This statement is of course a bold one that thankfully has some logic to support it. But first, I think it would be critical to setup the base of the conflict as it relates to this thesis and a brief outline of the principle players.

The Peloponnesian War lasted roughly 27 years and was broken into several parts. No one really knows what really started the conflict and we can only guess that the conflict began from a culmination of fear, mistrust and political agenda. Ultimately, you could apply the logic that it took its genesis from the natural tension two masses sharing a small space create ultimately causing a great collision where only one can dominate.

Some theories surface that the conflict stemmed from the Athenian battle at Marathon in 490 B.C. Marathon was a pivotal battle in the Greco-Persian conflict of the late 400’s and set the stage for an ongoing power struggle between the three most powerful entities in the Aegean.

In about 490 B.C. the armies of the Persian King Darius and the Athenians aided by the Plataeans were locked in a standoff. Athens sent a messenger to Sparta for aid since the Spartan army was recognized as the dominant land force in Ancient Greece. Unfortunately the messenger arrived in Sparta during the religious ceremony known as the Carneia. During the Carneia, no military operations could take place and the Athenian army must wait till the festivities ended (ten days time) for Spartan reinforcements.

During this period of time, Sparta not only considered itself the dominate land force but its self centered view of the world also lent to an abrasive “when we get there” mentality which the Athenians could not afford. Of course the Persians nor time itself cared that the Carneia was taking place and the battle was to commence. The Athenians knew that battle was imminent and the likelihood of holding the Persians at bay was low. They understood they would need to fight without the Spartan army leveraging only the support of the Plataens.

 

A bloody battle ensured and after days of fighting the Athenian army won the field. After the battle had ended, the Spartan army arrived on the scene and assessed the carnage. They admitted a “great victory had been won” and showed a great deal of respect towards the Athenians for winning the day against such a formidable enemy.

Unfortunately, the Athenians were not in the mood for compliments. They sent the Spartans from the field and back to Sparta. This infuriated the Spartans and more importantly acted as a big punch on the Spartan army nose. It also acted as a turning point for Athenian perception in the Greek world. For the first time in history, Athens surpassed the Spartan army in valor against the biggest threat to the Greeks.

I bring up Marathon for one reason and one reason alone, wars can be started out of something as simple as the human emotion of embarrassment. The Spartan society carried the memory of the disgrace of Marathon for some time and I believe that psychologically once you are the biggest bully on the block, you always have something to prove. I believe this was the seed of conflict and the eventual ignition source to a much greater conflict.

Marathon was not the only element that built up to the Peloponnesian war, there were many. But the over arching dynamic that we see is one where two large City States initiate a Cold War not unlike the one we experienced between the United States and Russia during the eighties.

A small difference that I must point out is unlike the U.S. Cold War, the Persian empire was engaged during the build up. The Persians had everything to gain from a civil war between the Athenians and Spartans. Ultimately, they could destroy their enemies without sacrificing any of their own human resources.

Now we know the Persians were instrumental in fanning the fires of conflict during the actual war from Herodotus however, it is a much looser story as to their involvement leading up to the war. However, logic would dictate that any Greek City State that fought benefited the Persians.

So this and other elements lead to the beginning of hostilities between Athens and Sparta. The Peloponnesian War had an interesting dynamic all of its own. Yes it was a Civil War but what was interesting is that it was a war the evolved the way the Greeks fought forever.

Previous to the Peloponnesian war, Greeks would fight almost as “an army of one” or as an army of individual farmers congregating on a field with their own purchased equipment to defend their own crops. Both armies would meet on an open field, rush each other in the movement known as the “Othismos” or push, conduct their business and the victor would burn the crops and leave. This was the tradition. I find it most interesting that this type of conflict was also a chief reason grape vines were grown in Greece since after they were very difficult to burn.

This type of agricultural warfare seemed to be commonplace and one that was accepted. However, with the onset of the war, a new type of engagement emerged one that seemed more about nation building instead of simple territorial destruction. This new type of warfare became very apparent with the initial siege of Athens and the maneuver by Pericles to stay behind the Athenian walls as opposed to meeting the enemy on the field.

This siege warfare is one that was not only foreign to the Greeks but to that ancient world itself. Before, it was just common to meet on a pre-selected battlefield, hammer it out, burn some crops and retire back to home. With this shift, a modern age of warfare was emerging the age of nationalism.

Now, I do not want to paint the picture that nationalism did not exist in the ancient world prior to the Peloponnesian war but I do propose that this war was one of the first, well documented examples where war was fought based upon ideology and not simply barbaric territorialism. Here we have to states that have always recognized each others differences but seemed to show tolerance and even a sort of understanding. It was well documented that some Athenian children were actually sent to Sparta in order to learn discipline and military arts. It is almost as if each nation recognized the strengths of the other and even leveraged those strengths when needed.

