Periclean military strategy

[MAXlMUS]

Avoid battle with the Lacedaemonians at all costs, maintain the tribute-empire with their superiority at the seas, without seeking to further it. His military strategy was often criticized as being too defensive and not sustainable in a long war, and even historians are deeply divided over it, just as his strategy was also contested in his days. Was his strategy the sound way to go about, or did it fail to take into account the unpredictable aspects of war? (e.g. the plague)

[hellheaven1987]

Pericles' strategy was a complete failure because:

1. He failed to calculate that Persian could and would get involve.

2. He failed to use Athens' amphibious advantage fully.

3. He failed to convince Sparta that the war would hurt them.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

The major issue in the Pericles strategy was that it simply did not lead to victory. Athens itself lacked the large army needed to actually hurt any of the land powers, so their raids did not have any lasting negative effect. And of course there is the matter of getting Thebes and Corinth to agree on peace, Sparta seems unlikely to be able to convince em not to pursue their own objectives even if somehow Sparta is convinced to a peace treaty.

And of course the chance of a Persian intervention.

If anything the only real chance to for Athens to win the war lied in something similar to what was attempted at Mantinea by Alkibiades but required a lot more effort from the side of Athens.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Pericles' strategy was a complete failure because:

1. He failed to calculate that Persian could and would get involve.

2. He failed to use Athens' amphibious advantage fully.

3. He failed to convince Sparta that the war would hurt them.

I disagree... just look at what happen when he died and his successor took over and completely change the strategy... Athens began to seriously lose.

Secondly, Persia got involved much later.

Whether or not he was aware of the risk of a plague is unknown but in this respect it was his downfall. His naval strategies were, imo, brilliant. Sparta was hurt during his rule.

But does anyone else find it interesting that Athens and Sparta can fight such a long and devastating war but Macedonia is able to come in and wipe everyone out in one battle.

[hellheaven1987]

I disagree... just look at what happen when he died and his successor took over and completely change the strategy... Athens began to seriously lose.

No, Athens' problem after Pericles was mob democracy, and in military, when mobs did not get involve, Athens did perform brilliantly against Sparta using mobile units and amphibious strategy, such as Battle of Sphacteria.

Secondly, Persia got involved much later.

Not really, Persia got involved much earlier than Cyrus the Younger started openly supporting Sparta.

Whether or not he was aware of the risk of a plague is unknown but in this respect it was his downfall. His naval strategies were, imo, brilliant. Sparta was hurt during his rule.

Sparta was not hurt during Pericles' time, not a bit at all; the problem was Pericles did not focus on amphibious attack but rather just blockade, which Sparta did not really care as they did not rely on much oversea trading.

[grouchy13]

Pericles' strategy was a complete failure because:

