There is no concrete evidence regarding the death of Thucydides. According to Pausanias, an Athenian named Oenobius created a law for Thucydides' return after Athens' surrender in 404 BC, claiming that Thucydides was murdered en route back to Athens. However, there are doubts about this account, as it is suggested that he lived until approximately 397 BC. Plutarch states that Thucydides' remains were returned to Athens and were interred in Cimon’s family vault.
The Peloponnesian War faced discontent among the allies, particularly highlighted by the demands of the Syracusan and Thurian sailors for pay from Astyochus. In response to their insistence, Astyochus threatened the sailors, which led to an attempt on his life, compelling him to escape to an altar for refuge.
In the context of rebellion, the Milesians captured a fort built by Tissaphernes at Miletus, much to the approval of their allies. Lichas, however, criticized the Milesians for their actions, resulting in growing resentment towards him.
The situation escalated when Mindarus from Lacedaemon took command of the fleet from Astyochus after he returned home. Meanwhile, Tissaphernes sent an envoy to Mindarus to voice complaints against the Milesians for their insurrection against his interests.
In a significant political shift, the Four Hundred attempted to govern from Samos and pacify the struggling Athenians. However, the army at Samos resisted, calling for a restoration of democracy, with Alcibiades playing a pivotal role in persuading the troops to maintain order.
Tensions erupted into naval battles near the Chersonese, with leadership from both Athenian and Peloponnesian sides. The Seracusan ships were commanded by Mindarus, while the Athenian fleet was led by Thrasyllus and Thrasybulus.
Alcibiades returned from his campaign, claiming to have improved relations with Tissaphernes and enhanced Athenian naval strength. However, Tissaphernes began to feel the pressure of increased reliance on the Peloponnesians, prompting him to consider shifting his strategies to maintain control over Ionia.
The Four Hundred ultimately lost favor and were overthrown, which led to the establishment of the Five Thousand in an effort to stabilize Athenian governance. The war showcased cyclical violations and shifts in alliances, particularly evidenced by the changing dynamics between Alcibiades and the Athenian oligarchs.
The loss of Euboea signified a major defeat for the Athenians, resulting in the loss of crucial supply lines and a subsequent hit to Athenian morale. This setback also intensified internal strife, revealing a divided state plagued by factions amid ongoing external conflicts.
Thucydides, in his narrative, analyzes the impacts of leadership decisions on the direction of the war, focusing on how they shaped the Athenian responses to both internal divisions and external threats.
Thucydides’ chapters draw conclusions about democracy versus oligarchy, reflecting on the causes and consequences of decisions made during the war and providing modern interpretations of governance effectiveness.
The Athenian Expedition to Sicily initiated with great enthusiasm but soon turned to despair following significant losses. Citizens blamed their leaders and oracles for promoting the expedition, resulting in a sense of disillusionment. Among the losses were cavalry, hoplites, and many of the city’s youth, leading to widespread despair over military resources. The Athenian fleet suffered from both a lack of ships and insufficient financial resources, which hampered their ability to defend against potential attacks from Sicily and Hellas. In response, a decision was made to build a new navy, secure allies, particularly in Euboea, and advise on austerity, guided by a council of elders.
The defeat of Athens in Sicily stirred all of Hellas, prompting neutral states to feel compelled to join the war against Athens as they perceived an imminent victory. This ignited increased confidence among Lacedaemonian allies to fight against Athenian supremacy. Additionally, there were reports indicating a widespread readiness among Athenian subject states to revolt, fueled by long-standing grievances.
Agis, the king of Lacedaemon, coordinated troop movements and contributions from allies aimed at enhancing their naval capabilities. The Lacedaemonians planned to construct a substantial fleet across various cities to strengthen their naval presence. Meanwhile, the Athenians fortified their positions and prepared for renewed naval construction amidst fears of revolts from their allies.
Dissatisfaction grew as Euboeans and Lesbians attempted to switch allegiances, highlighting their discontent with Athenian rule. Alcamenes was appointed to lead efforts to secure Euboea, while various states initiated open revolts against Athenian control due to the defeats and deteriorating economic conditions exacerbated by the ongoing war.
