Thucydides and War

Assumptions about the empirical realities that surround war affect the sort of ethical considerations that should be brought to bear:

2. If permitted, are any moral constraints appropriate? Realism versus ethics-of-war theories.

3. If moral constraints are appropriate, what should they be? Consequentialism, Just War Theory, and International Law

Pacifism

War? { Realism (no relevant ethics)

Non-Pacifism { Consequentialism

Ethics of War theories { Just War Theory

International Law

Peloponnesian War

· Aftermath of Persian War

· Interstate politics: Delian League (Athens and ‘allies’) v. Peloponnesian League (Sparta, aka Lacedaemonians and ‘allies’) with vulnerable neutral cities and villages

· Domestic politics: Oligarchies/Aristocracies v Democracies

Thucydides

· Aristocratic born

· One of the annually elected generals, Strategoi.

· After the loss in 424 of Amphipolis (arguably not his fault), Thucy is exiled and subsequently wanders about including through the Peloponessus

Text

· Our edition is a selection, perhaps quarter of the original, and one that heavily privileges the speeches.

· Strictly speaking, this is not a ‘history’ in the sense that it was about the past, but rather something like slow journalism written because the then recently passed and current events would likely take on momentous significance.

Thucydides and Realism

[I have tried to generate themes or topics for discussion that follow from reading our text in order]

Although in 431 when Thucydides began his History, neither Herodotos' history (pub in the 420s) nor Hellanikus' Attike Syngraphe were available most scholars see Thucydides in reaction against Herodotus perhaps having heard Herodotus orally delivered. His other main rivals were Homer and Hecataeus of Miletus.

“The ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote in the mid fifth-century BC about the centuries-long enmity between the Greeks and the Persians, which climaxed in the Persian Wars. He had to rely primarily on oral accounts of events that occurred centuries earlier, and consequently it was difficult for him to be accurate about those events. He deserves to be called the "father of history" for his achievement in committing oral history to writing.

What is his method? When stories conflict, he often gives us both sides, refusing to select which is right. For example at Book 1 section 5 he says : "These are the stories of the Persians and the Phoenicians. For my own part, I will not say that this or that story is true." He goes on to take a stand about a particular fact, but his focus remains primarily on what people said and thought about history. In many ways he remains a storyteller. He also interprets events in terms of his own time. His discussion of the establishment of the Persian monarchy (3.80 f.) is recounted in terms of a fifth-century Athenian political debate. Taken literally, the story would mean that the Persians discovered democracy and oligarchy in the 560's BC, rejected them in favor of monarchy, and selected their monarch by a contest of neighing horses.

In contrast, Thucydides had a different project, and a different method. He wrote mostly about contemporary events which he could witness directly: the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. He writes of distant events only when they are necessary background to his own topic. But he is also armed intellectually, with a historical method that is a qualitative improvement upon that of Herodotus. Why do men need a method in understanding history? He tells us at Book 1 section 20: "For men accept from one another hearsay reports of former events, neglecting to test them . . ." He follows this with a specific example of a historical error accepted by the Athenians of his own day, then explains this error: "So averse to taking pains are most men in the search for the truth, and so prone are they to turn to what lies ready at hand." [2]

Ø What other sorts of texts is the History to be distinguished from according to Thucydides?

- history, or at least antiquarian history; it begins as soon as the war does (1)

e.g., Harmodious and Aristogeiton killing the tyrants Hipparchus and Ariston (sa 126f)

He goes further than Plato in this regard. The latter assaulted art but would have kept morally upright stories.

- composed to satisfy momentary cultural fashion - e.g., contest prize material (13; sa 57)

What is his stated method?

He is a child of the Sophists (likely taught by the notorious oligarchic orator Antiphon.

He is concerned to present the "truth" (13), the "truest reason" (15), "accurate knowledge" (102).

His emphasis is on evidence resulting from the reasonable synthesis of all available sources (2f, 13).

This is a pluralistic approach in contrast to either appeals to direct reports on facts or epistemic certainties for foundations.