1. He failed to calculate that Persian could and would get involve.

2. He failed to use Athens' amphibious advantage fully.

3. He failed to convince Sparta that the war would hurt them.

I believe that far from being a complete failure Pericles Stratagem for the Peloponnesian was sound, however even the most succesful stratagies cannot forsee every possible misfortune that may befall a nation when in a wartime footing,
Persian Involvement came late into the Peloponnesian war, and a long time after the tenants of Pericles stratagem had been abandoned by the Athenians, Persian Involvement up to the peace of Nicias and the subsequent Sicilian expedition was merely to allow the opposing sides to wear each other down , accept audiences with the Great King in Susa with promises of assitance.
Only with the advent of Lysander and his cordial relationship with the young Persian Prince Cyrus did the Persian opinion crystilize against the Athenians in favour of the Spartans.
The point you raise concerning the Athenian Naval superioty is also flawed, again before the abandonment of Pericles stratagem the Athenian navy operated quite effectively, examples of this can be seen in Phormio defeat of the Peloponessian fleet at Naupactus and with the raids carried out by Pericles himself around the Peloponnesian coastline, unfortunatly the plaugue put paid to any lasting stratigic value of these raids but it was clear that up to the outbreak of the plague the Athenian naval supremacy was very effective who knows what lasting strategic success they could produced had the plague not forced them to withdraw to Athens.
I think you mistook Pericles Stategy for the overall Athenian conduct of the war post his death, soon after he had died the demagouges soon took his place and while some parts of his stratagy were continued, the abandonment of attica to Peloponessian raids, the single most important aspect that off not attempting to add to the Delian league/Athenian Empire while in a state of Hostilities with the Peloponnesian was sadly abandoned in spectacular fashion with the Sicilian Expedition.
As for the affects of the plague, yes the movement of the Attican Populace to Athens compounded it's affects but I ask you to produce evidence of any other Great Strategy that has provisions taken within it to combat/prevent a pandemic of such proportions.
In conclusion I argue that Pericles original Stratagem was indeed sound and should the calamity of plauge not befallen the Athenians, the affect of undermining the Spartan Hegemony of the Pelopponesian league by utilizing Athenian Naval superioty in raids would have eventually forced the Spartans to negitiating table lest their tenuos grip on the Helots been put under any real pressure, Spartan Opinion also was questionable, one only has to look at the aftershocks of the Spartan disaster at Pylos to see how quick they would abandon the Peloponnesian League when the foundation of their power base was rocked. Should the Athenians been succesful in the establishment of forward operating bases where fugitive Helots could have absconded to It may have ended the war in the Athenians favour, Once again the Plague ended such plans.
However this all but conjecture but to say the stratagem was a complete failure is not true, the fates made sure that we never got to see the Stratagem over a sustained period of the war, Before the Plague as I highlighted it was succesful, following the Plague and Pericles own death Overall Athenian Stratagy was pulled in many directions and the most important tenants of Pericles stratagy were abandoned.

[Mangalore]

Pericles' strategy was a complete failure because:

1. He failed to calculate that Persian could and would get involve.

2. He failed to use Athens' amphibious advantage fully.

3. He failed to convince Sparta that the war would hurt them.

Athens forced Sparta to sue for peace the first time around with precisely that strategy which also involved constant raids, support of anti Spartan groups inciting a breakup of the Spartan support and inflicting similar economic losses on Spartan allies as Sparta did by ravaging Attica.

Without the Battle of Matinea Sparta would have seen its League crumble as Argos - with subtle support by Athens - tried to reestablish herself as contender to Peleponnesian leadership. With the truce and the peace of Nikias Athens was the clear winner of that round while Sparta was in big trouble.

Things started to go downhill when the Athenians started to get cocky and attack Sicily pissing off the one Greek city capable to compete with Athens in wealth and thus naval capacity. Only with the resurgence of the war post Nicias things went dire. Sparta reevaluated her strategy and cut off Attica completely by investing a fortified position there (before that the raids were only temporary), making Athens completely dependant on tributes which in turn allowed Sparta to incite unrest among her Allies.
Corinth and Sicily leveled the playing field in the naval area of the war and once the Persians stepped in to give tons of money so building fleets wasn't a problem anymore. perciles had precious little to do with any of that.

Overall one cannot really speak of a Periclan strategy beyond the first phase of the war which actually was favourable for the Athenians and while we see it as a struggle between Athens and Sparta the fact is that it was a micro world war involving dozens of quasi countries who were out for their own gains so there was a huge diplomatic aspect to everything beyond defeating someone militarily. Any strategy was highly subject to change depending on what the Allies of both cities did.

One could argue that Athens should not have turned its attention towards Sparta and her allies, but rather avoid an open war with them and turn her eyes eastwards. Achaemenid Persia was about to enter a rather brittle period with civil wars and revolt (Egypt comes to mind, I recall an Athenian expedition supporting one at some point but the date evades me at the moment).

Athens did that. Concerning this war they had little choice because their growth threatened other Greek cities who then sided with Sparta which was the "established power" thus also threatened by Athenians ascension. This is not a TW game where you can randomly choose whom and why you fight.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Athens did that. Concerning this war they had little choice because their growth threatened other Greek cities who then sided with Sparta which was the "established power" thus also threatened by Athenians ascension. This is not a TW game where you can randomly choose whom and why you fight.

Not very familiar with TW games and their infamous AI or diplomacy I see.

Really if Athens really did not a war to errupt they did everything they could to piss out Sparta and its allies (mostly its allies) after Kimon was ostracised and the democratic party came to be the top dog.

Now I really am not sure the war could be avoided at some point but I can't really say it was attempted not to happen at all.