In response, the Athenians aimed to fortify strategic locations to secure vital supply routes and maintain close surveillance over their allies amid rising dissent within their ranks.
As revolts escalated, a sense of desperation settled in, prompting both sides to assess their capabilities and readiness for an all-out naval conflict. This led to significant battles that shifted power dynamics, increasingly reliant on external assistance from Persian and allied contingents.
A strategic alliance was formed with the Persian King, formalizing cooperation and ensuring mutual non-aggression concerning their respective territories. The Lacedaemonians endeavored to present a unified front against Athenian forces, despite existing concerns over their long-term commitment to the alliance.
Back in Athens, political maneuvering intensified amid ongoing sieges. This included a push for oligarchic governance led by factional interests, as Peisander and fellow conspirators proposed restructuring the government. Their aim was to restore previously banished leaders to ensure stability within the city.
Following the restoration of leadership, relations with Tissaphernes improved, creating further rifts within the Athenian forces. Conflict resolutions began to favor pro-Persian sentiments, undermining the established Athenian ideals of democratic governance, despite recurring public discontent.
A series of naval engagements ensued following Athenian withdrawals, which alternately boosted Peloponnesian morale and incited further revolts in subject states. The responses from both sides highlighted the intricate connection between territory control and naval supremacy, pivotal in dictating the course of subsequent hostilities.
The Athenian forces in Sicily encountered numerous challenges and confrontations against the Syracusans. Their fleet comprised approximately 200 ships and a strong contingent of hoplites. Under the command of Nicias and Demosthenes, the Athenians sought to conquer Syracuse but faced increasing hardships. Following minor naval victories, the Syracusans, bolstered by reinforcements, became more aggressive. In an effort to sustain pressure on Sicily, the Athenians sent reinforcements, including ships and hoplites. Key leaders such as Charicles and Demosthenes coordinated the actions of various allied forces to prepare for a decisive engagement.
During the pivotal naval clash known as the Battle of Plemmyrium, the Athenian fleet met the Syracusans. Initial encounters displayed the effectiveness of both sides, but ultimately, the battle strongly favored the Syracusans. Tactical enhancements were made to the ships' construction with the intention of countering Athenian naval strategies. In the initial skirmishes, the Syracusans succeeded in capturing several Athenian ships and boats, aided by Gylippus, who orchestrated a surprise attack that further disrupted Athenian assets.
The repercussions of the Athenian naval defeat were profound. It led to a swift decline in morale among Athenian troops and commanders, causing significant anxiety and prompting a reassessment of their strategy in Sicily. The Athenians opted to withdraw from their fortified positions, resulting in a chaotic retreat under fire from Syracusan forces. Nicias advocated for a strategic re-evaluation instead of an immediate retreat, urging a phased withdrawal.
In the concluding days of the campaign, the Athenian army attempted to cross the River Assinarus but encountered fierce resistance, leading to disorder. The retreating soldiers, unprepared and disorganized, suffered heavy losses due to the pursuing Syracusans. Eventually, when cornered, Nicias surrendered to Gylippus, and Demosthenes followed suit shortly thereafter. The terms of their surrender ensured safety for their lives.
The aftermath saw the execution of Nicias and Demosthenes by the Syracusans, highlighting the violent repercussions of the failed expedition. Other captured Athenian soldiers faced harsh conditions and were primarily assigned to labor. This incident marked one of the most critical losses for Athens during the Peloponnesian War, significantly altering the regional power dynamics. The defeat resulted in a considerable reduction of Athenian naval power and brought to light critical weaknesses in their military operations.
The Athenian leadership suffered from a lack of timely information and efficient communication, which contributed to a disorganization among ranks. In contrast, the Syracusans and their allies effectively unified their efforts, capitalizing on Athenian errors and internal chaos. The disastrous Sicilian Expedition ultimately highlighted the imperative of strategic flexibility and the severe consequences of underestimating the adversary, resulting in a prolonged conflict that diminished Athenian influence in the region for years to come.
