Loosely put, Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War describes the war between Athens and Sparta which took place over 431-404 B.C. That may sound incredibly dry, and I suppose you have to have a strong interest in history to enjoy this type of book, but I found it very interesting and readable.

Perhaps a civil war was inevitable in the decades that followed the defense of Greece against the Persians, first led by Darius and then by his son Xerxes, events which were recounted by Herodotus. Athens was at the center of a largely maritime alliance known as the Delian League, while Sparta was allied with the mainland city-states known as the Peloponnesian League, and the two represented a classic pair of cultures which were diametrically opposed.

Athens seems more aligned with what we see as ‘good’, with its democracy, love of knowledge, artistic expression, and with enlightened statesmen such as Pericles. Sparta, by contrast, is austere in the extreme, a place where boys were taken at age 7 from their mothers to be raised by soldiers, men under 30 not allowed to live with their wives on a regular basis, and no written documents or lasting art survives because it was eschewed and never generated in the first place.

However, it’s wealthy, imperialistic Athens that is actually the oppressor here, exacting taxes from other city-states, and forcing them to submit to alliances or be destroyed. The people of the little island of Melos stand up for themselves, which is beautifully captured in dialogue in Book 5 by Thucydides, and are utterly destroyed. The stakes for war couldn’t have been higher in these days; a typical outcome for the defeated was the killing of all the men, and the selling women and children into slavery; Melos was no exception to this. The Spartans react out of fear of this imperialism and might, and are actually the liberators of Greece when they ultimately defeat the Athenians (sorry, spoiler alert, lol). It is sad, however, that as an outcome, Athens was completed devastated, and never recovered.

There is room for reflection in America’s position in the present-day state of the world here, and in addition on man’s nature, for Thucydides coolly describes the brutality of human nature when placed under the stress of war, with all its attendant cruelty, political maneuvering, greed, and lawlessness.

Much has been made of “Thucydides vs. Herodotus”, since their approaches were so different, and in fact I found myself recently lightly debating someone who took the position that Thucydides was superior. He certainly makes an effort to be more factual, and describes events chronologically, without diversions. The largest allowance one must make for him relative to stretching the truth is his inclusion of speeches from leaders, such as Pericles’ Funeral Oration, which could not possibly have captured verbatim. He is dispassionate and largely unbiased, despite having been one of the Athenian generals in the war. Herodotus, by contrast, writes a richer and more entertaining history, even if he does include back-stories, invoke the role of the Gods, embellish facts, and draw moral conclusions. They’re both well worth reading however.

Norton Critical Editions are always great for the additional material they provide, and for this one it’s particularly true, since Thucydides’ narrative leaves off at 411 B.C. Included is Xenophon’s Hellenica, which completes the events through the end of the war, as well as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and other commentators that one can pick and choose from. I loved finding this from Machiavelli:
“He who considers present affairs and ancients ones readily understands that all cities and all peoples have the same desires and the same traits and that they always have had them. He who diligently examined past events easily foresees futures ones in every country…”

A few other quotes:
On Capital Punishment, wow, could have been written today…
“Everyone, individually or collectively, is naturally inclined to go wrong, and there is no law that can prevent them from doing so. Indeed, people have exhausted every punishment, constantly adding one to another, in the hope of reducing the harm done by criminals. It’s likely in the distant past, punishments for even graver crimes were weaker than they are now, and that most of them evolved into the death penalty as people just kept on breaking the law. And capital crimes, too, will keep on being committed. So a more terrifying terror than death has to be found, for this penalty won’t prevent anything either. Poverty, with its want, will give people the audacity; and plenty, with is arrogance and presumption, will give them the greed.”

On Democracy:
“…The rich are the best at administering the treasury; the intelligentsia are the best at framing issues; but the people are best at hearing arguments and making decisions. In a democracy, none of these functions outweighs the other.”

On Man’s nature:
“People did just what they would do when they had been governed more by caprice than by prudence and when, offered a chance for revenge, they could finally get even. Some who coveted their neighbors’ property sought freedom from their lifelong poverty by going outside the law – especially when it was poverty coupled with oppression. Others, not actuated by greed but carried away by ignorant rage, attacked their equals with an implacable savagery. As people’s lives kept pace with the tumultuous changes in the city, human nature came to predominate over the laws; human nature, which habitually breaks laws anyway, showed itself in its purest form as eager to be above the law, as the enemy of all authority.”

On turning the other cheek:
“I don’t blame those who want to rule over others. I blame those who are more than ready to submit, because although it is human nature everywhere to dominate those who give way, it is also in our human nature to defend ourselves against attack.” ( )