Also the treat of Nicias was nothing more than winning a round in a boxing match that your opponents is still well and kicking despite the few hits you scored on him. And correct me if I am wrong, for my memory regarding this fails me at the moment, Sparta had quite the trouble to convince her Theban and Corinthian allies to honor that treaty no?

[Mangalore]

Not very familiar with TW games and their infamous AI or diplomacy I see.

Really if Athens really did not a war to errupt they did everything they could to piss out Sparta and its allies (mostly its allies) after Kimon was ostracised and the democratic party came to be the top dog.

Now I really am not sure the war could be avoided at some point but I can't really say it was attempted not to happen at all.

I'm precisely meaning that the underlying power dynamic meant that Sparta was being challenged and conflict was the certain result without either side bowing down to the other

Also the treat of Nicias was nothing more than winning a round in a boxing match that your opponents is still well and kicking despite the few hits you scored on him. And correct me if I am wrong, for my memory regarding this fails me at the moment, Sparta had quite the trouble to convince her Theban and Corinthian allies to honor that treaty no?

In hindsight it was a round in a boxing match but by the outcome of this first round Athens won and had brought Sparta into alot of trouble, non the least being hard pressed in keeping in dominion of her allies plus her leadership being openly questioned by other Peleponnese cities.. from there it could have gone any way.

@grouchy13: I was agreeing with you seeing little semblance of Periclan strategy particularly after the peace of Nicias. I just see the troubles Sparta had and the humilation it was willing to accept (which brought her trouble with her allies) as an indication that in the beginning Athens was actually pretty successful/fortunate with their strategy.

[conon394]

Athens did that. Concerning this war they had little choice because their growth threatened other Greek cities who then sided with Sparta which was the "established power" thus also threatened by Athenians ascension. This is not a TW game where you can randomly choose whom and why you fight.

Of course this requires accepting the assertions of Thucydides. While I don’t disagree that in the most general sense the development of 2 rival confederacies with mutual suspicions and rivalries did make war always a possibility, but in this case Pericles provoked a war that need not have started and Athens would have been best served in avoiding.

Really if Athens really did not a war to errupt they did everything they could to piss out Sparta and its allies (mostly its allies) after Kimon was ostracised and the democratic party came to be the top dog.

In reality Athens did virtually nothing to provoke Sparta over the period when the 30 years peace was signed – if anything its Sparta that acted more provocatively by proposing aid to Samos when it revolted.

I'm precisely meaning that the underlying power dynamic meant that Sparta was being challenged and conflict was the certain result without either side bowing down to the other

Again some conflict might well be inevitable – but the particular one in question is very much the work of Pericles. Also as general understood the Pericles policy would seem to envision no bowing down but rather simply having Sparta generally accept the pre-existing status quo.

[grouchy13]

Athens forced Sparta to sue for peace the first time around with precisely that strategy which also involved constant raids, support of anti Spartan groups inciting a breakup of the Spartan support and inflicting similar economic losses on Spartan allies as Sparta did by ravaging Attica.

Without the Battle of Matinea Sparta would have seen its League crumble as Argos - with subtle support by Athens - tried to reestablish herself as contender to Peleponnesian leadership. With the truce and the peace of Nikias Athens was the clear winner of that round while Sparta was in big trouble.

Things started to go downhill when the Athenians started to get cocky and attack Sicily pissing off the one Greek city capable to compete with Athens in wealth and thus naval capacity. Only with the resurgence of the war post Nicias things went dire. Sparta reevaluated her strategy and cut off Attica completely by investing a fortified position there (before that the raids were only temporary), making Athens completely dependant on tributes which in turn allowed Sparta to incite unrest among her Allies.
Corinth and Sicily leveled the playing field in the naval area of the war and once the Persians stepped in to give tons of money so building fleets wasn't a problem anymore. perciles had precious little to do with any of that.

Overall one cannot really speak of a Periclan strategy beyond the first phase of the war which actually was favourable for the Athenians and while we see it as a struggle between Athens and Sparta the fact is that it was a micro world war involving dozens of quasi countries who were out for their own gains so there was a huge diplomatic aspect to everything beyond defeating someone militarily. Any strategy was highly subject to change depending on what the Allies of both cities did.

