Thucydides - Pericles and Percieved Power
Thucydides - Substantial post
“Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils (243).” In Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian war, it was this lust for power that lead to conflict (through power struggles mentioned in Holly’s post), and misperceptions of power that lead to demise. The greed took two forms: successfully when the greed was that of a nation and made honestly; unsuccessfully when made a personal goal, in haste and ignorance. Through all this, Thucydides’ saving grace was Pericles, in whom he saw the right balance of greed and restraint.
Thucydides really liked Pericles, and wanted everyone who read his history to know the wisdom, justice, and power of this statesman. However much the Athenians blamed him for the failures that befell them, he was able to make statements that appeased their concerns and won him greater power and respect. For example, after two invasions by the Peloponnesians, the Athenians blamed Pericles, to which he responded that they should not seek individual gains in hard times, but rather, should be patriotic. He mentioned their previous, lavish, way of life, and reminded them that they were defending that which their country(city? Empire?) had provided for them (It seems a certain Kennedy in an inauguration speech surrounded by the fear of atomic war uttered a quite similar morale-booster…)(158-163). Pericles knew exactly what Athens was capable of, and knew how to appease Athenians so they would follow his strategy. Thucydides foreshadowed this fall of Athens because they saw power that wasn’t there: “If [Athens were to be left in ruins], one would conjecture from what met the eye that the city had been twice as powerful as in fact it was (41).”
Pericles, according to Thucydides, had the right strategy, and suggested that, had it been followed, the Athenians would have been victorious. He thought Athens needed to be patient and intelligent – not to attack en masse with ignorance, lacking strategy or planning (161). After his death, however, Athens did not heed his guidance, and stopped respecting its power and started expecting it. This is evident in Cleon’s speech in the Mytilenian Debate (when he wants to kill the Mytilenians because they don’t know their place and want to, gasp, be treated as equals, not as a subservient mass) (213-222). Diodotus responds with Perecles’ ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ theme, which saves the Mytilenians from massacre. The same idea of place in society and power by right leads the Melian Dialogue to end with Athenian massacre (408).
The general themes of power in the book fall into these categories: wanting it, getting it, keeping it, losing it. The twist that Thucydides brings to it is the idea of gauging power. The Spartans and their allies initially nudged Athens into war (see paragraph 126 on page 108 for a comical method) because they saw that the Athenian empire was growing, physically and in terms of power, military and otherwise. Sparta (and allies) accurately eyed its resources and power, and was ultimately successful in its attempts against Athens. They did fall short, but only when they had expected more power than was actually there (see page 202 in their support of the revolt of Mytilene). In terms of states, success came from accurate perception of power.
For smaller groups (ungoverned), Thucydides notes the same kind of power perception. In the section about the plague, when Athens fell into a lawless state, he attributed its demise to sudden individual wealth and an ephemeral perception of life – that if one had power, even if only for a short time, it could be abused (155). On a more specific note, Pausanias, a Spartan commander in chief, saw himself with power beyond his means, and ended up wanted on claims of unauthorized tyrannical behavior. Although noted as a great man by Thucydides, upon his death, was nearly disposed of as a criminal(109-110).
The perpetual message that the book sends, and perhaps what Thucydides intended to convey, is that success comes from an accurate judgment of capabilities and a full knowledge of one’s place in the power structure. Had Pericles not died, Athens may have placated Sparta. Although the wars are similar and the statements familiar, the book cannot be used as a parallel to current events, or even later wars, as the complexities of the inter-state political structure would be nearly impossible to recreate. Rather, the outcomes of various speeches or actions can be used to examine themes throughout wars, past and present, and as tools to examine international power structure and power play.
“Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils (243).” In Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian war, it was this lust for power that lead to conflict (through power struggles mentioned in Holly’s post), and misperceptions of power that lead to demise. The greed took two forms: successfully when the greed was that of a nation and made honestly; unsuccessfully when made a personal goal, in haste and ignorance. Through all this, Thucydides’ saving grace was Pericles, in whom he saw the right balance of greed and restraint.
Thucydides really liked Pericles, and wanted everyone who read his history to know the wisdom, justice, and power of this statesman. However much the Athenians blamed him for the failures that befell them, he was able to make statements that appeased their concerns and won him greater power and respect. For example, after two invasions by the Peloponnesians, the Athenians blamed Pericles, to which he responded that they should not seek individual gains in hard times, but rather, should be patriotic. He mentioned their previous, lavish, way of life, and reminded them that they were defending that which their country(city? Empire?) had provided for them (It seems a certain Kennedy in an inauguration speech surrounded by the fear of atomic war uttered a quite similar morale-booster…)(158-163). Pericles knew exactly what Athens was capable of, and knew how to appease Athenians so they would follow his strategy. Thucydides foreshadowed this fall of Athens because they saw power that wasn’t there: “If [Athens were to be left in ruins], one would conjecture from what met the eye that the city had been twice as powerful as in fact it was (41).”
Pericles, according to Thucydides, had the right strategy, and suggested that, had it been followed, the Athenians would have been victorious. He thought Athens needed to be patient and intelligent – not to attack en masse with ignorance, lacking strategy or planning (161). After his death, however, Athens did not heed his guidance, and stopped respecting its power and started expecting it. This is evident in Cleon’s speech in the Mytilenian Debate (when he wants to kill the Mytilenians because they don’t know their place and want to, gasp, be treated as equals, not as a subservient mass) (213-222). Diodotus responds with Perecles’ ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ theme, which saves the Mytilenians from massacre. The same idea of place in society and power by right leads the Melian Dialogue to end with Athenian massacre (408).
The general themes of power in the book fall into these categories: wanting it, getting it, keeping it, losing it. The twist that Thucydides brings to it is the idea of gauging power. The Spartans and their allies initially nudged Athens into war (see paragraph 126 on page 108 for a comical method) because they saw that the Athenian empire was growing, physically and in terms of power, military and otherwise. Sparta (and allies) accurately eyed its resources and power, and was ultimately successful in its attempts against Athens. They did fall short, but only when they had expected more power than was actually there (see page 202 in their support of the revolt of Mytilene). In terms of states, success came from accurate perception of power.
For smaller groups (ungoverned), Thucydides notes the same kind of power perception. In the section about the plague, when Athens fell into a lawless state, he attributed its demise to sudden individual wealth and an ephemeral perception of life – that if one had power, even if only for a short time, it could be abused (155). On a more specific note, Pausanias, a Spartan commander in chief, saw himself with power beyond his means, and ended up wanted on claims of unauthorized tyrannical behavior. Although noted as a great man by Thucydides, upon his death, was nearly disposed of as a criminal(109-110).
The perpetual message that the book sends, and perhaps what Thucydides intended to convey, is that success comes from an accurate judgment of capabilities and a full knowledge of one’s place in the power structure. Had Pericles not died, Athens may have placated Sparta. Although the wars are similar and the statements familiar, the book cannot be used as a parallel to current events, or even later wars, as the complexities of the inter-state political structure would be nearly impossible to recreate. Rather, the outcomes of various speeches or actions can be used to examine themes throughout wars, past and present, and as tools to examine international power structure and power play.
posted by Rebecca at 2:35 PM
<< Home