He inspects the quality of his informants, preferring those who were in command (e.g., Nicias) and hence more likely in the know, and those with trained memories.

He practices falsifiablity, i.e., sources are used negatively, no good reason to doubt (6).

He is balanced, taking pains to include actual/appropriate speeches from both sides in relating the events (13).

“the truest reason [for the quarrel], though least evident in what was said at the time" (Thuc. 1.23.6: hê men alêthestatê prophasis, aphanestatê de logôi), (pp.15-16)

through a method of "using the best evidence available" (1.21.2: ap' autôn tôn ergôn skopousi) (p.12).

Does he avoid the sorts of writing he claims he is avoiding?

[These questions are worth raising at the onset although they will remain unanswerable until the end. It would also be useful to flag other big questions to be taken up at the end].

Test internal features of the text for consistency, detail, vivacity (although actually all could be present in fiction oo, the absence of any counts against reliability), and examine the author's methodological statements.

Compare to external sources such as other texts, archaelogical evidence, the independent calculation of astronomical phenomena such as eclipses, and so on. Mutual corroboration is encouraging.

Ø How does Thucydides's account of early Greece and the rise of the Greek Polis compare with 'Aristotle's' account in the Constitution?

More or less the same, although since the History was likely a source this is not surprising.

The PW is a great war, greater than those in the past. It deserves recording (1).

Presumably it is great, even correcting for the tendency to exaggerate the momentousness of a present war when one is in the midst of it (12).

Past events recur, hence truth/accuracy has value, makes history a 'lasting possession' (13, sa 47).

(although some scholars note: 'kata to anthropinon' not 'kata to anthropeian physin' means that Thucydides is not referring to human nature or a human condition but rather to the 'human element' or 'human thing' in reality. This is perhaps a significant difference given questions about the permanence or contextual bearing of human nature according to Thucydides).

Uncertainty of life, disaster can strike anyone, even undeservedly, remind Plateans (p.81)

2. ORIGINS OF THE WAR (pp.15-37).

“I will first write down an account of the disputes that explain their breaking the Peace, so that no one will ever wonder from what ground so great a war could arise among the Greeks. I believe that the truest reason (alêthestatê prophasis) for the quarrel, though least evident in what was said (logos) at the time, was the growth of Athenian power, which put fear into the Lacedaemonians and so compelled (anankasai) them into war (1.23.6) (pp.15-16).

“and instead of attacking them for your own defense you are waiting for them to attack, when the odds against winning will be much worse for you.” (p.19)

It is an analysis that embodies realist assumptions about human nature, the dynamics of politics, and the central unit of political action and hence analysis.

There are also however secondary/ulterior economic/special interest causes/motives: “a war engages everyone for the sake of a few personal interests, a war’s progress cannot be foreseen, and there is no decent way to end it easily.” (p.27).

Take men as they are not as they ought to be, namely as propelled by basic motives which they pursue rationally

The "Athenian thesis" propounded at Thuc. 1.76 (p.23) is the key text for highlighting Thucy’s assumptions about the brutish hidden nature of man.

Fear (deos), honor (timê), and advantage (ôfelia) (the three qualities which the Athenians cite twice at 1.76) are fundamental, even dominant, forces that drive “normal human affairs” (p.23) and certainly international affairs.

As a descriptive matter, since the behavior of political actors especially is amorally rational, it is possible to apply the observational method to explain and even predict how such actors will behave in the future.

Politics

power politics: pitting "the expedient" (to sumpheron) against "the just" (to dikaion)

In politics, (in contrast to civic life where under regularized circumstances morality may prevail) because the stakes are so high, the dynamics are amoral, and the means are power not words.

States act to maximise either their security or power. In practice the two are more or less equivalent.

Irrational and dangerous to expect anything other than, as Melian Dialogue made clear, that the strong will do what they have the power to do and hence that the weak must accept what they have to accept.

“Besides, we took this upon ourselves because we thought we were worthy of it, and you thought so too, until now that you are reckoning up your own advantage and appealing to justice – which no one has ever preferred to force, if he had a chance to achieve something by that and gain an advantage” (p.23).

