Thucydides

I really liked Thucydides as a historian. He seems to make a good effort to be accurate and he's open about where he takes artistic liberty ("reconstructing" the speeches of various leaders). It seems like quite a sophisticated approach for someone writing 2000+ years ago. "Sophisticated" seems to be a word I keep using when it comes to ancient Greek writings, so maybe that says more about my preconceptions than it does about the works themselves.

The most difficult aspect of this book is the show more sheer complexity of the war. It's not just a simple matter of Athens vs Sparta, it's Athens vs Sparta vs Corinth vs Macedonia vs Persia vs Siracuse vs Lesbos etc etc etc. It's tough to keep everything straight, and it reminds me of an article I saw on the Syrian war once, stating that there were at least 300 factions. It really exemplifies how much chaos war can bring.

One thing I can appreciate, whether it's a cultural difference or a device of Thucydides, is the "honesty" of the conquering factions. It's refreshing to hear "hey, we're hear to conquer you because we have more ships than you, and it's natural for the powerful to subjugate the weak. You'd do the same in our shoes", instead of our modern conceit of framing aggression as a service to some greater ideal.

In fact, one of the larger themes of the work seems to be the conflict between righteousness and practicality. Is it better to fight nobly and lose, or act with discretion and perhaps survive? I was really invested in the fate of the Plataeans, who defended their city in so many brave and ingenious ways, and the injustice of their eventual fate was heartbreaking.

Another great theme is the capriciousness of fortune, and the danger of mistaking good fortune for superiority. Many times the narrative emphasizes that victory should never be taken for granted, and sudden reversals can occur at any time.

Thucydides also has an art for human feeling. In his description of the retreat of the defeated Athenians from Syracuse, he paints a poignant picture of misery - of those who have to leave their wounded companions behind, of the suffering of the fleeing soldiers.

Sadly, the book ends abruptly. Mid-sentence even. How I wish the rest had been preserved! show less

Two political-economic systems compete for influence and dominance after the greatest war that has ever happened, but peace could not last. The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides covers the first twenty years of the war between Athens and Sparta before it’s abrupt ending, but throughout his text the motives of the participants and the analysis of unintended consequences shows give the war it’s full context.

The first book—created by later editors not Thucydides—of the work show more focuses on early Greek history, political commentary, and seeks to explain how the war was caused and why it happened when it did. Over the course of Books 2 through 8, Thucydides covered not only the military action of the war but also the numerous political machinations that both sides encouraged in each other’s allied cities or in neutrals to bring them to their side. The war is presented in a chronological manner for nearly the entire work with only two or three diversions in either historical context or to record what happened elsewhere during the Sicilian Expedition that took up Books 6 & 7. The sudden ending of the text reveals that Thucydides was working hard on the work right up until he died, years after the conflict had ended.

The military narrative is top notch throughout the book which is not a surprise given Thucydides’ time as an Athenian general before his exile. Even though he was an Athenian, Thucydides was positively and negatively critical of both Athens and Sparta especially when it came to demagogues in Athenian democracy and severe conservatism that permeated Spartan society in all its facets. Though Thucydides’ created the prebattle and political speeches he relates, is straightforwardness about why he did it does not take away from the work. If there is one negative for the work is that Thucydides is somewhat dry which can make you not feel the urge to pick up the book if you’ve been forced to set it down even though you’ve been enjoying the flow of history it describes.

The History of the Peloponnesian War though unfinished due to Thucydides death was both a continuation of the historic genre that Herodotus began but also a pioneering work as it recorded history as it happened while also using sources that Thucydides was able to interview. If you enjoy reading history and haven’t read this classic in military history, then you need to. show less

Cobbled together from musty scraps of parchment, scribbled marginalia and fragments of wax tablets, Thucydides’ account of a war among ancient Greek city-states is historical fiction of profound political insight and psychological acumen. In order to tell his story, he invents characters and scenes for which we have no corroborating sources, and fabricates dialogue and ceremonial oration that encapsulate his own biased perceptions. He provides no bibliography or notes to support his show more “history,” but Thucydides gets credit for formulating a conceptual scheme that has been deployed by the chroniclers of war ever since. show less

Reread the complete version of this for the first time since reading the excerpted "On Justice, Power, and Human Nature" as an undergrad. Really shines in the imagined monologues negotiating terms, truces, and pleas. The military logistics fade in interest because this unwinnable war amounted to the Athenian Vietnam.