The siege of Athens by the Spartans may have also contributed to this sense of unity in a negative way. When one thinks of the siege and how Pericles barricaded the Arcadian population into Athens walls, one of the first things that comes to mind is the plague. Plagues have an interesting impact on a society and have so throughout history. Plagues can be seen as bad omens, signs of the god’s mistrust or potentially worse, cause societal backlash. This was no different for Pericles who at first, was viewed as an innovator and one of the greatest leaders of the Greek world only to have fallen from grace simply by trying to keep his people alive.

 

Pericles actions to barricade may have had an impact on our original thesis. The plague had decimated the moral of the Athenians and had driven them to begin to doubt their leaders and more specifically doubt Pericles. Pericles had steered the Athenian population through turbulent times and created the “Golden Age” which we see today. But how quickly mode changes when family members die a horrible death with little to no understanding as to why.

Although the Athenians may not have known why, it sure was easy to understand that barricading a population within the walls of Athens, then adding several other cities inhabitants into the mix, only accelerated the disease spread. But it is interesting to note, nationalism must have risen from the combined misery of multiple states.

What do I mean by this last statement? I hearken back to days when I was in Basic Training. In Basic Training, the recruits form a sort of “nationalistic unit” through a very well orchestrated process of unification. This unification process or what I like to call “tearing everyone down to a common level”, is a well documented and effective method of creating a shared sense of belonging. Once everyone is brutally knocked down to the bottom rung of the ladder, the Drill Instructor can then slowly build everyone up together equally. During that time, you share grief, pain and hardship but in doing so become a family.

Did the Athenian plague act as a unifier of multiple Attic states? If all shared a common enemy, or in this case multiple common enemies, were they all one state of many smaller states? I think this could have been a seed to a growing desire for true Attic nationalism.

So, we discussed the events leading up to the war and the feeling of nationalistic pride that continued the war, now we must explore the pivotal events that lead to the rise of our current democracy.

I am a firm believer that there were several key micro-events that occurred during the Peloponnesian War that dictated its ending. I would go so far to say there was one critical figure in these events that ultimately decided not only its fate but the fate of the Western world. Alcibiades the son of Clinias.

Alcibiades was a ward of Pericles and one who they say was brilliant and beautiful. Of all the accounts of any Greek figure in the Hellenic world, it is Alcibiades who should have a movie to tell his extraordinary life. After reading the tales of his exploits as documented by Thucydides and Plutarch, it is impossible for anyone who studies politics, diplomacy, warcraft, and statesmanship to not admire the man. Alcibiades was not only a master in all of these crafts, he was a chameleon with the ability to “shape shift” as the climate dictated.

At an early age, you are able to see how growing up in the shadow of Pericles created a man who strived for greatness and desired the ability to surpass Pericles in stature and impact. Alcibiades constantly sought advancement and opportunities to position himself for increased power. His reputation was a confusing one. On one hand, he was a great athlete who took first, second and third places in the Olympic games and showed his valor time and time again on the battlefield once saving the life of Socrates and the other Socrates saving his life but constantly showed himself to the public as eccentric and unbalanced.

These historic micro-events that I speak of revolved completely around Alcibiades and his actions during the conflict. Regardless of what anyone thought of the man, it is very difficult to dispute his influence and impact on the outcome of a war that shaped history.

Although he was engaged in all elements of the war, I will touch only on the pivotal moments that lend credence to my thesis. The first of these the decision to invade Sicily with a massive armada and conquer the Syracusians, a task the Athenians wanted to complete for some time. Although the Athenians have had their sites on Sicily, they were not able to conquer the island as a whole. Repeated failed attempts made the feat appear impossible. Alcibiades loved the impossible and saw it as an opportunity for an historic victory that would propel him into power.

Although attacking Sicily had always been a desire of the Athenians, as mentioned above, many thought it was too large of a task. This lead to a famous debate between Nicias and Alcibiades in front of the assembly. It would seem that Nicias would always get the raw end of Alcibiades cleverness. When reading through the accounts documented by Thucydides, you can capture the exchange as logic vs. political cleverness. Nicias was not a proponent for war and highlighted the reality of the Athenian capacity. Having suffered a great plague, lost many to war, he rightfully held that a massive sea expedition to Sicily was be far beyond the capacity of the Athenian military forces.