The battle of Mantinea, The Sicilian Expedition were both events that occured after Pericles own death and a long time after Pericles original Stratagem haid been all but abandoned by the Athenians,
The fact that Both of these events occured over a decade after Pericles death only highlights that they have nothing to do with his Stratagey, both are examples of what Pericles exhorted the Athenians not to do, that of commiting a large portion of their Hoplite class Citizens in a pitched battle with the Spartans and in the case of the Sicilian Expedition to campaign out of their sphere of Influence in an attempt to increase the size of the Empire,
To highlight these events in any context to Pericles Stratagy is wrong as the tumultuos events following the Plague and the rise of the Demagouges, the War Hawk Cleon and the rise of the highly ambitious Alcibiades meant that rigid stratagy of Pericles was all but abandoned.
I believe if Pericles has lived for another 5-10 years we would have seen him expoiting the Supremacy of Athenian Naval Power and bringing Spartan Power to it's knee's through the fostering of Helot Insurrection.
In the end we are only left with Conjecture as to how succesful his Policies were I have to agree with MathiasOfAthens that the time frame is too small between the commencing of hostilities and the outbreak of the Plague to draw any real conclusion.
However when you look at the Spartan Stratagy put forward by the Spartan Ephors and their Peloponnesian Allies that they would only have to assemble a large host and march into Attica to force the Athenians to make terms were misguided and Ill advised, when bearing in mind that the Spartans stuck to this Stratagy up to the battle at Pylos at least indicates that the Spartans had no better initial stratagy to oppose Pericles own stratagem.

[conon394]

Avoid battle with the Lacedaemonians at all costs, maintain the tribute-empire with their superiority at the seas, without seeking to further it. His military strategy was often criticized as being too defensive and not sustainable in a long war, and even historians are deeply divided over it, just as his strategy was also contested in his days. Was his strategy the sound way to go about, or did it fail to take into account the unpredictable aspects of war? (e.g. the plague)

Epic Fail - is not that it failed to account for the 'unpredictable aspects of war?' but that if failed to account for the all too predictable ones and scarified for no gain a whole list of Athenian potential assets at the war's start.

In the most general way I think Faramir D’Andunie is correct but I will also add my own details and arguments later.
-------------------

Mathias – a few quick thoughts

just look at what happen when he died and his successor took over and completely change the strategy... Athens began to seriously lose.

They were seriously loosing from day one of Pericles strategy I don’t see how his successors changed that. Rather they took the necessarily risk to try and win while digging themselves out of the hole Pericles lead them into.

Whether or not he was aware of the risk of a plague is unknown but in this respect it was his downfall. His naval strategies were, imo, brilliant. Sparta was hurt during his rule.

The ‘Plague’ is just bad luck admittedly. However what is not is that the strategy Pedicles outlined required a mass influx of people into the City and he seems to have had no plan for dispersing them, housing them or ameliorating their loss of income. I don’t see how Sparta was being hurt at all under his plan and

But does anyone else find it interesting that Athens and Sparta can fight such a long and devastating war but Macedonia is able to come in and wipe everyone out in one battle.

Not really apples to apples… Athens in particular (and Sparta and Thebes) were all much weaker after almost 100 years of warfare. If you think about in fact Athens had been skirmishing with Philip for almost his whole period rule so events of 338 were rather the final battle of a long fight. It’s also important to recognize just how adroit Philip’s diplomacy was after the battle. Had Philip attempted a hard line across the board – not just to Thebes, well than there is every reason to think Athens with her fleet intact could have turned to the Hyperides option (mass enfranchisement of slaves and metics) and along with the other allies aside from maybe Thebes turned to Persia for more money. Even taking Thebes would be a quandary for Philip – he need a large force to siege the city and what he had left would not likely be enough to force his way past Corinth or Megara or threaten Athens with more than raids. Conversely Athens would have to potential to threaten Macedonia why Philip was tied down round Thebes. Philip however recognized his biggest asset was the fact he faced a coalition, a recent one at that with a lot bad blood on all sides, one that Demosthenes just barely managed to pull out of his as-…. In the Peloponnesian war Sparta and Athens for all the potential issues with their respective leagues were in charge and had a large measure of corrosive power over any potential naysayers.

[conon394]

No, Athens' problem after Pericles was mob democracy, and in military, when mobs did not get involve, Athens did perform brilliantly against Sparta using mobile units and amphibious strategy, such as Battle of Sphacteria.