Not much of a relationship. Sparta chooses to act out of fear of the continued expansion of Athens (according to Thucydides).

City-state

The group, city-state but also variously tribe, empire, kingdom, fiefdom, or for the past

three hundred years the modern nation state, which sails about as a unitary agent, even if there may be one or several elite individuals steering the ship of state.

Tendency to diminish signifiance of supra-national structures, sub-national ones and individuals.

Thus, "the Athenians," "the Corinthians," and "the Spartans," manifest themselves as actors.

Ø Of the four speeches, does Thucydides display special sympathy for any one in particular?

What is the national character of the Spartans?

Notice that this is a very positive description of Sparta, admittedly one voiced by a Spartan, still …

What is the national character of the Athenians?

If all states and all individuals pursue power to some extent, ambition consumes the Athenians far more intensely than any other group. The qualitatively distinct thirst for power which shapes Athenian character is, in fact, crucial to the history. It terrifies the Corinthians, leading them to badger the Spartans into war (1.68-71), while it provides Alcibiades with a psychological argument for the Sicilian expedition (6.18) as we see at the end.

Thucydides even inserts power into this one idealizing vision of Athens that the History contains: during the Funeral Oration, Perikles urges his fellow Athenians to gaze upon the power (dunamis) of, and thus become infatuated with, Athens (2.43.1) (p.44)

Monuments

Ø How would you characterize the relationship between the Funeral Oration and the Periclean building program?

The literary counterpart to the Parthenon Frieze, i.e., an expression of Athenian energy and confidence in which men are almost indistinguishable from the Gods.

Ø What can we learn from Pericles about the nature of Athenian political institutions specifically?

Although some modern readers see Pericles downplaying the democratic features of the Athenian constitution in favor of its aristocratic possibilities, in fact, he is dutifully reflecting the Athenian view of the structure of the politeia. Unlike the American Constitution (which divides government between three branches: executive, legislative, and judiciary; and grants citizens representative but not dirct access), Athens lacked an executive and separated the legislative into two function. Athens tripartite structure thus consisted of deliberative (attended by all citizens directly) and magistrates (and other offices (chosen by election by all citizens, or lot, on the basis of merit though not of a property qualification) and judiciary (courts manned by all citizens).

Aristotle does the same in the Politics (1297b35-1298c3), and (so does his student) in the Athenian Constitution, discussing in turn the (deliberative) Council and Assembly (43.2-49; pp.89-94), the various magistracies such as sortitive offices (50-54; pp.95-100) and archons (55-59; pp.100-104) and other officials (60-62; pp.105-108), and then finally the judicial courts (63-69; pp.108-114).

Significantly, this structure is mirrored in Pericles' description, albeit compactly (40).

He is contrasting oligarchic (and property-biased) Sparta with democratic Athens.

Each realm is operated on a distinct basis: deliberative - collective, majority or plurality, judicial matters - individual passive equality before the law, and offices - active, competitive, merit.

We should not be surprised to find that the Funeral Oration was quite conventional politically, since it followed the rules of the funeral oration genre in other areas as well: e.g., glorious deeds of ancestors, nobility of Athenian character, bravery of the fallen, consolation for families.

Pericles actually notes twice that he is observing custom in his oration (40, 46).

Ø Compare/contrast Periclean idealism towards democratic Athens with our idealism towards America.

Ø Why so much detail on the plague in a narrative on the human aspects of a human phenomenon, the war? i.e., why not just write 'The Plague happened and people died'?

These were events which defied words, explanation and even human nature, i.e., they undid what was human in us (48, see also Pericles on this at 53).

Ø Compare/contrast Pericles' glowing description of Athenian character with the actual behavior of Athenians in the midst of the plague.

Ø On the assumption that Thucydides is using the same empirical method on the plague that he uses in the History generally, what additional observations can we make on this method?

Thucydides distances his handling of the plague from that of both doctors and laymen. However,

Prophasis (15, 47) generally means pretext or excuse but within the Hippocratic tradition has an analytical or diagnostic meaning, namely, precondition, i.e., proximate not ultimate cause.