Alcibiades countered the argument that by conquering abroad, they would increase their power at home and scare the Peloponnesians. There was also the potential to decrease grain supply to the Peloponnesians if they were successful in Sicily. This is where his cleverness came into full play. Nicias informed the assembly of the current capacity of the Athenian military and warned it would take a significantly larger military force, both navy and hoplites for such an undertaking. This would mean exhausting financial and human resources for a bet with poor odds of winning.

Alcibiades quickly retorted that he agreed with Nicias and the assembly appointed Nicias the charge of mapping out what would be needed to succeed. Nicias we not only now in charge of building a force to fight a battle he did not want to fight, but placed as a general to make sure victory was the result.

On the eve of the day the armada was to set sail, an interesting occurrence shifted the tides of history forever. If one agreed upon my thesis, then they would have to conclude that western democracy owed itself to the god Hermes for it was the destruction of the Hermes busts that changed the tide for Alcibiades. Some said it was the enemies of Alcibiades who broke the masks and testified against him in an effort to destroy him while he was away others pose that potentially it was Alcibiades, whichever was accurate we will never know. What do know is that during the voyage, Alcibiades was put on trial “in abstentia” and convicted of treason and defamation of the gods. This brought with it a sentence of death. Of course Alcibiades seeing certain death if he were to return to Athens, left the armada and fled to Sparta.

Needless to say, the Sicilian expedition was a disaster leaving a majority of the army dead and the rest in prison. Nicias was one of the many who died. This is in large part due to a strategy designed by Alcibiades now loyal to the Spartans.

A question that will never be answered is whether or not the Athenians would be successful under the command of Alcibiades, but we can assume that since initially the Athenians were successful in Sicily it is because of the lack of leadership that they were unable to complete the task.

Now with Alcibiades on the side of the Spartans, the Athenians were in a bind. Not only was he the most accomplished general, but he is one of the chief reasons the Athenians were in this new era of the Peloponnesian War (having foiled the peace accord founded by Nicias). Alcibiades continued to foil the Athenian military strategy while in Sparta and won the trust of the Spartans. One commented, “such a man as Lycurgus trained” referring to how quickly Alcibiades assimilated into Spartan culture.

However, Lycurgus would have never approved of one of the most historic recommendations Alcibiades made to the Spartan assembly, accept money from Persia to defeat Athens. Any studier of Lycurgan rhetras immediately would be taken back by such a bold and potentially blasphemous recommendation. Spartan society for centuries had been built on the need to de-value money and focus more on military discipline. Here an Athenian turned Spartan was recommending a complete shift in Spartan culture and law. But it made sense. Ultimately, the Spartans decided to move forward with building a strong navy with the Persian king Darius as their benefactor. This could potentially be seen as the turning point that ultimately lead to the end of Lycurgan Sparta and Sparta as a dominate power in Greece forever. But that is another thesis.

During the brokering of the relationship between Persia and Sparta, Alcibiades was gaining the trust of a Persian satrap by the name of Tissaphernes. Tissaphernes admired Alcibiades and being of a similar political mind befriended him as a colleague and confidant. This was a good thing since being true to his type, Alcibiades soon wore out his welcome in Sparta having King Agis deeming him a personal enemy to be put to death. This is were history shows no matter how much a man tries to change his appearance, they remain true to their base type. Alcibiades it is reported fell in love with King Agis wife getting her pregnant while he was abroad. So what did Alcibiades do? Left for Persia to join the Persians and his new friend Tissaphernes.

This now gives us two events that have shifted the entire course of two nations; one the failed attack on Sicily, two the Spartans deciding to take money from the Persians. If either of these two elements were to change, we can start to see what the alternative history would be. Had the Athenians won in Sicily, Alcibiades would have continued forth in his power grab and potentially won the Peloponnesian War.

However, we have yet to finish the story. Alcibiades provided guidance to the Persians that continued to help erode both the Spartan and Athenian military position. However, he in several attempts focused more on causing harm on the Spartans even though both states had warrants of death out on him. Alcibiades began to see a potential opening for him to return to Athens having made overtures towards the Athenians and the Athenians beginning to regret outstanding one of their greatest generals.

In a desire to pursue this return to Athens and feeling the hospitality of the Persians growing thin, Alcibiades began to fight on the behalf of the Athenians, winning victories and causing the populace of Athens to demand he return. The Athenians so passionate for his return, over through the “four hundred” who governed and friends of Alcibiades bade him return. Upon returning to Athens, he was anointed commander of all forces with absolute power. Athens, the model of democracy, threw down democracy for a dictator. This is why when someone wishes to compare western democracy that we currently know to the one in Athens, it is critical to ask, “at what time”. It was this dismissal of democracy that would ultimately set the stage for a more lasting, true western democracy that we would see today.

