Unit 07
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Massachusetts, Amherst *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
100
Subject
Political Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by PrivateOxideWasp
Thucydides has often been called the intellectual father of the "Realist" school of international relations. As implied by the label, the Realist school believes in assessing relations between states with cold practicality, not wishful thinking. According to Realists like Thucydides, the only morality in international affairs is that which power bestows.
How does Thucydides reflect this amoral view of inter-state relations in his account of the Melian Dialogue (see Martin’s Ancient Greece from Prehistoric to Hellenistic times pgs. 199-200 and the attached Thucydides PDF), in which the Athenians indicate a willingness to practice raw power-politics on the Melians. Provide at least two (2) direct quotes from Thucydides 5.84-114 along with your own interpretation as to what is going on, and how the treatment of the Melians was justified by the Athenians.
Thucydides presents the nature of inter-state relations in the Melian Dialogue. The dialogue revolves around the aggressive policy of Athenians against Melians through the negotiations between the two. The Melian Dialogue takes place in 416 BC. Athens wants to expand its empire and control the Aegean region. Melos was the only island that was not under Athenian rule and became the target of their aggressive foreign policy (“The Melian Dialogue”, Thucydides, pg. 1). Thucydides reveals the reality that power is the main determinant in international relations through this dialogue.
The Athenians are the dominant state and advocate for their own self-interests. They assert that in international affairs and do not care for morality. Thucydides writes, “We for our part will not resort to specious language and provide you with lengthy and implausible arguments, saying that we rule by right because we put down the Persian or that we are attacking you now because we have been wronged. Nor
do we expect you on your side to believe you will persuade us by saying that you did not campaign with the Spartans although you are colonists of theirs, or that you have not done us any wrong. Rather we think that you should accomplish what is feasible on the basis of what we on both sides believe, for you are as well aware as we are that in human discussion a ‘just’ decision is what is reached when there is equal power on both sides, while what is ‘feasible’ is what the powerful do and the weak comply with.” (5.89). In these lines the Athenians make it clear that discussing what is just is irrelevant as decisions are based on the power of the states. They feel the only solution is for the powerful state to decide and the weak state to comply. This goes to show how they are driven by power and self-interest, and do not care for moral justifications.
Additionally, the Athenians also try and justify their actions. Thucydides writes, “Now when it comes to good will on the part of heaven, I do not think we lag behind you in that, either. For nothing that we claim as our right, and nothing that we do, is inconsistent with men’s general belief about the gods and the principles they apply to themselves. We understand that the gods, apparently, and men, clearly, rule by innate necessity wherever they have power…” (5.105.1-105.2). The Athenians say that both god and men act out of their own interest when they have power, thus suggesting it is right for them to do the same. They feel their actions would have no consequences. This reinforces the realist perspective where those with power act out of self-interest and do not care for morality in inter-state relations.
Furthermore, the Athenians try and intimidate the Melians into the power dynamic between them. Thucydides writes, “If you are sensible in your deliberations, this is a course of action you will shun. You will not think it shameful to yield to the greatest Greek city when she offers you reasonable terms – namely an alliance on the basis of you keeping your country but paying tribute – nor will you think it shameful to avoid obstinately making the poorer choice when offered the options of war or security. The
people who prosper most are those who do not give in to their equals, who behave respectfully toward those more powerful than they are, and are reasonable in dealing with their inferiors…” (5.111.4). The Athenians try to convince the Melians that the best solution for them is to submit to Athens. They argue that those who are successful generally understand what power they hold and act accordingly i.e. respecting those with more power and not submitting to those who are equals. They also suggest that submitting to the powerful Athenians would be better than having to face the consequence of war. This shows how in the realist perspective, having more power can be used to make another state submit with
respect to inter-state relations. In conclusion, Thucydides' Melian Dialogue portrays the amoral nature of inter-state relations. The Athenians' disregard for morality and reliance on their power the reality of power dynamics in inter-state
relations.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help