Three Athenian ships returned from Egesta with disappointing news, revealing that only thirty talents of the promised funds were available, which led to disappointment among the generals. The Rhegians, who were expected to support the Athenians due to their kinship with the Leontines, also rejected Athenian requests.
The Egestaeans had previously deceived Athenian envoys by showcasing silver offerings in the temple of Aphrodite at Eryx. Their wealth appeared greater due to the inclusion of borrowed gold and silver vessels, damaging the credibility of the Athenian commanders in front of their troops.
Nicias proposed an immediate attack on Selinus as it was the primary mission. If the Egestaeans provided funds, they would proceed; if not, they would demand provisions for sixty ships and negotiate with the Selinuntians. His intention was to display Athenian power and zeal to their allies.
Alcibiades argued against returning without action, suggesting they should use an envoy to recruit Sicilian allies and persuade neutral tribes to join their cause. His focus was on cultivating relationships with the Messenians, a crucial location for controlling Sicily.
Lamachus favored attacking Syracuse directly while the enemy was unprepared, believing that fear would provide the Athenian forces with a tactical advantage. He asserted the need for using the element of surprise to capitalize on their military might.
During the generals' council, various strategies were deliberated, with Nicias concentrating on financial viability and preserving Athenian resources. Alcibiades and Lamachus shared opposing views on whether to pursue direct combat or strategic diplomacy.
Alcibiades aimed to forge alliances with various Sicilian cities, excluding Syracuse and Selinus, and prioritized building relationships with neutral parties, noting that their support could lead to strategic advantages against their enemies.
Nicias emphasized the significance of striking when the Syracuse fortifications were vulnerable. However, he expressed concerns regarding the security of Athenian resources and the possibility of losing their foothold in Sicily.
The Athenians engaged the Syracusans but experienced mixed success, resulting in fluctuating morale. Significant casualties were observed on both sides during direct confrontations, illustrating the conflict's intensity.
The death of Lamachus created a leadership vacuum, compelling Nicias to lead alone, which altered the dynamics among Athenian forces. Solidifying his authority became essential as Athenian unity faced challenges from external pressures and internal strategies.
The Athenians constructed a dual wall around Syracuse to tighten the siege, with Nicias focusing on strategies that would maximize Athenian security while minimizing exposure to enemy cavalry.
Gylippus, the Spartan commander, executed aggressive tactics to exploit Athenian weaknesses during key moments in the siege. Continuous evaluations of Athenian strengths and weaknesses informed Syracusan responses.
As the Athenians prepared for ongoing conflict, they aimed to reinforce their ranks with additional troops and cavalry from Athens as winter transitioned into spring. Ongoing negotiations and shifting strategies reflected the operational landscape shaped by their previous engagements.
The evolving situation was influenced by ongoing Venetian campaigns and the necessity of forming alliances within both Sicily and the broader Greek world. Tensions in key allied relationships notably affected Athenian strategies in the conflict.
Upon observing the enemy, the Argives and their allies took a strong defensive position. In response, the Lacedaemonians charged forward to engage, initially stunning the Argive forces with their sudden advancement.
A Spartan elder criticized King Agis for his reckless aggression against a strong position, which prompted Agis to withdraw his forces before engagement, possibly heeding the elder's admonition. Agis then redirected a water source to disrupt the Mantineans and Tegeans, hoping that this action would provoke the Argives into engagement over the diversion, potentially allowing him to fight on more favorable ground. The Argives reacted with confusion at the Lacedaemonian withdrawal, leading to internal blame directed at their generals for not pursuing the enemy.
The following day, the Argives arranged themselves in preparation for battle, anticipating a possible clash. Meanwhile, the Lacedaemonians returned from watering their troops at the Heraclea shrine and noticed the Argive formation, which added to the rising tension. Under King Agis's directives, the Lacedaemonians swiftly prepared for battle, mobilizing all ranks under their established military hierarchy.
The left wing of the Lacedaemonians consisted of the Sciritae, a unit unique to them, followed by various contingents from Arcadia and other allied cities. Opposing them were the Argive forces, prominently featuring the Mantineans, with their cavalry positioned on both sides.
