the Athenian polis.
These uses of rhetoric led to the rise of a greatly strengthened Athenian military. They
contributed to a series of seemingly poor decisions later in the Peloponnesian War that caused
the defeat of the Athenian military. The Cavalry took some hits which led to public outrage with
its use, culminating in a general disdain toward the cavalry and defeat due to misuse of the
cavalry.
As the voting body, the demos had control over the majority of military actions outside of
war. During war, the general elected by the demos had the power of military decision making. In
the years leading up to the Peloponnesian war, the demos in Athens made some very sound
military decisions regarding strengthening of the force and establishment of a permanent cavalry
Haslam 2
class of warrior. These soldiers were typically wealthy, due to the cost of purchasing and
maintaining a cavalry horse. There was a state subsidy used to help offset the cost of feeding and
maintaining a horse for the cavalry. This subsidy was not very substantial, which means that
people of lower status did not have the ability to join the cavalry. The creation of the cavalry was
spearheaded by Pericles, the Athenian general who used cavalry very effectively in previous
campaigns. His use of rhetoric convinced the demos that they needed a cavalry for multiple
reasons (Pritchard 115). These include but are not limited to; Boeotia, a member of the
Peloponnesian League, had a large and strong cavalry force (Pritchard 118), the want for a welltrained cavalry available on short notice meant Athens would have to pay for it (Pritchard 117),
and to allow the upper class to benefit from the wealth of the empire (Pritchard 115). This raising
of a cavalry force seems to have been spearheaded by Pericles, who used cavalry warfare with
great success before the Peloponnesian war of 431-405 BCE. He faced two main barriers to the
implementation of the cavalry. First being the widespread use of hoplite warfare and the
dominance of hoplite soldiers, and second being the cost of raising the cavalry (Pritchard 123). It
was ultimately decided that these barriers would be worth going out of their way to overcome,
and the demos decided to go ahead and fund an Athenian cavalry. The Athenian demos proved to
be well versed in military affairs at this time, being able to engage in educated debate on the
usefulness or uselessness of something for military strategy. These debates involved the use of
rhetoric through the speakers attempting to persuade the demos to agree with their thinking and
implement some change into the military, whether it be raising a cavalry, bankrolling more
triremes, or creating a subsidy to offset the cost of owning a cavalry horse. This pertains to the
development of rhetoric because the Sophists were still in Athens teaching at this time. Their
teaching may have had an effect on those going into the assembly to convince the demos of their
Haslam 3
case. In Pritchard’s book, Iain Spence says that “All Athenian voters had vested interest in good
military performance” (Pritchard 125). This interest came from military aged men whose lives
literally depended on a strong military as well as the entire population of Athens wanting to
maintain the safety and security of the city and the strength of the empire (Pritchard 125).
Pericles saw the cavalry as a form of defense. His strategy for the use of the cavalry was
predominately defensive in nature (Pritchard 127). He planned to wait until his enemy had worn
themselves out and then defeat them. This strategy came to be known as the “Island Strategy”
(Pritchard 127). These developments in the size and use of the cavalry by the Athenian military
highlight the knowledge of the demos concerning military matters. This knowledge, coupled
with the rise of rhetorical thinking in Athens around this time, led to intense debates that
ultimately ended up with good decisions being made to prepare for the upcoming conflict with
the Peloponnesian League.
The Courts facilitated the use of rhetoric through public displays of defense where men
could convince others of their innocence, or lack thereof. There were a handful of wealthy
Athenians that refused to serve in the military even though they were supposed to be members of
it. One example of this is a man named Polyaenus. He did not want to fight for the city and was
sent to court over it. Through his uses of rhetorical devices of persuasion, he explained that yes,
he did not wish to serve in the military in this conflict. He is very quick to point out that he has
served in the military in the past honorably and focuses on the fact that his issue with service lies
in the fact that he has a problem with the conduct of military affairs rather than service itself
(Pritchard 211-12). He is able to use ethos to build a good reputation within the court and
convince the demos to vote in his favor. He goes on to explain that Athenian military leadership
is using the power inherent to their positions to feud with one another, leading to immoral
Haslam 4
conduct, and lawlessness in the military. This, he contends, is a threat to democratic order within
Athens (Pritchard 213). By turning the debate from his character and whether or not he is a
coward to exposing a flawed system of leadership, Polyaenus has made himself look like an allstar citizen, deeply committed to the longevity of the city-state and patriotic to his core.
