The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan

The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan is a comprehensive political, social, economic, and military account of the great war between Sparta and Athens. For those interested in these types of histories, as well as the history and culture of ancient Greece, this book will be an engrossing experience. Kagan a Sterling Professor of Classics and History at Yale University has also published a massive four - volume history of the conflict aimed at serious scholars. This is his one volume “condensed” version that is in itself extremely detailed.

The Peloponnesian War was actually a series of conflicts. Athens was a direct democracy; that is, all free males who were citizens voted on almost every public decision. Athens was the center of a powerful, wealthy, but often oppressive maritime empire.

While Sparta is often described as a military dictatorship, Kagan points out it was really a mixed system that was part monarchy, part aristocracy, and part democracy. Sparta was famous for its highly militaristic system that imposed harsh martial training on all male citizens.

For nearly thirty years the two states waged an on again and off again war upon each other and as well as on allied states. The struggle encompassed an area that stretched from the coast of modern day Turkey and the Black Sea in the east, to Sicily in the west. The wars involved dozens of city-states as well as the Persian Empire. It was characterized by both land and sea battles. The conflicts finally ended with the surrender of Athens in 404 BC.

The ancient Greeks played an integral part in the shaping of the modern world. This conflict played an immensely important part in shaping the world of Ancient Greece. I think that Kalgan gets it about right when he compares the impact of this clash on Ancient Greece to the impact that the First World War had upon twentieth century Western Civilization. Therefore, the Peloponnesian War is well worth studying for those who wish to obtain a clearer understanding of the world.

There is so much one can talk about here. I want to focus on only one of a multitude of facets to this conflict, what is known as the “Sicilian Expedition”. This campaign and its consequences can teach us some important lessons relevant to our modern world. In 422 BC Athens and Sparta had actually been at peace, but in a state of “cold war” for about seven years. In that year the Athenians decided to launch a major invasion of the island of Sicily. The expedition involved an enormous number of ships and soldiers and was exceedingly expensive. Athens expected an easy victory. After two years of fighting against various Sicilian city-states led by Syracuse, as well as a Spartan expeditionary force, the Athenian army was surrounded and annihilated. Her enormous fleet was bottled up in a harbor and sunk. Most of the Athenian military leadership was killed in the campaign and the democracy was nearly bankrupted.

The Sicilian calamity was the beginning of the end for Athens. Much of its empire subsequently rebelled, Sparta attacked on land and sea, and civil strife gripped the city resulting in the temporarily overthrow of the democracy. While the war continued for another ten years, Kalgan convincingly argues that had these losses in Sicily not occurred, the total defeat of Athens would likely never have happened. It seems to me that the war between the Sparta and Athens may never even have reignited, and if it had, it is likely that Athens would have defeated Sparta.

Why did Athens launch such as ill-conceived mission? First, the conquest of Sicily would have provided the Athenians with a strategic advantage over Sparta, cutting off much of the Sparta’s foreign trade. Second, the addition of Sicily to the Athenian empire would have bestowed increased power and wealth upon Athens. Finally, Kagan’s description of the Athenians’ deliberations leading up to the expedition indicates a certain level of arrogance and overconfidence as to the prospects for success. At the time Athens was brimming with wealth derived from its empire. The city-state was mistress of the seas, and in possession of an enormous navy that had previously won battle after battle against its enemies. To many Athenians, the easy conquest of Sicily was a given.

Before we draw parallels with other historical events it is important to point out that while comparative history can be useful and enlightening such judgments have their limits. Kagan compares the Athenian calamity in Sicily to the Franco – British Gallipoli Campaign as well as to America’s involvement in Vietnam. While I believe there are parallels with those actions, in terms of the scope of military defeat and the ensuing destruction of empire, the Sicilian Campaign was closer to Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union. Again, the similarities only go so far, as those cases did not involve democracies launching invasions over the maritime distances.

Most recently, America’s invasion of Iraq comes to mind. That poorly conceived venture was also planned with both strategic and economic advantage as goals. As an American I can personally attest to the overconfident and arrogant attitudes, as well as the uncritical beliefs in America’s power, expressed by many of my fellow citizens leading up to the war. Of course, like the Athenian experience in Sicily, the military campaign did not go nearly as successfully as planned, and ultimately weakened the United States both strategically and economically.

All foreign military involvements cannot be considered as mistakes however. For instance, America’s intervention in World War II can be characterized as a foreign intervention (America had a foot as well as leg in the game well before Pearl Harbor). Yet, that historical intervention can be seen as moral, necessary and successful.

