Sparta Vs. Athens

Originally posted by Winterhaze13 That's because Athens was the only real rival to Sparta, when they eliminated Athens they eliminated any contest to their Greek supremacy. I'm not saying it wasn't outright victory in the end, but it was in no way an easy victory for Sparta.

This doesn't explain why the victory wasn't outright at all. 

How much more 'outright' could it have been?  Sparta and her allies crushed the power of Athens and her allies, and thusly accomplished their goal of ending Athenian power.

Originally posted by Winterhaze13 Once again I don't think you understand. The war was hard-faught and could have gone either way, but Sparta was able to capitalize on the Sicilian fiasco and win the war.

Why does that make the victory incomplete?  Besides, it wouldn't have been a fiasco if Spartan leadership hadn't arrived...

I think the victory was either incomplete or complete depending on your definition.

Given the context of Greece at the end of the 5th C., the victory of the Peloponnesian league (not to forget Thebes and Corinth) was quite complete.
But Spartan hegemony lasted a relatively short while because the context of ancient Greece was what it was.

That is, any hegemonic power was the largely first among equals. If you have a bipolar situation, and one power wins, it''s easier for the victor to maintain superiority; if however, you have several states of similar power, then shifting alliances and short term changes in power can make all the difference.

Thus, when Corinth and Thebes became less supportive of Sparta, she lost much of her power; when, further, Thebes gained somewhat in might and leadership, a new hegemonic power appeared.

So compared with many wars, 404 was not a complete victory.

Miltiades

Lannes

Actually I�d say the Spartan intervention in Sicily was irrelevant to the campaign�s fiasco status.  Nicias alone was sufficient to ensure that. His blundering opposition in the assembly turned what Alcibaldes had envisioned as a mostly diplomatic venture into a potential nightmare (since Nicias lacked the courage to either correct the impression he wanted full scale invasion or to insist on more initial cavalry support). Once in Sicily Nicias essentially vetoed every militarily sound proposal put forward by either Lamachus or later Demosthenes. If Athens had been more fortunate Nicias not Lamachus would have been killed, clearing the way for a competent general to finish the investment of Syracuse and resolution of the siege, well before Sparta ever bestirred herself to action.

As for the debate on the completeness of victory, it was very complete victory, for. The Athenian empire was dissolved,  while Sparta was converted into her willing tool.

Edited by conon394

Lannes

Gylippus, may have turned the tide for Syracuse, but had Nicias been even remotely competent, he (Gylippus) never would had the chance to. 

Aside from stopping Lamachus� rather sound plan of an initial surprise attack on Syracuse, he showed lassitude and indecision at every decisive moment.

For example, he was dismissive of Gylippus at first and diverted inadequate resources to catch his tiny flotilla, when he finally acted. 

Even when Gylippus finally appeared, Nicias, should have aggressively challenged his polyglot force (the army of Syracuse was predictably still in a state of poor order). Had he driven Gylippus back for even a day or two, the Athenians could probably have finished the circumventation, and sealed the fate of Syracuse. Also it�s hard to escape the sense that had Lamachus lived, double walls of encirclement would have been finished already. While he was alive the Athenians seemed able to finish siege works at rates that amazed the Syracuse. With Nicias in sole command not only does work seem slower, but the Athenians react without any vigor, often being caught off guard.

Had Nicias agreed with Demosthenes and withdrawn (at a time when the Athenians could have safely done so) after the failed attempt to secure the Syracusian counter wall, the Athenians might have a black eye, but hardly the disaster that followed.
And perhaps not even a very bad loss, the Athenians could have withdrawn to Thurii, had Demosthenes say stayed with only a part of new fresh reinforcing army he could most likely have prevented any aid to Sparta from Syracuse as well.

Edited by conon394

I find the question:  �which Greek-state was the greatest� misleading. In what area? Moreover, the question is potentially gender-relative.  I, as a woman, if I were to somehow �transported� back in time, in which of the two cities would I want to live? Athens or Sparta?

Originally posted by conon394 Now, the claim for women being better off in LACE>SpartaLACE> is usually predicated on the right to own property and the fact that like men, women underwent a compulsory �education� (This mainly to make them physically fit to bear strong children, period. Don�t imagine the state cared if they could read or what their personal desires might be).

Spartan women also had to do hardly a fraction of the homemaking work that women in other cultures slaved their lives away on.  Meaning, a woman was not just a house slave in the world of the Spartans.

Surely Hipparete could tell us how glorious life was for an Athenian woman...