Not causal, rather Thucydides is concerned with recognizable pre-conditions or symptoms, that which enables ready identification and hence better judgement and decision-making next time.

Not so about predictive/preventative control as it is about foreknowledge of likely outcomes.

Medicine is already a well-established discourse (indeed there is a conflict underway between the ancient medicine and modern practices at this time).

The authority of medical discourse rests on its ability to identify the mechanism of change which obscures the continuity of nature.

Thucydides uses medical language (verbs, concepts etc.) frequently, but especially in describing unexpected events (both natural and man-made) which befall men, remain beyond their control, and yet have dramatic effects upon them.

The Hippocratic school of medicine on the island of Cos practiced an empiricism with minimal recourse to rational abstractions.

He shifts from relatively individualistic to relatively communitarian conceptions.

How do the shifts in the values affirmed mirror shifts in Athenian views over the course of the war?

He shifts from talk of friendly alliances to recognition that Athens is an imperial tyranny.

Ø Based on the speeches Thucydides attributes to Pericles, and his subsequent remarks about him, how would you characterize Thucydides's evaluation of PP?

Ø Thucydides notes that Pericles' strategy was to protect the people in the city while letting the Spartans invade Attica and spoil the country. He also notes that severe urban overcrowding compounded the problems of the plague. Why doesn't he connect the two?

Ø What is the significance of the fact that while Pericles lauds the democratic aspects of Athens and his own humble advisory role in it, Thucydides observes in his own voice that Athens was a democracy in name only and instead actually government by its first man (57)?

However, here others contend, Thucydides is calling attention to the de facto and technically extra-democratic (charismatic) power Pericles wielded, as lead strategos.

First, Thucydides is not quite correct. The Democracy remained very much in effect during the years of Pericles' dominance. The people voted to keep him in office. Policy was still decided by vote. Elections occurred at constitutional intervals, the people selected their generals, heard reports from them, listened to opposition, occasionally disagreed with Pericles, voted him out in 444, and deposed him in 430 only to rapidly re-elect him.

Second, as an anti-democrat Thucydides is reluctant to acknowledge that Athens' Periclean greatness is due to its democracy. He attributes its success to Pericles' moral integrity and functional independence from popular whim. However, Thucydides also holds democratic institutions responsible for subsequent Athenian mistakes, i.e., subsequent leaders pander to the people. In effect, Thucydides is syaing that for a time, the democracy ran well in spite of itself but that eventually the mob (the democratic essence) got the upper hand. (57)

Ø Compare/contrast the speeches of Cleon and Diodotus. Thucydides reports that Athenian public opinion was fairly equally divided before siding with Diodotus. What does the quality and content of the two speeches tell us about the nature od democratic decision-making at this time?

Ø Diodotus suggests that if the people are unwilling to listen it maybe neceesary for the good leader/advisor to give the advice secretly, i.e., deceive the people into doing the good thing. In the Republic, Socrates notes that the guardians will have to lie to the people. Is there such a thing as a 'noble lie'? Should democratic governors be permitted to lie to the governed?

Ø Compare/contrast the many conceptions of justice offered in these two debates. What position is acted upon? What position ought to have triumphed according to Thucydides? according to you?

Ø Thucydides juxtaposes the Athenians' and Spartans' handling of rebellious 'allies' Mytilene and Plataea respectively. How, if at all, does their respective handling of these rebellions serve to distinguish Athens and Sparta politically and culturally?

How, if at all, does Thucydides's short narrative about the outcome of the speeches interpretor reflect elements contained in the speeches themselves?

The famous Mytilenean debate (pp.66-76) turns upon the question of how Athens can best use its material force to make the allies fulfill its own needs. Diodotus, whose opinion carries the day, argues that, if the Athenians spare most of the Mytileneans and thus do not exploit their material force to the fullest, they will immediately gain access to more tribute from Mytilene and will in the future waste less of their resources in putting down revolts (3.46).

Corycra civil war (stasis; also a medical term) between democratic and oligarchic elements.