The Lacedaemonian contingent appeared larger, although confirming exact numbers proved challenging. They showcased seven divisions, with their hoplites displayed in meticulous arrangements, the first line generally three to four deep, demonstrating their military organization.
Leaders urged their men to fight for honor and freedom, especially focusing on historical grievances against the Lacedaemonians. Commanders from diverse cities aimed to inspire a sense of unity and valor among the troops, stressing the importance of this battle while highlighting personal stakes to galvanize forces against the perceived threat.
The two armies initiated hostilities with the Argives charging aggressively, while the Lacedaemonians maintained a disciplined pace. Initial successes favored the Argives, but the veteran Lacedaemonians demonstrated unexpected skill in close-quarter combat.
Anticipating a strategy of flanking, Agis directed certain troops to maneuver against expected enemy vulnerabilities, a move meant to strengthen his side's position in the battle.
Despite confronting unforeseen challenges, the Lacedaemonians fought fiercely but made critical tactical miscalculations. The Mantineans capitalized on the ensuing confusion, effectively disrupting the Lacedaemonian lines.
The battle's aftermath was characterized by chaos, with casualties on both sides reflecting the volatility of the conflict. Nevertheless, the Lacedaemonians aimed to regroup and mitigate the impact on the home front despite their losses.
The intensity and consequences of the battle prompted a reevaluation of strategy, leading both sides to condense their forces and recognize their weakened positions.
Future military engagements were anticipated, underlining the dynamic and fragile relationships between states, coupled with lobbying against the growing Athenian power, which concentrated on rebuilding coalitions with former allies.
Brasidas and Perdiccas united their forces for a campaign against Arrhibaeus in Lyncus, fielding approximately 3,000 heavy-armed Hellenic forces along with 1,000 cavalry, which included barbarian reinforcements. The initial confrontation with the Lyncestians took place on opposing hills, leading to a chaotic battle where the Lyncestians were defeated and compelled to retreat. Following the victory, both generals raised a trophy and awaited Illyrian reinforcements that ultimately did not arrive, prompting them to consider advancing on Arrhibaeus’s villages.
Upon receiving news of the Illyrians joining Arrhibaeus, fear spread among both generals, leading them to contemplate retreat. That night, a mass panic ensued among the Macedonian forces, resulting in their flight home without consulting Brasidas. As chaos unfolded, Brasidas prepared for a strategic retreat, organizing a rearguard formation to ensure safe passage.
After a brief period of inactivity, Brasidas rallied his men to counterattack the regrouping Lyncestians. Through an inspiring speech emphasizing courage over numbers, he successfully incited his troops to charge. The allied forces of Brasidas launched an unexpected assault, causing the Athenian soldiers to flee in disarray.
Following their victory, the Macedonians regrouped and retreated back to their territory. Over time, tensions mounted between Perdiccas and Brasidas, introducing further discord with the Athenian forces.
Despite initial cooperation, tensions escalated between Athens and the Lacedaemonians due to unfulfilled treaty conditions, particularly concerning Amphipolis and other disputed territories. Alcibiades emerged as a significant military figure within Athens, advocating for strong action against Lacedaemonian provocations and promoting an alliance with Argos.
A peace treaty was ultimately agreed upon to last for fifty years, setting guidelines for mutual defense and diplomatic relations. Yet, both parties quickly shifted focus toward military buildups, as the Lacedaemonians sought to reassert power in Peloponnesus, fearing Argive alliances that threatened their dominance. The Argives leaned towards cooperation with Athenian forces rather than Lacedaemonian terms, leading to further division within the Peloponnesian League.
Despite the initial treaties, skirmishes persisted among allied states, notably between the Argives and Elidians amid other regional conflicts. Tensions further escalated when Alcibiades publicly called for action against Levpreon, resulting in another military venture by the Argives under uncertain circumstances.
The ongoing cycles of mistrust and military conflict highlight a recurring theme throughout Athenian and Spartan relations. The intricate web of alliances and military strategies adopted by both sides underscores the persistent uncertainties of peace within this historical context.