Alcibiades was now de facto dictator of Athens. With absolute power over the conduct of the war and affairs at home, he could have capitalized upon his position and reinforced it however, Alcibiades proved to always be of a singular type. Alcibiades needed glory and recognition as a great man. Instead of conducting the war as a general or politician at home, he insisted on commanding the army in person. This was is downfall. As Plutarch had said of this, “And it would seem that if ever a man was ruined by his own exalted reputation, that man was Alcibiades. His continuous successes gave him such repute for unbounded daring and sagacity, that when he failed in anything, men suspected his inclination; they would not believe in his inability”.

While engaging Lysander’s fleet, Alcibiades was forced to take leave of the Athenian fleet to seek levies to continue the conflict. He left the force to the charge of a less experience commander Antiochus with strict orders not to engage Lysander or leave the place in which they were stationed for any purpose. Unfortunately, Antiochus did not heed these instructions falling into a trap laid by Lysander taunting him to fight. The Athenian ships were destroyed and Athenians at home, especially those who were envious of Alcibiades used this as an opportunity to point out that Alcibiades was incompetent and reckless.

Alcibiades was forced into exile once again, this time never to return. It is said this defeat and exile of Alcibiades was like waking with a hangover. Alcibiades retreated to Thrace only to be seen once more advising the Athenian navy generals at Aegospotami to move there ships to Sestos and to refrain from letting their crews forage for supplies on land less they be caught off guard. The Athenian generals wanted nothing to do with Alcibiades as they feared if given even an inch, the crews would gravitate towards him and he would again win favor with the Athenian population. They insulted him and drove him off the beach with threats of violence.

 

Consequently, the Athenian navy was destroyed in the exact scenario pointed out by Alcibiades. Had they listened, they potentially could have seen victory.

This last defeat sealed the fate of the Athenians and brought the Peloponnesian war to an end. The Athenians were decisively conquered by the Spartan army and the last of the “old” Athenian democracy dismantled. The Spartan culture was never truly expansionist. Sparta had always focused on keeping affairs at home in check and many times cared less about the world around them. This victory placed the Spartans in a new role, that of imperialistic conqueror.

What made this a difficult position for the Spartans was that they had no context on how to actually rule a nation of free men. They had always ruled the helots but as slaves and forced them to conform with their ways of laws. This new role required them to be not unlike the Persians who ruled from a distance giving each nation some autonomy.

The Spartans decided to install a governing body in Athens to run the affairs. This body became to be known as the “Thirty Tyrants”. The Thirty Tyrants ruled as their name sounds, ruthlessly. Athenian citizens were treated like second rate citizens each knowing full well that they could be killed at any time for any reason. The Tyrants used their unlimited power to control the populace and grew to be recognized as corrupt even by the Spartans.

Ultimately, the Spartans lost their taste for such a rule and the Thirty Tyrants were overthrown and Athenians free again.

After suffering years under such a tyrannical rule, the Athenians decided to form a new democracy, one that would be balanced and long lasting. They did not want to fall back into a dictatorship as they had with Alcibiades since a nation built upon one personality was not stable. Nor did they want one body like the Thirty that held absolute power and the ability to abuse that power for personal gains. So the Athenians developed a democracy not unlike that one we today experience. A system with checks and balances taking some lessons from the Spartan model and engaging the citizens in a more structured way to rule.

All of these events can be tied to the reactions of one mans actions, Alcibiades. Had Athens won at Sicily, it is probably that they would have won the war by preventing Alcibiades from leaving to Sparta. Had Alcibiades not have left his post to collect levies, he could have defeated Lysander and won the war. Had the Athenians won the war, they may never had changed their democratic model as they would not have been subjected to the Thirty Tyrants who gave them such a longing for a true and balanced democracy.

And lastly, had Alcibiades not recommended the Spartans accept money from the Persians, the Spartan society could have remained in the way of Lycurgus. Instead, they overextended their reach, over taxed their ability to rule and ultimately became an obsolete “museum” culture where the glories of the past were all that remained.

Alcibiades changed history by constantly creating it. There are many points in ancient Greek history that have shaped the way our world currently is but rarely is there a time where one person actually shaped events in such a dramatic way. When we go to the voting booth, we have some reason to thank this interesting character that ultimately died by angry brothers seeking retribution for a sister scorned. True to type.

Bibliography

Thucydides, History Of The Peloponnesian War, Penguin Classics, 1972

The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives, Penguin Classics, 1973

The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories, Pantheon November 6, 2007

The Peloponnesian War, Donald Keegan, Penguin, April 27, 2004