How could Athens have won the Peloponnesian War?

[IronBrig4]

I would like to talk about Greece and Persia, but those always degenerate into childish East vs. West arguments (they were both great civilizations, all right?). Instead let's talk about the Peloponnesian War. Sound good?

Which single event, if it had had a different outcome, would have probably shifted the balance of war in favor of Athens?

I think the Sicilian expedition ultimately ended Athens' hopes. Pretty much the entire Athenian fleet was destroyed, ending their naval supremacy. The reserve of one hundred ships was able to mitigate the disaster somewhat, but the mythos of Athens' fleet had been snuffed.

As for the army, that considerable expeditionary force was also captured and enslaved. The destruction of Athenian's military resulted in widespread revolt throughout Athens' tributary city-states and convinced Persia to give aid to the Lacedeaemonians. An oligarchic revolution took place shortly thereafter.

Athens did manage to partially recover, and the Lacedaemonians were just as exhausted as they were, but the general atmosphere of despair remained. The Athenians might not have been so insane as to execute six of their naval commanders after what amounted to a drumhead trial. There might not have been a siege (and subsequent plague).

Thoughts?

[gaius valerius]

How they could have won? Don't know, can't tell, in fact nobody can cause history is history cause it is done. The only thing one can say for sure is that what dealt Athens a crippling blow was the Sicilian expedition. Would an alternative ending or an absence of this campaign change the fate of Athens for the better? Don't know, can't tell.

[Mangalore]

They shouldn't have attacked Sicily. Syracuse was the only Greek city of that said which could compete in wealth and seapower with Athens. If the Athenians would have stopped after the first round was over they could have maintained a powerful stance against Sparta which was in quite some trouble then (with Argos challenging her dominance on the Peleponnese and a few cities leaving their hegemony). Other than that the Syracusian expedition kind of shows a dire need for Athens to overhaul their democratic structures. That Perikles - who was a great leader, but still - governed Athens for decades wasn't very healthy for their democracy in hindsight. Afterwards when faced with demagogues the public made some very questionable decisions and voted the wrong people into power, exemplified by the fact how many other democratic citystates wanted to leave Athenian control because they obviously didn't feel the love anymore (or didn't fear the Persians as much as they feared the Athenians).

[il padrino]

i concur completley.the expedition on sicily was a complete disaster.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Simply not making the expedition in Sicily and focusing on the war against Sparta and her allies.

Athens suffered from a plague, lost its leader Pericles, had the flower of their army/navy lost in Sicily, had one of its finest generals and polititians give over important advice to the enemy side... and still Sparta could not defeat em without Persian aid.

As long as Athenians did not try to decide the outcome of the war in a major land battle, I don't see how they could loose the Peloponnesian War.

[Publius Clodius Pulcher]

To try to do something new... the Peace of Nicias is what lost Athens the war. The Athenians had finally shaken the Spartans when they captured a number of Spartans on Sphacteria and shattered the myth of Spartan invincibility. By giving the Spartans a chance to regroup they lost the initiative and gave the Spartans a chance to build their confidence back up by whaling on Argos.

[Stavroforos]

Athens won.

WUT?

[SonOfAlexander]

I muat admit, I know little about the Peloponnesian Wars ... anyone care to enlighten me?

[conon394]

A busy day today – but an attractive topic… a few opening shots that I will defend in earnest later.

Ironically IronBrig4 I was close to posting a thread looking on almost the same issue how Pericles manages such Teflon protection for almost single-handedly destroying the Athenian empire with his war.

Which single event, if it had had a different outcome, would have probably shifted the balance of war in favor of Athens?

Depends I would say Athens might have been able to win ‘a’ Peloponnesian war – but I don’t think any single action could have prevented its defeat in Pericles’ monumental blunder of a war that need not and should not have been fought.

The war and the strategic conditions by created by Pericles beforehand, made defeat likely - his abysmal strategy made it certain.