Nevertheless, modern states would do well to consider both the morality and unforeseen outcomes that result from these ventures. History abounds with other examples of democracies intervening militarily, over vast oceans, which were both justified and beneficial. The trick is to figure out which ones are worth the risk and the cost as well as meeting a moral litmus test. If careful and thoughtful deliberations with less arrogance had occurred prior to some of the events outlined above, many terrible and unfortunate events likely would not have occurred.

On a side note, I cannot neglect to mention that strangely enough, Kagan was one of the leaders Project for the New American Century. Project for the New American Century was the conservative think tank that provided the intellectual force and the theories behind the America’s invasion of Iraq and the Bush administrations aggressive military policies. Thus, I suspect that Kagan would cringe at parts of my commentary. His politics not withstanding, the author has written a fine work of history in The Peloponnesian War.

The Frogs - Aristophanes

Aristophanes’s Frogs is one of the earliest examples of comedy known to Western Civilization. First presented in 405 BC, this ancient Athenian play lampoons many people and concepts.  Among Aristophanes’s targets was literature in the form of the Ancient Greek Theatre, along with the concept of literary criticism itself. The play is both hilarious and thought provoking.

Aristophanes presents the story of the God Dionysus’s, and his slave Xanthus’s, trip to Hades in order to bring back a great tragic playwright. This quest is motivated by the opinion that the quality of serious drama has declined in Athens. Arriving in Hades, a contest between the prodigious, now deceased dramatists Aeschylus and Euripides is exacerbated as the two great authors vie to be Dionysus’s choice to return to the land of the living. In the process, each proceeds to make a mockery and ridicule one another’s work. In the end Dionysus chooses Aeschylus to return with him.

I first read Frogs about ten years ago. Having been much less intellectually prepared at the time, I would estimate that I comprehended about fifty percent of the references made concerning subjects such as Greek theatre, mythology, politics, contemporary events, Athenian government, etc. The fact that I am more knowledgeable about these topics now, allowed me to grasp a great deal more during this go around. However, I found that using an online set of notes, plus a very accessible translation by Ian Johnston, really opened up the play for me.

Frogs, with its myriad and ancient allusions can be tough to appreciate. Before tackling this work I recommend first reading both Aeschylus and Euripides. In addition, a basic knowledge of ancient Geek mythology is indispensible. An understanding of the outlines of Ancient Greek history, with emphasis on Athenian Democracy as well as the Peloponnesian War, during which time Frogs was written, would be very helpful. Finally, for all but those who are experts in the subject matter, a set of notes on the work is extremely advantageous.

Frogs both illustrates as well as sets the standard for how great comedy fits into our world. The plays of Aristophanes are some of, and perhaps the, oldest known examples of the form. Thus, in a way, Aristophanes has been the teacher of comedy for all who have delved into the medium since.

In Frogs Aristophanes satirizes not just the God Dionysus and various Athenian politicians, generals, etc., but he mercilessly ridicules both Aeschylus and Euripides themselves. I emphasize the mockery of these two figures because these playwrights were not only revered in Aristophanes’s time, but today, over twenty five hundred years later, they are still looked upon as some of the greatest artists who ever lived. Their subjects and themes encompass many of the most important and serious issues that we humans face. Their presentations and styles are considered to be some of the finest manifestations of high art created in all of human history.

Yet, a short time after the death of these literary titans, Aristophanes creates fictional and clownish representations of the pair, who proceed to engage in a zany, petty, vicious, and hilarious debate. Each tragedian spends line after line mercilessly skewing their counterparts’ poetic style, use of language, plots, themes, etc. They even resort to parodying each other’s work. As if this is not enough, the literary antagonists take opportunities to take gibes at one another’s personal lives and hurl cheap insults. Imagine if a modern day comedy were to portray recently deceased celebrities in the afterlife acting this. The public outcry and indignation would be intense and swift!

To me, this is the point of sophisticated and thoughtful comedy and farce. Great humor exists to show, through hyperbole, exaggeration, and at times a little meanness, the short - comings and foibles in both ourselves, as well as the world at large. One gets the sense that Aristophanes had immense respect and admiration for these men and the gravitas underlying their works.  Yet despite, and perhaps because something is immensely serious, sometimes it pays to step back and see that there is a little bit of silliness in it. In the attempt to draw attention to this affectation, Aristophanes created fictional and ridiculous representations of these men.

