This is a historical account of the first 21 years of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta by the contemporary Thucydides, who, for a short time, served as an Athenian general in the conflict before he was exiled for failing to achieve his objectives. From the beginning of the war he was determined to write a record of it, in which he eschewed the gods and prophecies because history was, in his opinion, man-made, and so he instead aimed for an unbiased and factual account. Because of this his work became so influential, as this was a unique undertaking in his time and made him at least a pioneer of establishing a scientific approach to the recording of history.
I bought this on a whim many years ago, and then it just sat on my shelf and collected dust, because reading it seemed somehow daunting due to its scope and subject matter. I am greatly interested in ancient Greece, but not necessarily in warfare or military history. Now that I have finally read it, I can say that I was missing out, because it is so much more than that. On one hand, yes, it is an account from a military perspective, and it is pretty clear that Thucydides has a military background, not only from his extensive knowledge of strategy and the structure and composition of armies, but also because of his understanding of group dynamics that develop in a large mass of soldiers in certain situations. On the other hand, however, and this is what pulled me in, it is an examination of the politics and actions that arise out of the shortcomings of human nature, and how this culminates in and relates to war. That is where the book is at its most gripping.
There are numerous highlights, for instance the Mytilenian Debate, where not only a massacre is averted at the last second, but also the merits of an oligarchy versus those of a democracy are discussed. The speaker in favour of the slaughter of all male citizens and the enslavement of all women and children of Mytilene is a dreadful demagogue, and Thucydides, for all his objectivity, cannot hide his disdain not only for him personally, but for all of his kind. Another outstanding part is the end of the Athenian expedition to Sicily, which is absolutely harrowing in its despair and hopelessness, and shows the extent of the Athenian hubris that led not only to a horrible disaster, but also to a turning point in the war.
Not everything, however, is as excellent. There are tedious stretches, where side conflicts are discussed at great lengths, and as impressive as the insane richness of detail often is, there are also instances where it is a detriment to the reading experience. Moreover, it is frequently a struggle to keep track of the many participants of the war, because there are so many allies of Sparta and Athens involved and battles take place all over the Greek world; you need at least a very good map to make sense of it. Nonetheless, it is overall an astonishing accomplishment, because I can’t even imagine how much work it must have been to collect all this information and make not only a coherent, but a compelling narrative out of it. Thucydides himself did not care whether his account was palatable to his readers or not, he was interested only in accuracy and his work was “not designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last for ever.”
It has held up incredibly well, since basically anything one ever has to know about the nature of war is in there. Armies, equipment, and strategies may change, but the underlying issues stay the same. Greed, opportunism, corruption, and ignorance govern too many decisions, and treachery and disloyalty are rampant, while rationality, wisdom, and compassion seem to be in low supply among those in power. Amidst the people, war leads to savagery, atrocities are committed that would not even have been thought about in peace time, and fanatism mandates that everyone has to choose a side, because between two hostile parties there is no place for a middle ground. Religion is abused to further one’s agenda, and above everything towers the allure of power which can corrupt even the soundest of minds, while all around the suffering and loss of life is unimaginable.
Thucydides himself is a pessimist with no illusions about his fellow men, and so he notes that these are “events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will, at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future.” This is a grim outlook he gave, and now, with 2,400 years of hindsight, can we object to this? Not easily, I think.