Athens was fundamentally unready for war; the loss of the friendship of Corinth was a very great thing, the gain for that loss was mostly useless alliance and a second rate fleet of a minimally stable oligarchy; the risk of Persian intervention was real, present and frankly a given; the Thrace-ward region was only just recently pacified and Amphipolis was yet not fully fortified; The development of the Athenian empire as neither inclusive and no longer anti Persian opened a golden opportunity for Spartan propaganda and the ability to work with Persia. Add his strategy for defeat and Athens had a losing war from day one.

I think the Sicilian expedition ultimately ended Athens' hopes

It’s (the Invasion) bad management and defeat may have; but it was certainly probably the only viable option to change the balance of power and allow Athens to actually win (or even achieve a stable drawl under the original Pericles strategy).


Mangalore:

That Perikles - who was a great leader, but still - governed Athens for decades wasn't very healthy for their democracy in hindsight. Afterwards when faced with demagogues the public made some very questionable decisions and voted the wrong people into power, exemplified by the fact how many other democratic citystates wanted to leave Athenian control because they obviously didn't feel the love anymore (or didn't fear the Persians as much as they feared the Athenians).

You made kind of the same argument before but its more CW than fact. Why the sudden use of demagogue anyway – you realize to most 'right thinking Greeks' any leader of the Athenian democracy (who was not actively subverting it) was demagogue: Pericles, Demosthenes, Cimon, Themistocles, etc… Without Cleon (and his collaboration with Demosthenes son of Alcisthenes) there would have been no way for the war to last more than a year or two after the death of big P. Leaders like Thrasybulus and Conon fought and lead a dogged last stand and restored their state's independence – where are the demagogues?

Which democracies left Athenian control anyway? Which cites had not tried the same under Pericles or Cimon, which in fact did also do the same to Sparta or Macedonia or Rome?

Syracuse was the only Greek city of that said which could compete in wealth and seapower with Athens.

The facts however support neither of those conclusions. Syracuse had no fleet to contest the Athenian invasion, and on land 2/3 of an army that was at best only a quarter to a third of Athens’ total hoplite force easily bested Syracuse in a set battle. Really at the end of the day the Athenians simply got unlucky and Lamachus got killed. Be fair what happens if Clitus the Black is a bit slow and Alexander dies in the opening states of his invasion?

(or didn't fear the Persians as much as they feared the Athenians)

Or more typically just wanted to pursue their own petty imperialism.

If the Athenians would have stopped after the first round was over they could have maintained a powerful stance against Sparta which was in quite some trouble then (with Argos challenging her dominance on the Peleponnese and a few cities leaving their hegemony)

That’s a glib statement however. After the first round was over Sparta did not live up to its end of the peace - Athens had lost Amhipolis has would be hard pressed to get it back (or its control of the area – pivotal for shipbuilding, money and keeping Macedonia weak) with a depleted money reserve, and an Empire it had been forced to tax heavily and a much reduced population. Corinth and Boeotia had rejected the peace and if Sparta would not turn over Amphipolis was it going to march against much more formidable and important allies.

edit:

That Perikles - who was a great leader, but still - governed Athens for decades wasn't very healthy for their democracy in hindsight.

Where are these decades?

He cannot be said to have emerged himself until the assassination of Ephialtes in 461 and at that time he clearly was not ruling but jockeying with several leaders. He got lucky to some extent and his rivals men like Cimon and Tolmedes died/got killed. He clearly however faced a continued opposition from Thucydides (son of Melesias) until 444. By 430 he was opposed strongly by men like Cleon, so at best we really have maybe a decade and what a few odd years of real unopposed leadership? That's hardly more profound than FDR or Blair (less so if you remember Athens lacked Parties so tack on Truman and Gordon Brown***). Less so again if you remember just how limited the powers of the office of General were and that every single decree and law had to be pushed through the assembly - Pericles had not backbenchers or solid assembly majority.