Mob democracy - please not that silly criticism again. Considering the Battle of Spharceria was dependent on the 'arch demagogue' Cleon I fail to see how mob democracy hurt Athens. So please do tell how mob democracy caused any issues.

[MathiasOfAthens]

On second thought, pericles only had a year to implement his strategy and Im not so sure that was enough time for any of us to truly judge as successful or a failure.

[conon394]

On second thought, pericles only had a year to implement his strategy and Im not so sure that was enough time for any of us to truly judge as successful or a failure.

But it was a pivotal year and all that preceded, the war itself and all Athens opening moves followed from his ideals - I think there is room to judge him harshly indeed.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

One could argue that Athens should not have turned its attention towards Sparta and her allies, but rather avoid an open war with them and turn her eyes eastwards. Achaemenid Persia was about to enter a rather brittle period with civil wars and revolt (Egypt comes to mind, I recall an Athenian expedition supporting one at some point but the date evades me at the moment).

[Hanny]

http://www.yeckart.com/writings/030902.html
"Peloponnesian War Strategies"

Naval War College
JPME Assignment
Strategy & Policy, Module 4
September 2, 2003

[conon394]

Except continuing its dominance over the Delian League of course.

And that was a provocation in the context of the 30 years peace how Sig?

[SigniferOne]

And that was a provocation in the context of the 30 years peace how Sig?

It was probably a provocation in the geopolitical sense. From Thucydides we see how cruelly and mercilessly the heretofore decent Athenians imposed their imperial rule on all subject Greek city-states. It is shocking and a bit disappointing to see the people of the Persian Wars stooping so low. After the 1st half of the Peloponnesian War they did not abate in all of their bad new inclinations and practices. Spartans, at that time the repository of anger from the whole Greek oeconoumene regarding Athenian actions, were pestered all day long from ambassadors from Greek cities blaming Athens and demanding some sort of action to end this rapacity, and the absolute Athenian indifference to the larger Greek community.

[conon394]

t was probably a provocation in the geopolitical sense. From Thucydides we see how cruelly and mercilessly the heretofore decent Athenians imposed their imperial rule on all subject Greek city-states. It is shocking and a bit disappointing to see the people of the Persian Wars stooping so low. After the 1st half of the Peloponnesian War they did not abate in all of their bad new inclinations and practices. Spartans, at that time the repository of anger from the whole Greek oeconoumene regarding Athenian actions, were pestered all day long from ambassadors from Greek cities blaming Athens and demanding some sort of action to end this rapacity, and the absolute Athenian indifference to the larger Greek community.

Huh Sig you really are just tweaking me right you cannot believe that.

Sparta cared not at all to aid the Ionian rebellion, it cared not at all to see Greeks ruled by Persia or Lydia (in the islands or in Asia Minor or such) why should it care if Athens ruled the same cites (and if you believe Gelon it cared not a wit about the fate of Greek cites in the west either)?

If nothing else the line Corinthian Ambassadors take before Pericles, and Pericles alone took Athens into war, it proof enough that your are off track. Corinth opposed intervention proposed by Sparta during the revolt of Samos, and I might add Mytilene voted to support Athens in that case as well hardly Greece groaning at the oppression of Athens. Need one say anything more than the ridiculous propaganda of Sparta - freedom for the Greeks (except for the Helots)... Sparta agreed to the 30 years peace and Athens took no particular action except for the Megarian decree which can clearly be seen as a violation of it terms. Sparta with its consideration of action to aid Samos has no clean hands either, and you know I think Pericles is teflon here he was utterly reckless in provoking the war and the Megarian decree is firmly linked to him.

Or need I add that 'Greek oeconoumene' was hardly rewarded with Spartan victory - let see what was that to the Greeks of Asia 'be slaves to the king'... we need his coin. Or how about Sparta's so famous anti-Tyrant policy when it came to the issue of their big buddy in Syracuse - Dionysius.

I sorry Sig you have to better than that except for the reckless policies of Pericles (out of character I might add I think the old boy was slipping) which I think you can show were closely opposed on both the right and left circa 431 I don't really see much provoking out of Athens after the 30 years peace was agreed.