Ø Thucydides expands his level of detail considerably in discussing Corycra, which one might otherwise have regarded as a local event without any immediate relation to the larger war. Why does he do so?

It presented in miniature the dynamics that would eventually consume all of Hellas, namely the irrelevance of morality, mutual hatred and polarization.

Ø Thucydides observes that 'war is a violent teacher' (90). What does he mean?

Ø Compare/contrast the symptoms of the plague at Athens with the human behavior and outcomes during the civil war.

Ø Thucydides's discussion of human nature laid bare by the civil war is relatively dark and cynical. Is he right? Are events such as a civil war windows into our 'state of nature'?

Melos was a small island with negligible resources, but the Athenians insisted on subduing it because domination of all the islands would have a powerful symbolic effect upon the rest of the allies (5.95, 97) (p.104).

Athens attempts big victory over Greeks in Sicily, uses excuse of aiding ally (Egesta) to invade and battle Syracuse. Athens is lured by (false) promise that Egesta would pay cost of expedition.

Ø Why not give Nicias' speech during the battle of the Great Harbor? Instead Thucydides describes Nicias' state of faer and use of cliches.

Ø Compare/contrast the Plague in Athens to the Athenian retreat (pp.145-154).

Ø Thucydides identifies Nicias (who after capture is killed by the Syracuseans) as "of all the Greeks in my time ... the one who least deserved such a misfortune, since he had regulated his whole life in the cultivation of virtue" (152). Are the decisions, speeches, and actions Thucydides attributes to Nicias uniformly positive ones?

Summary of Thucydides’ attitude towards all of this?

Hope to prolong and perhaps even renew one’s polity through a chastened, careful, consequentialist form of realism, one that does not avoid war totally nor seek it out ala Cleon and Alcibiades, but in stead avoids war, enters it fully aware of likely costs, and with a clear plan and exit strategy so that little is left to luck ala Spartan Archidamus (p.25-8), Athenian Diodotus, Nikias (in spite of his weakness for soothsayers).

Suspicious of viability of democracy, and certainly of democratic deliberation in foreign policy matters. Clear preference for decline of democracy in favor of oligarchy (p.154).

(for class discussion as reading nears completion and/or as possible final paper topics)

(Although scholars have tended to stress the scientific nature of Thucydides's efforts, there is a substantial readership that presses the contrary view, namely that it is art first and foremost; and also a number of scholars who hold a middle position, art in the service of science).

He pays new attention to chronology (36n.96, 101). This is contrary to Hellanicus but not Herodotus. Doing so assists the narrative and makes verification easier.

He is aware of the biases of subjectivity, perspectives, selective cognition, selective recollection, and selective reception (13, 31, 50, 102, 125).

He recognizes that often, and especially with the events of the war, even synthesizing all sides result in an incomplete picture (132).

He is, more generally, careful to note when no reliable information is available, or when he doubts exagerrated reports.

He is attentive to details, and especially to materially causal details, eg (economic) resources, (naval) power, and so on.

Regarding Hippocratic influences, one can detect the presence of medical methodology. The crucial phrase "truest cause" (prophasis) ... actually stresses precondition rather than cause.

The History is tragic (see 15); fall of Athens, disintegration of unity of polis.

Like Eurpides this is tragedy driven not be divine punishment but by internal psychological conflicts.

Justice, and the viability of different intellectual and motivational foundations for justice in particular, is a running theme.

Thucydides is animated by compassion, and the desire to see undue suffering minimized, in particular (see 49).

He is critiquing Athenian acquisitiveness (pleonexia), and the cultural and institutional collapse brought on by the over-reaching of the Athenian empire.

The History is a story with plenty of artistic discretion exercised in the expansions and contractions of the narrative (such that some events occupy a phrase, others a sentence, paragraph or pages), in the juxtapositions (e.g. antithetical speeches, funeral oration and plague, (rhetorically formal) speeches and events or intentions and outcomes generally), and so on.

The goal of akribeia (usually translated accuracy) also means orderliness, coherence, lack of confusion, i.e., Thucydides is taking credit for imposing an effective coherence upon the chaos of events.