Another man to use rhetoric in a court type setting was Mantitheus. His struggle centered
on his choice to serve as a hoplite rather than in the cavalry (hippeis). His wealthy background is
what led to his qualification to serve in the hippeis corps. Aristocratric youth were taught
equestrian skills as part of their essential education (Pritchard 215). Mantitheus argues that
despite his wealth and ability to serve in the hippeis, he has chosen voluntarily to serve in the
hoplite ranks. He has also used his wealth to better equip the other hoplites around him, he
genuinely cares and serves honorably in the hoplite corps (Pritchard 216). He even uses rhetoric
to make a defeat suffered by the Athenians seem like a small issue. He argues that his service as
a hoplite is due to his patriotism and that he doesn’t deserve to be punished for not joining the
hippeis. Mantitheus continues his argument by talking about how the cavalry is actually less
honorable than the hoplites because all they do is come clean up after a battle is over; they don’t
do any real work like the hoplites do (Pritchard 217). As he continues, Mantitheus comes to a
turning point in his speech. He stops trying to convince the council that he served because of his
patriotism and reveals his true reasoning for serving with the hoplites. He explains that he
actually feared being ridiculed, so he joined the hoplites as a way to earn justice should he ever
be placed in danger. His statement shows that he was actually just serving to avoid being shamed
(Pritchard 217). This showed that some Athenian aristocrats served only to avoid ridicule. The
use of rhetoric by Mantitheus persuaded the council members to believe first that he was
patriotic, then to get the truth that the aristocracy felt an obligation to serve that could affect
Haslam 5
military operations negatively. Soldiers that are unhappy serving can cause large problems,
problems which may have led to Athens’ defeat later on in the war.
A final example of rhetoric in the courts is Apollodorus vs Polycles. Apollodorus had
appointed Polycles as his successor to his trierarchy in Thrace but Polycles refused to take up the
mantle. Polycles argues that Apollodorus has mishandled the trierarchy and had corrupted it,
while Apollodoorus is simply angry at Polycles for not assuming command as he has been told to
do (Pritchard 221). Apollodorus argues for the honor of paying for the upkeep of a trireme and
says that anyone should be pround to stand up and do it. This argument backfires on him,
Polycles says that if it is so honorable then why wouldn’t Apollodorus continue funding the
trierarchy? This leads to a discussion of the rhetoric of ‘civic love’. By attempting to force
Polycles into the trierarchy, Apollodorus puts a price on his own patriotism (Pritchard 222). In
the end, the conclusion is made that Apollodorue, not Polycles is the unpatriotic one exposed the
need for change within the Athenian navy. We see her how rhetoric can be used both positively
and negatively to reach conclusions. Apollodorus is very persuasive in making the court believe
it is patriotic to fund a trierarchy, this ends up hurting him because he is seen as shirking off a
patriotic duty as he describes it, so therefore he is unpatriotic. The use of rhetoric in the courts
influenced decision making and revealed flaws in the military that led to chamges being voted on
in the demos. These changes were not always strategically good choices which helped contribute
to the loss of the war.
Funeral orations were a large part of the Athenian military system. They served as a
commemoration for those killed during a period of fighting, and to remind the polis that
patriotism was central to Athens. The most famous funeral oration occurred at the end of the first
year of the second Peloponnesian War. Pericles commemorates those killed in battle during the
Haslam 6
first year, talks about patriotism, and explains reasoning behind why they need to fight, or does
he? Taken at face value, that is what the speech is about, but if we look into Athenian culture in
431 BCE, we see that the level of patriotism wasn’t actually all that high. I have already
discussed how there was an issue amongst the aristocracy of not serving in the military, or
serving for the wrong reasons. Pericles was elected the General of all Athenian forces, it was his
duty to boost the morale and fight to the end. His plan is what was being put into action. He has
already used rhetoric to convince the demos to vote in his favor of creating a cavalry that
ultimately ended up failing to perform as he expected it would and costing Athens the war. In
this, and many other funeral orations, we see the use of rhetoric as a device to increase public
and military support of this war. Pericles presents a picturesque Athens where every citizen is
patriotic and willing to fight for his state (Strassler 113, 2.40). He also uses idealized views to
make the current military embrace the conflict. He talks about how they must fight, and those
that haven’t joined yet, should (Strassler 115, 2.43). This idealized view of Athens and her
military is rhetorical and persuades the citizens of Athens to not give up hope in the military and
the war. It motivates them to continue support and join the fight if necessary. Pericles’
nomination to be General was considered very carefully, and his talent as an orator and
rhetorician is part of what gained him the title.
In conclusion, rhetoric played a large role in military decisions. The demos voted directly
on military actions and created the cavalry as well as attempted to make military service more
desirable. These decisions were sound militarily but did not work in practice. The Athenians lost
the war for many reasons, including lack of morale following losses. The courts facilitated
rhetoric by allowing people to defend themselves and prove their ‘innocence’. And finally,
commemorating the war dead served mainly to build an ideal picture of Athens that was far from
Haslam 7
the truth but pushed people to support military efforts, leading to a seemingly unified city-state.
Rhetoric continues to play a role in military decision-making to this day, and likely always will.
Haslam 8
Works Cited
An Introduction to Classical Rhetoric: Essential Readings edited by James D. Williams and
published by Wiley-Blackwell out of West Sussex, U.K., in 2009.
Herrick, James A. “Aristotle on Rhetoric.” The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction.
5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 69-87.
Pritchard, David. War, Democracy, and Culture in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
2010.
Strassler, Robert B. The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian
War. New York: Simon % Schuster, 1998.