This summary encapsulates the key events of the campaigns led by Brasidas and Perdiccas, the subsequent retreats, evolving Athenian-Lacedaemonian alliances and treaties, as well as the shifting dynamics within the Peloponnesian League, culminating in the recognition of a fragile peace laden with future conflicts.
Troops from Laconia wreaked havoc in the region, as they spoke the local language, causing fear among the Lacedaemonians. Facing desertion from the Helots and internal trouble, the Lacedaemonians sought to recover prisoners and territory, but negotiations with the Athenians were unsuccessful.
During the summer, the Athenians launched an attack on Corinth, mobilizing eighty ships, 2000 heavy infantry, and 200 cavalry. Their allied forces included the Milesians, Andrians, and Carystians, commanded by Nicias, Nicostratus, and Autocles. Troop movements involved landings between Chersonesus and the River Rhetus, with fighting occurring near Solygea, a location of historical significance.
The Corinthians responded quickly to Athenian movements, anticipating an attack; however, the Athenians landed unnoticed. The battle ensued with persistent hand-to-hand confrontations. Initially, the right wing of the Athenians, along with allies, held off the Corinthians before being pushed back. Ultimately, the right wing of the Corinthians gained the upper hand, routing the Athenians, which was exacerbated by low morale among their ranks. In terms of casualties, about 212 Corinthians fell, whereas Athenian losses were fewer than 50.
After the battle, the Athenians withdrew to their ships, concerned about the reinforcing Corinthian troops. Their generals collected the dead but were forced to leave behind some due to the chaos of the situation. Following this, the Athenians moved to Crommyon, where they destroyed and encamped, later advancing to Epidaurus and Methone to fortify the isthmus, with subsequent military actions primarily focused on maintaining pressure in the Peloponnese region.
Meanwhile, Eurymedon and Sophocles prepared an expedition against the Sicilian tribes after departing from Pylos, acting against the oligarchs in Corcyra. This period was characterized by the division of forces and political maneuvers that defined these military expeditions.
The narrative reveals a complex interplay of military engagements, shifting allegiances, and the subtleties of diplomatic communications. The rapidly altering mood among citizens—both Athenian and allied—reflects a growing restlessness against Athenian rule, particularly following the successful operations undertaken by allies of Sparta.
Ongoing negotiations were crucial for maintaining state relations during the unfolding conflict of the Peloponnesian War. The strategic importance of resources, such as timber for shipbuilding and maintaining stronghold cities, was emphasized throughout this period.
The events documented illustrate the chaotic nature of warfare in classical Greece, the shifting landscapes of power, and the necessity for strong leadership amidst daunting circumstances.
The events take place amidst the backdrop of the Peloponnesian War, focusing on the island of Corcyra and the actions of various Greek states. Tensions are rising, particularly between the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, leading to armed conflict.
The Corcyraeans, fearing violence from political opponents, seek refuge in temples. Nicostratus attempts to pacify tensions but faces considerable distrust among the populace. Unfortunately, armed citizens begin to take arms from their adversaries, escalating the situation into violence. Meanwhile, the Corcyraean suppliants are transported to a nearby island for safety, with regular food supplies being delivered to them.
On the fourth or fifth day following the conflict in Corcyra, Peloponnesian ships from Cyllene arrive under the command of Alcidas and Brasidas. The Peloponnesians anchor at Sybota before making their way to Corcyra.
In a state of panic, the Corcyraeans prepare to dispatch sixty ships due to fears surrounding the Peloponnesian fleet and ongoing armed conflicts. The Athenian navy advocates for cooperation, yet a disorganized response within the Corcyraean fleets leads to poor coordination during combat.
During the initial naval combat, Corcyraean ships perform inadequately under pressure, with some crews deserting and others engaging in infighting. Conversely, the Athenian fleet, benefiting from more organized coordination, is able to sink one Corcyraean vessel. As the Athenians and Peloponnesians engage, both sides experience disarray and suffer casualties.