*** In a formal legal recognized by the political system kind of way. I think the recent trend to no parties at all - just egos is way overdone. I think its clear that there was an effort to sit and gather vocal supporters in the assembly, or to manage ostracisms, and that one in supporting Demosthenes or Pericles also expected they had a network of generals, bankers, advisers and other experts to handle policy.

[Tiberios]

Well, in a sense they did. After the war, Sparta began alienating it's own allies, in the long run causing Sparta to become an enemy of it's old stainch ally Thebes, who soundly defeated them at the Battle of Leuctra. Sparta then quickly faced an alliance between the city states of Athen, Argos, Thebes anmd Corinth. The Spartan success in the Peloponnesian War was a pyrrhic victory in the long run, causing the end to Spartan supremecy.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

i think that if they had not attacked syracuse it would have been a much closer affair.

[Stalins Ghost]

Simple. If it had kept control of its strategic areas.

The first truely deadly blow was Amphipolis as I see it. Amphipolis was Athens' key location in securing Macedonian (the "timber yard of Athens") timber and pitch for its navy - which was Athens' crucial advantage. Without it, Athens was forced to deal with the Macedonian kings on a more equal level - incurring further costs. The Sicilian expedition was an attempt to secure grain, and increase its influence in Southern Italy - another region abundent in ship building materials and gain independence from the infamously difficult Macedonian king Perdikkas. The final life line, in the Bosphorus grain route, of course marked the death-knell for Athens.

So basically, first it lost its timber yard (or at least more direct access to it), second it failed to secure new life lines, third it lost its grain route. If those strategic blunders had not been made, it could have kept going.

[conon394]

Thebes, who soundly defeated them at the Battle of Leuctra.

Narrowly defeated them you mean. Epaminodas was lucky that his cavalry was better and that he managed to wound the spartan king before his flanking maneuver defeated the Theban attack.

[Tiberios]

Narrowly defeated them you mean. Epaminodas was lucky that his cavalry was better and that he managed to wound the spartan king before his flanking maneuver defeated the Theban attack.

Defeating a superior Spartan army is a great feat. The Theben Sacrad Band on the left flank stood up to the best Sparta had and came out victorious. Armies at that time often placed their elite units on the right flank of their army, but on this occasion the Thebans put their on the left, facing the elite Spartans.

[conon394]

Defeating a superior Spartan army is a great feat. The Theben Sacrad Band on the left flank stood up to the best Sparta had and came out victorious. Armies at that time often placed their elite units on the right flank of their army, but on this occasion the Thebans put their on the left, facing the elite Spartans.

Actually I would object that Greek armies did anything quite as regularly as is often claimed (on the basis of a few widely scattered data points and ignoring any data often just as numerous that gets in the way).

In this case I’m not saying it was not an important defeat but simply a very close one. In this I like to prioritize Xenpohon’s account.

Neither side was all that superior since only the Spartans and Thebans seems much in the fight – the allies on both sides were rather indifferent. Given the regular battle experience of the Theban army and the fact of the Sacred Band, combined with the increasing small number of true Spartan equals I don’t see too much gap in quality if any. One should also remember that Sparta and Thebes (as well as Athens, the Argolid, Arcadia and the Achaeans were along with Crete the prime sources of mercenaries so all had access to many professionals in their hoplite ranks).

More specifically it was an even battle until the Spartan commander was wounded, a high risk win if you will – as Second Mantinea proved. If the Spartans had not suffered from an early loss of their leadership it very possible the outflanking maneuver they had initiated would had won the day (and more importantly its clear the Spartans realized what Epaminodas was doing and acted to counter it).

[Tiberios]

Actually I would object that Greek armies did anything quite as regularly as is often claimed (on the basis of a few widely scattered data points and ignoring any data often just as numerous that gets in the way).

In this case I’m not saying it was not an important defeat but simply a very close one. In this I like to prioritize Xenpohon’s account.