It seems very unlikely that in reality Aeschylus and Euripides were in any way like the immature buffoons portrayed here. Aristophanes was likely counting on the fact that his audience knew that these were not really accurate representations. Instead, these caricatures allowed the great comic playwright to look at and to analyze their works from a wholly unique and different point of view. Having read both Aeschylus and Euripides, and standing with the consensus that both were masterful geniuses, I also recognize that the parody here strips their admittedly magnificent plays of some of their pretentions. This sounds contradictory, but it is just another way of seeing the world from various points of view. At least for a short time, divesting some of the seriousness from these great tragedies is stimulating and enlightening. This is what real comedy should be about.

One final thought,

Brekekekex koax koax

Brekekekex koax koax !   

Plato's Symposium

Since I reread this recently, and Valentine’s Day is approaching, I thought that this would be the perfect subject for this week. Plato’s Symposium is the great philosopher’s exploration of romantic and erotic love.

The setting is a drinking party attended by many of the prominent men of Athens, including Socrates. At the gathering, each man makes a speech in honor of the God of Love. The individual discourses seem to present different, and sometimes varied views on the subject.

Each speech can be analyzed as its own mini dissertation on the nature of these varieties of love. Perhaps all of the addresses combined can be viewed as kind of grand unified theory on the issue. Though some of the presentations seem to be in parts contradictory, I get some sense that Plato is implying that these incongruities might be illusionary, as they are just different ways at looking at the same problem.

I will focus on Socrates’s declamation here. Curiously, Socrates does not elucidate his own original opinions. Instead he uses his opportunity to expound on the teachings of a wise-women that he knew called Diotima. Diotima’s philosophy on Eros expands on what I would call the “Socratic World View” developed in many of Plato’s works. This is the belief system that most abstract concepts are actually things called “Forms”. Forms exist on some higher plane of reality. Every object that exists in the everyday world that exhibits some aspect of a Form, is somehow tied into the perfect Form, that once again, exists in a different continuum.

For instance, “Good” is a Form. If a person can be said to be a “good” human being, then it stands to reason that the person has some “good” in them. That person is only manifesting, or channeling, a piece of an image of the perfect Form of “Good” that exists on the higher plain of existence. Of course I am over-simplifying, one needs to study many of the dialogs to obtain a true understanding.

Beauty is also a Form. Diotima views the manifestation of love in its initial stages as a person striving for perpetual beauty. The only way that the beauty found in life can be sustained forever is through the act of reproduction. Thus is the sexual act and ensuing pregnancy borne out of erotic love. Love is just an attempt at capturing the Form of beauty for all of time, through a lover’s children and subsequent decedents.

Diotima further contends that romantic love between a man and a woman is not the ideal way to achieve this perpetual beauty. Instead, the better path starts with attempting to obtain a clear view of Beauty in its pure and perfect Form. Once someone does this, the person can achieve a kind of elevated existence and achieve greatness through noble and beneficial acts. These acts and great achievements will live on in the memories of future generations and be the ultimate route to the immortality of beauty, and hence the ultimate achievement of love. Again, I over-simplify.

It is interesting that Plato ascribes this theory to Diotima. A cursory Google search indicates that there is uncertainty and disagreement in regards to the question of weather she was a real person or just a fiction created by Plato. Over the years I have read just about all the important works by Plato, and I believe that Diotima is the only instance where a women was portrayed as an credible and intelligent person, much less a sagacious philosopher.

In regards to women in general, Plato exhibits seems to exhibit major inconsistencies. In many of the Dialogs, he describes females in a very misogynistic fashion. He often portrays women as inferior, and at times he even criticizes men for having what he perceives to be feminine traits.

In the Republic and a few other works however, Plato does an about face, and proposes what for the time was a revolutionary philosophy. Here, he admits that in most important abilities, the sexes are equal. He goes on to advocate that women be given the same opportunities as their male counterparts. It seems likely to me that Plato’s opinion changed over time (it seems as if that these opinions swayed back and forth, as some of the derogatory writings were preceded by the Republic) Perhaps part of these changes in opinion can be ascribed his association with the real Diotima or with similar women who helped inspire her character.

Not only does Plato portray Diotima as an intelligent, accomplished and wise philosopher, but he also uses her opinions to add a significant extension to his ubiquitous theory of Forms. Diotima’s beliefs also represent a key component in Plato’s philosophic thinking on the subject of love. This thinking has been enormously influential to Western Culture and has resounded down the centuries. Thus, on the subject of love and its metaphysical implications, the character of Diotima, whether a fiction or based on real women, has contributed to Western thinking in an essential way.