After the naval battle, tensions escalate, with the victorious Athenians striving to consolidate their control and prevent further outbreaks. Fearful of retribution, the Corcyraean populace continues to seek arms and ammunition. Meanwhile, the Peloponnesians, despite having won the initial confrontation, hesitate to directly attack the city.
As additional Athenian reinforcements arrive, the Corcyraeans feel a sense of encouragement, although they remain wary of the consequences stemming from their near-total defeat. The Peloponnesians withdraw to their base for a moment of respite and to reassess their strategies moving forward.
In the aftermath of the strife in Corcyra, war efforts expand into Sicily, where both Athenians and Syracusans engage with the Locrians and other Greek factions. The measures taken by both sides to consolidate power escalate further conflicts and sow potential chaos across various fronts.
Overall, the turmoil experienced in Corcyra highlights the fragility of alliances and the potential for civil conflict within warring states, fueling larger hostilities throughout Greece. This conflict serves to illustrate the shifting power dynamics among Greek city-states, as they align with or against the Peloponnesians and Athenians throughout the war.
The Scythians are characterized as horse-archers, known for their remarkable mobility and archery skills. Surrounding them are the Thracians, considered highland tribes, who are independent warriors equipped with dirks, known as Dii, and primarily inhabit Mount Rhodope. These tribes were often attracted to join armies either through payment or as volunteers. Additional tribal alliances included the Agrianians, Laeaeans, and other Paeonian nations, which united under a single leader. Their territorial boundaries extended near the Graaean Paeonians and the river Strymon, marking the limit of his dominion and the onset of independent Paeonians. The geographical boundaries were further defined by the Triballi, Treres, and Tilataeans, situated to the north.
The Odrysian Empire's extent was measured from Abdera to the mouth of the Ister in the Euxine Sea, with a maritime journey taking about four days under favorable winds. The shortest land route from Abdera to the Ister required 11 days, whereas the journey from Byzantium to the Strymon approximated 13 days. Tribute collection occurred from the barbarian regions and Greek cities during the reign of Seuthes, who succeeded Sitalces, with an estimated worth of 400 talents of silver, excluding additional gifts of gold and silver.
The customs of the Odrysae showcased a social structure that favored taking rather than giving; it was deemed more shameful to refuse to give than not to receive. The commonwealth's sharing of loot and tribute played a significant role in the growth of the Odrysian kingdom, thereby strengthening their economic base.
Sitalces' military campaigns were noteworthy as he amassed a considerable army, comprising diverse Thracian tribes seeking loot, primarily targeting Macedonia. His army included 150,000 men, with two-thirds being cavalry and a robust infantry component.
The Plataeans, facing dire circumstances during the siege by the Peloponnesians, had an initial strategy that aimed at reclaiming their rights against enemies who committed injustices. Their final surrender was marked by a reluctance driven by hunger and desperation. Following their surrender, the Lacedaemonians established judges, which led to widespread repercussions for the Plataean populace, including executions.
The fate of Mytilene fluctuated based on political debates in Athens, with split opinions emerging on whether to impose severe punishment or extend sympathy to former allies. Key arguments featured Cleon advocating for immediate punishment to deter future transgressions, while Diodotus countered by arguing for the need to consider long-term implications and justice for the innocent. Ultimately, the political decisions during this tumultuous period illustrated the overarching themes of war, loyalty, and the moral dilemmas confronted by the Hellenic states, leading to a modified approach that favored leniency for innocents despite desires for vengeance against perceived treachery.
Lacedaemonian King Archidamus led an invasion into Attica. The initial movements involved assaults on Oenoè, which he failed to capture. The Lacedaemonians then shifted their focus to Eleusis and the Thria plain, managing to drive the Athenian horsemen away. As they advanced towards Acharnae, located in the heart of Attica, they established a camp and began to ravage the surrounding area.
Archidamus hesitated to engage in direct combat, hoping to lure the Athenians out of their city by maintaining a camp near Acharnae. He believed that the Athenians would feel compelled to defend their lands from further devastation. Initially, the Athenians held hope that the invaders would retreat, recalling past conflicts with the Lacedaemonians that had ended in their withdrawal.