Taygeti

�Own and  inherit property.  Economic power. A very significant, solid, power that should not be so easily UNDERESTIMATED, (especially because of its potential to evolve into political power)�

But of course it (apparent property rights) manifestly did not evolve into any political power for women at Sparta at any time from the archaic classical era to dissolution of Sparta as an independent political entity. The property right such as it was, I would note was still a property right inside of a totalitarian context. The Spartan state allowed only a very narrow range of economic activities for Spartans to undertake.  A Spartan women, unlike her Athenian counterpart would also have to face the day to day uncertainly that she was part of a tiny click that ruled over a vast pool of resentful slaves and near slaves (Athens noted during and for centuries after the classical period for it�s liberal; treatment of slave never faced the potential slave rebellions of Sparta or Rome or Chios) In any case the overall evidence is thin, and late. I find the current trend has many modern historians bending over backwards to read into the evidence support for strong independent women at Sparta, but at the same time bluntly asserting the closeted oppressed Athenian in the face of any opposing facts.

A good example is Sue Blundell �Women in ancient Greece�. She is ready to reject the ideal that Aristophanes as a useful source for woman in Athens. So we mush reject his tendency to suggest women were anything but closeted or meek, his suggestions about the lives of Athenian women are mere comic devices and such. But when it comes to Sparta suddenly Aristophanes is a solid reference for assertive, athletic Spartan women?

It seems to me a quick review of the historical record shows women at Athens wielded as much if not more political power then those at Sparta. Pericles pleaded with them to be restrained in the face of casualties as a result of his controversial policies during the Peloponnesian War. Demosthenes on several occasions harangues the assembly by asking what their wives will think of them if they vote this way or that (suggesting of course they took an interest and were aware of the politics of the day).The priestess of Athena play a pivotal role in supporting the arguments of Themistocles on how the �wooden wall� should be interpreted and what actions to take as a result of that interpretation.

I stand by my assertion the standard view of women at Athens is largely built out of the works of aristocratic men like Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle and a bit of Thucydides. All of whom share the common characteristic of being ideologically biased against and frankly detached from there own state (excepting Aristotle of course a non-native).  Yes, I realize Plato elaborated a functional role for women in his ideal state (and at least some academics have felt this is the result of, not in contrast the Democracy at Athens)  But like Sparta it is within the context of an ideal totalitarian state (I realize I am perhaps being unfair to Plato, but he happily served with thirty and seems largely to have left his pro-women ideals safely in the realm of theory). 

�For the sake of our argument however, lets focus only on aristocratic women; aristocratic Athenian women vs. aristocratic Spartan women. Which of the two were �better� off�?�

Perhaps the wives of the bluest blooded Athenian aristocrats were secluded, but I seriously doubt they lived oppressed lives, or slaved away at weaving. More likely they supervised the household tasks much as their Husband supervised the external estate. More importantly just don�t feel it a fair point. It�s rather like suggesting women were well off in Elizabethan England because a woman was the ruling Monarch. I prefer to see which state provided the better life (more equitable and more fair) for the most people man or woman. Based on that I think there can be little argument that the answer is Athens. 

The recent surge of interest in Greek religion and Greek magic has seen several books published detailing Greek �curse tablets� (often strips of lead with curse inscribed on them directed against rivals in love or business etc). The ones from Athens show a surprisingly different place then the Athens as seen by Plato, or Xenophon (Perhaps because they often involve the lives of the mass of non �aristocrats, metrics and slaves of little interest the aforementioned pair). Most interestingly one can find references to Athenian women (based on their names as typical of citizen women) as tavern owners and gold smiths, brothel operators, pot painters, etc.  These hoi polloi women of democratic Athens would never be respectable in the eyes of Plato, and might never enjoy the benefits of Spartan totalitarian luxury, but I willing to bet they might have been just as satisfied with their lives.

As a complete aside: You might suppose that the �oppressed� women of Athens or of Greece generally might resent their lot in life vs. Spartan women. But when push came to shove it�s notable that women in Athens and other misogynistic backwaters like Argos and Plataea turned out to defend their cities. In contrast the supposedly privileged Spartan women did little if anything to aid in the defense of their polis when Epaminondas attacked Sparta in the 4^th century. What does this mean idunno, just thought I chuck it in�

Edited by conon394

Somebody made earlier a point about the Persian-Spartan alliance being critical to Sparta's defeat of Athens. Please correct me if I�m wrong, but that alliance was made after the destruction of the Syracusian expedition no? The writing was already on the wall for Athens.

IMO the necessities of the ongoing intrigues and political struggles in Athens made the Syracusian expedition, or something like it, rather inevitable. Athens simply bit off more than it could chew. Perhaps if the Athenians had followed Pericles's advice to avoid trying to add to her empire before the rest of it was even secure, things might have turned out differently.

Hey, Is it just me or are there alot of foreboding parallels between imperial Athens and the modern United Stateslace in Thucydides... Scary

 

Edited by Idanthyrus

Did I mention those things specifically? I was thinking more of the Athenian debates, but ok 

A few of the arguments in paticular which illustrated the lack of distinction for Athenians between fighting for "democracy" and fighting for Athens own benefit were interesting.

 

Edited by Idanthyrus