Neither side was all that superior since only the Spartans and Thebans seems much in the fight – the allies on both sides were rather indifferent. Given the regular battle experience of the Theban army and the fact of the Sacred Band, combined with the increasing small number of true Spartan equals I don’t see too much gap in quality if any. One should also remember that Sparta and Thebes (as well as Athens, the Argolid, Arcadia and the Achaeans were along with Crete the prime sources of mercenaries so all had access to many professionals in their hoplite ranks).

More specifically it was an even battle until the Spartan commander was wounded, a high risk win if you will – as Second Mantinea proved. If the Spartans had not suffered from an early loss of their leadership it very possible the outflanking maneuver they had initiated would had won the day (and more importantly its clear the Spartans realized what Epaminodas was doing and acted to counter it).

Of course, but being able to deafeat the Spartans is great in it self. Any way the victory was decisive in the way that it broke Spartan dominance.

[conon394]

Of course, but being able to deafeat the Spartans is great in it self. Any way the victory was decisive in the way that it broke Spartan dominance.

But it really did not - that's the point. Sparta's over reach after the Peloponnesian war, its internal divisions and failure to address its demographic issue did that.


As Cleomenes (and Nabis) proved there was a lot of potential there with reform that was squandered, and just the same Epaminodas never gets his chance but for the revival of Athens, the failure of Cyrus, or frankly for inane behavior of the Thebans at the of Nemea River which should have been a Spartan defeat….

[Tiberios]

But it really did not - that's the point. Sparta's over reach after the Peloponnesian war, its internal divisions and failure to address its demographic issue did that.


As Cleomenes (and Nabis) proved there was a lot of potential there with reform that was squandered, and just the same Epaminodas never gets his chance but for the revival of Athens, the failure of Cyrus, or frankly for inane behavior of the Thebans at the of Nemea River which should have been a Spartan defeat….

Well the defeat weakened Sparta and and caused a great loss of prestige and marterial strength, causing rifts in the Spartan state, reduving it from the prominent power to a second rate power in Greece.

[conon394]

Well the defeat weakened Sparta and and caused a great loss of prestige and marterial strength, causing rifts in the Spartan state, reduving it from the prominent power to a second rate power in Greece.

Only if you are editing the most important land battles of Western Civilization or something.

The stage was set and as I noted Sparta should have been defeated in the Corinthian war - only the vast stupidity of Thebes saved it.

Essentially Spartan failure to address its own demographic issues and inability to raise capital made it critically dependent on its allies and Persian coin (for mercenaries).

As such its post war policy and failed support for Cyrus followed by an attack on Persia made Persian coin always a risky thing. It allies as the Corinthian war showed were were happy to abandon it (or change sides back). So I guess you might as well pick the naval battle of Naxos or Cunaxa as just as important.

In any case my original point was no matter how profound the victory - rather just it was close and lucky, not sound.

[Tiberios]

Only if you are editing the most important land battles of Western Civilization or something.

The stage was set and as I noted Sparta should have been defeated in the Corinthian war - only the vast stupidity of Thebes saved it.

Essentially Spartan failure to address its own demographic issues and inability to raise capital made it critically dependent on its allies and Persian coin (for mercenaries).

As such its post war policy and failed support for Cyrus followed by an attack on Persia made Persian coin always a risky thing. It allies as the Corinthian war showed were were happy to abandon it (or change sides back). So I guess you might as well pick the naval battle of Naxos or Cunaxa as just as important.

In any case my original point was no matter how profound the victory - rather just it was close and lucky, not sound.

Sparta's allies would probably not have changed sides or abaondoned them if Sparta had not persisted in claim that they were superior humns and the only true greeks. their superhuman ideology and unwillingness to respect other states proved fatefull and cost them their allies and eventually their power.

Also the defeat also had a great impact on the demographics. Sparta simply could not replace their losses after so bloody a battle. And certainly not after the Battle of Mantinea which they also lost.