The accuracy of the speeches refers not to lexical conformity with the original but rather the faithful rendering of the meaning or ideas of the speaker, or , more problematically, what Thucydides thought they would have expressed in their situation and position (given his assumptions about them).

The very notion of the 'greatness' of the war signals an aesthetic, in this case of scale-enormity and monumentalism. It is Homeric.

Ø As a work of history, does the History have any weaknesses by our standards?

Thucydides is perhaps a little arrogant in thinking that his account is neutral, objective, unbiased and of everlasting value.

Ø What sorts of events and persons has Thucydides selected for inclusion in his History?

Compare to the perspective on the effects of the war that one gets fromn Aristophanes.

In other words, how would this narrative look different if it was 'history from below,' 'womens history,' ... 'technological determinist history' and so on?

To a considerable extent reality is (necessarily) unexpected, unpredictable, uncontrollable (25, 27, 32, 48, 55, 73, 81, 105, 114ff).

Athens warns Sparta of this early (25, 32) only to ignore the lesson and suffer its demise as a result.

Good judgement consists of heeding the limits of human intellect (gnome), not being ruled by passion (orge), expecting the unexpected, being courageous (55), and planning (116). In effect the reader is to observe the good and bad judgements of others and the range of consequences and internalize 'practical experience' thereby.

Hence the need to recount the prehistory etc, and overlay interactions between personalities, events, outcomes, institutional robustness and cultural contexts.

Ø In what ways does Thucydides exemplify the recurrence of past events within the History?

Archidamus' early observations -- that war engages everyone for the sake of the personal interests of a few, that the progress of war cannot be forseen, and that there is no decent easy way to end war (27) -- seem confirmed by the History as a whole, and hence to be Thucydides's view.

Man needs moral restraints but those restraints dissolve under extreme situations when most needed.

Human nature is NOT an immutable permanent essence (Plato, Aristotle) but rather contextual defined by historical conditions (Darwin, Marx, Freud).

A middle position would hold that the human thing consists of constitutive elements which are arranged and re-arranged by culture, institutions, and the force of cirumstances.

Plague and civil war alike reveal that under the impact of radically unfamiliar and challenging cirumstances, we lose confidence in our conventional morality and Gods.

Aside from occasional generally cynical observations on human tendencies, Thucydides places more emphasis on 'national character' (e.g., Athens and Sparta), and the changes in the former over time.

In effect, Thucydides writes history because man can only be grasped historically.

Thucydides was reared in the conservative anti-democratic tradition. His orderly and impartial mind was impressed by the genius of Pericles, and so he became a 'Periclean,' though not a democrat; nor could he admit that by doing so he was, in essence, approving of democracy. Later, as he saw Periclean ideals abandoned and Periclean warnings ignored, he was free to diagnose the evils of democracy gone to seed. He ended his life as he had begun it, a confirmed oligarch.

What does this tell us about the nature of logos/politics? i.e., about the role of reason, language, communication in political deliberation?

e.g. compare Pericles (transparent language that treats men as moral agents), Cleon (force, more fighting, less talking) and Diodotus (fraud, affirms good end using self-interested amoral reasoning), Melian dialogue (transparent language of brutal self-serving free of moral ideals or imperatives).

Shift from appeals to justice, (relatively) friendly alliances, inventiveness to dispassionate cruelty, ruthlesness and inflexible expediency.

Ø Thucydides contrasts his History with mere debate speeches, and yet he also includes lots of ostensibly debate-speech sequences in his History (1/4 of the text). What then is the significance of these speeches? What purpose(s) do they serve?

To highlight the separation of human intent and outcome, the variable receptivity to reasoned speech.

To mark shifts in what a particular culture at a particular time finds persuasive, justified etc.

Ø Thucydides often presents the subjective context of the war through contrary speeches which make it appear that there is a measure of truth on both sides. Select one such instance and discuss Thucydides's reasons for doing so.