However, as the invasion continued, growing anger among the younger populace turned into restlessness due to the destruction of their lands. Internal disputes arose among citizens about whether to engage the Lacedaemonians directly. Pericles, the Athenian leader, opted for a defensive posture rather than leading an offensive charge to avoid unnecessary casualties.
As the Lacedaemonians rampaged across Attica, they failed to draw the Athenians from their city and executed a systematic destruction of farmland. The siege of Acharnae was extended, although minor skirmishes and intercepts occurred later. The local Acharnians displayed notable resistance, believing they could defend their homes and engage the adversaries. A shift in Athenian morale transpired, prompting the formation of a militia made up of citizens and volunteers eager to confront the invaders, hoping to mobilize more citizens to arms through their losses.
In light of the worsening situation, Pericles called for unity and patience among the citizens, emphasizing a long-term strategic view over impulsive engagement driven by anger. He organized a rally encouraging citizens to remain steadfast against the invaders, interpreting the Lacedaemonian strategy as an attempt to provoke them into combat.
Despite the resistance, an internal health crisis began to unfold alongside the siege, which weakened Athenian resolve and complicated defense efforts. A significant number of citizens fell ill due to outbreaks of disease, creating chaos in logistics operations and leaving them unfit for combat.
As the siege progressed, the combined effects of the plague and ongoing invasions intensified discord and despair among the populace. The citizens’ instinct for retaliation against the Lacedaemonians, along with growing dissatisfaction with leadership, fueled division within Athenian ranks.
Pericles continued to work on bolstering Athenian naval strategies while alleviating the burdens imposed on the armies due to health issues. Ultimately, after facing numerous challenges, the preparation and resolve would dictate the outcome of their protracted struggle against tyranny and invasion. The summary points of the infiltration by Lacedaemonian forces emphasize the consistent pressure from the invaders, coupled with internal strife and public health challenges, as they positioned themselves around Acharnae while making continuous strategic decisions aimed at conserving strength for a decisive moment of advantage.
Tension between the Athenians and Lacedaemonians leads to open warfare, with various allies on both sides increasing hostilities. This conflict arises after a period of previous peace.
The thirty years’ peace lasted four decades following the Euboea recovery. However, tensions began to rise again, particularly over the issues surrounding Epidamnus and Corcyra.
The immediate causes of war include several pivotal incidents. First, Corcyra's conflict with Corinth draws Athenian interest, leading Athenians to support Corcyra against Corinth. Additionally, the Potidaea incident occurs when Potidaea, allied with the Athenians, faces pressure to submit to Corinthian influence, escalating local tensions. Furthermore, the Megarian decree—an Athenian exclusion of Megara from markets—aggravates relations, seen as a blockade against allies.
In the wake of increasing tensions, the Lacedaemonians begin military preparations. They send ambassadors to Athens to demand the retraction of Athenian decrees against their allies.
Pericles advises against yielding to Lacedaemonian threats, emphasizing the necessity of readiness and preparation for war. The Athenians refuse to rescind the Megarian decree, prioritizing their own interests and alliances over conciliation.
Both factions prepare militarily, with the Athenians bolstering their naval strength in anticipation of Peloponnesian aggression. By securing grain supplies and troop mobilization, Athens demonstrates its commitment to maintaining the war effort.
Pericles’ leadership is characterized as strategic and prepared; he seeks to unify Athenian resolve. His views and advice become fundamental to Athenian strategy and engagement in the war.
The examination of resources critical to both sides reveals a focus on naval strengths for Athenian superiority. Wealth from tribute and allied support plays a crucial role in determining capability during the conflict.
As propaganda and rhetoric from both sides ramp up, citizens are prepared for imminent conflict. Civic responsibility is invoked across allied cities, reinforcing communal commitment to Athenian independence.
The unyielding stance of the Athenians ultimately leads to open warfare, with the Lacedaemonians reacting similarly. The immediate reasons for warfare coalesce into a larger narrative of power dynamics and autonomy among Greek city-states.