Written by the Greek historian Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War tells the story of the war (431-404

BC) which divided the Greek world between Athens and its allies and Lacedaemon. The Melian Dialogue presents two sides and two perspectives; that of the Melians neutrality to not submit to become allies with Athens and the Athenians might in trying to convince them to submit. By Thucydides juxtaposing the dialogue between the Athenians position to that of the Melians, there is a clear conclusion of which sides actions are tactically and morally acceptable. One would argue that the Athenians are immoral for violently plundering the Melian territory since the Athenians had the power to do so. However, given the circumstance of trying to defend their empire due to the imbalance of forces, the Athenian actions are not unduly harsh and are justified because they needed to assert their power. The Melians senseless resistance and knowledge that they were weak in comparison to the Athenians enables Athens actions as more justifiable. Athens is a nation that has demonstrated power and authority towards other nations in situations of war and imperialism. In tactically trying to gain allies in the war against Sparta, Athens main objective is not to appear weak before their enemies and as a result, they needed to assert their power towards Melos. While asking the Melians to submit, the Athenians say to them, for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power (Thucydides 269). Here, the Athenians are implying that the Melians neutrality will show that they are weak and this is far from what they want their rivals to believe. The weakness of the Melians allows the Athenians to speak with even greater candor and further assert their power for in the dialogue between both sides, the Athenians

clearly control the debate and the Melians are the ones who ask many, if not all of the questions. An example to support this is seen when the Athenians say, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (Thucydides 269). Here, the Athenians are conveying that because they are strong they have the advantage of using their power and thus, the Melians should submit seeing that they weaker. Furthermore, the Athenians believe that they are only trying to defend their empire and hence the question of justice should not play a factor in any nations decision. The Athenians say, as far as right goes they think one has much of it as the other, and that if any maintain their independence it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them it is because we are afraid (Thucydides 269). Again, the Athenians are further justifying their reason for trying to convince the Melians to submit in saying that independence is achieved by strong and powerful nations, hence if they do not assert their power people will think that they are afraid. The final portion of the dialogue shows how the Melians senseless resistance toward the Athenians and their reliance on the power of the gods, the Spartans, and in their faith in justice causes their nation to be violently plundered. In the dialogue, Thucydides combines two central themes: the contrast between reason and irrationality and the stupidity of preferring future hope to present reality. The Melians know that the Athenians are stronger yet they choose to decline the Athenians offer: to surrender or suffer enslavement. The Melians have chosen not to surrender but to act irrationally about the situation they find themselves in. The Melians ask the Athenians, And how, pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule (Thucydides 269). The Athenians reply by stating, Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worse, and we should gain by not destroying you (Thucydides 269). While the Melians attempt to divert the issues to questions of right and morality, the Athenian envoys firmly keep the

focus upon the present realities. Furthermore, the Melians concede that their situation is hopeless and claim that if their defeat comes, they will be negotiating with the Spartans and placing their trust within the gods; but we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in power will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaemonians (Thucydides 270). The Melians should have acted sensibly instead of being nave and not submit to the stronger power seeing that the odds were against them. The Athenians allowed for a decision to be made for the Melians, but they decided to act irrational and respond emotively. Bosworth in his article, The Humanitarian Aspect of the Melian Dialogue says that they underestimated Athens military power, judging the issue by the clouded eye of volition rather than calculations based on security and followed the human tendency to back their desires with uncritical hope and use of sovereign reason only to reject what they find unpalatable (36). This further solidifies the claim that the Melians acted irrationally about the matter at hand instead of thinking carefully and hence the reason the Athenians actions are logically justified. Thucydides, in structuring the Melian Dialogue explicitly shows that Melos is a smaller and weaker nation in comparison to Athens, however the Melians certainty of their weakness to go up against Athens can somewhat justify the Athenians act of plundering their city. The Athenians, in trying to convince the Melians to surrender, stresses the Melians senseless resistance and states that as a result they will face enslavement. However, the Melians remain steadfast in their decision to be neutral and try to shift the argument to issues of justice and hints at the possibility of human and divine assistance. The Athenians, aware of the weakness of the Melians say, your strongest arguments depend upon hope and the future, and your actual resources are too scanty, as compared with those arrayed against you, for you to come out victorious

(Thucydides 272). The Melians decision to remain neutral shows that they are not being rational about the situation knowing Athens is more superior to them. The Melians had a choice to concede and they should have done so rather than overlooking their weakness and incapability of winning against the Athenians. As the writer A. B. Bosworth states the Athenians do what they can because there is no limiting constraint and the Melians should concede (40). The Athenians agree that they are only practicing the established rule that the weaker is constrained by the stronger by saying it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do (Thucydides 271). The Athenians are implying that the law which claims that the weaker is constrained by the stronger was there before them and that they are simply making use of it and the Melians should know this. However, already warned by the Athenians, the Melians had every choice to surrender knowing that the present situation was looking quite dim. The political realism that might make right is not necessarily truthful. The Athenians being very powerful, was not right to enslave the Melians but the Melians stupidity in regards to their present situation: to submit or die, allows the Athenians actions as more reasonable. The Melians, despite being aware that Athens is stronger than them chooses not to succumb and it is evident that the decision to submit or to remain neutral was entirely in the hands of the Melians. Clearly, Athens was more powerful and hence instead of being irrational about the situation by relying on the gods and the Lacedaemonians to assist them, they should have thought logically about the decision before them. The Melians were weak in comparison to the Athenians and thus thinking they could take on the Athenians was foolish of them to believe. The Athenians actions

are justifiable in dominating the Melians because they constantly questioned the Melians position to remain neutral but still the Melians were unwavering. Hence, Athens did not have any other choice but to enslave the Melians because they were only doing what any powerful nation would do as mention in the dialogue. Furthermore, by coming to the Melians territory to meet about their decision, this shows that Athens had some respect for the Melians. Might does not make right but in the case of the Athenians, their actions can be logically vindicated.

Word Count : 1,529

Works Cited

Bosworth, A. B. "The Humanitarian Aspect of the Melian Dialogue." The Journal of the Hellenic Studies, Vol. 113 (1993): 30-44. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. Trans. Richard Crawley. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2004. Print.