Ø The public spiritedness of Athens in the wake of their defeat of Persia gives way to an Athenian sense of empire as their destiny. They come to seek greatness in the eyes of their principal Greek competitor (Sparta) and allies and enemies alike. This aim eventually generates domestic cultural and moral corruption and a foriegn policy of self-interested over-reaching.

Are there any parallels or lessons here for the US in the wake of the Cold War?

Ø In his narrative, does Thucydides favor either Athens or Sparta? Offer evidence.

Arguably the virtues he seems to affirm, restraint, moderation, self-control are more distinctly Spartan.

Athens over-reaches, generating the fear to which Spartans are compelled to respond.

Athens keeps the war going at the time of the peace of Nicias when Sparta is ready to settle.

It may be that at the time of the PW, Sparta enjoyed greater cultural prestige than Athens in the Greek World. Thucydides could be sparing in his characterization of Spartan character, policies, and institutions because such details were well-known and admired: Sparta had a stable, self-sufficient, moderate and mixed constitution.

In part, Athens sought the prestige Sparta enjoyed and was engaged in a contest both political and cultural to promote its new ideals of mobility and so on.

There is also the final irony that Sparta saves Athens from itself at the onset in 510 and at the close of our period in 404 (159, 160).

Machiavelli

Italian city-states flanked by national Monarchies, the Holy Roman Empire, and beyond Islam.

“But since my intention is to say something that will prove of practical use to the inquirer, I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined. Many have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation. The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and make use of this or not according to need.”

Cardinal de Richelieu

Realism (under the name raison d’état) was introduced through the diplomatic policies of the French minister. He led France into the bitter Thirty Years War to ensure that the various states controlled by the Habsburgs did not dominate Europe. That war ended in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) which is widely regarded as the moment of the birth of the modern Nation-state system of international relations

His first major work was a translation of Thucydides, and this translation was the prevalent one for centuries.

“... I saw that, for the greatest part, men came to the reading of history with an

affection much like that of the people in Rome: who came to the spectacle of the

gladiators with more delight to behold their blood, than their skill in fencing. For

they be far more in number, that love to read of great armies, bloody battles, and

many thousands slain at once, than that mind the art by which the affairs of both

Thuc. 1.76 -- that "honour, fear, and profit" (as Hobbes translates timê, deos, and ôfelia) drive all men -- reappears in the foundational passages of Hobbes’ own thought: namely that "competition," "diffidence" and "glory" are the three forces which drive man. Hobbes attributes as a consequence of this triad that his famous "warre ... of every man, against every man" is the natural state of mankind.

Arguably, Hobbes is actually a bit more stark about the assumptions and conditions of modern life than his source in Thucydides, although he is also more complicated. Hobbes says little about international relations except that states face one another rather like gladiators.

Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, the first great American classicist, had as a young professor at the University of Virginia spent his summer vacations campaigning with Robert E. Lee's army, and he took from this experience a wound that troubled him the rest of his life. When, more than thirty years later, he wrote about his experiences, he playfully titled the piece "A Southerner in the Peloponnesian War."

Eduard Schwartz published his book on Thucydides in the shadow of the first world war, dedicating it to his son Gerhard, `killed at Markirch, on November 2, 1914.'

Louis Lord gave to his Martin Classical Lectures the title Thucydides and the World War.

Robert Connor reports that the "shattering experience of the Vietnam War" brought him to focus upon Thucydides with greater intensity.

Observers of contemporary affairs from George Marshall onwards compared the stand-off between the United States and the Soviet Union to that between Athens and Sparta, while Thucydides' generally pessimistic view of human nature and his disdain for pious illusions struck a responsive chord among many who had lived through the struggle with fascism.

If historians, ancient and modern alike, have generally found that their work, however rigorous and "scientific" in method, does not consitute a science, Thucydides' aspirations have taken root in the "social" or "human sciences." In particular, Thucydides has earned a remarkable position as an acknowledged creator of the paradigm for political realism. Within this community, the quest to establish a scientific discipline remains strong.

most influential of the new realists who would decisively shape a generation of American foreign policy.

Robert Gilpin has even questioned whether almost twenty-four centuries have substantially advanced our understanding of how states relate to one another and of why wars occur.