Why did Athens attack Syracuse?

swordofislam

I simply don't understand this. According to Thucydides the Athenians seem to have attacked Syracuse the following reasons:
Alcibiades talked them into it
They thought that they would win and be able to enslave the Syracusans and control Sicily.
The Gods had maddened them with hubris (he doesn't say this but wouldn't that have occurred immediately to his readers?)

BUT
Given that the Egestaeans claimed to be vastly wealthy and Syracuse was the main power on Sicily was it not obvious that Syracuse also must be rich?
Greek cities didn't just go around attacking each other willy nilly.
Why didn't they get some well regarded fellows to go and have a look at Syracuse?
When Alcibiades betrays the Athenians and runs off to Sparta why didn't they think 'hmm he was a wrong un'?


There is something wrong here. I think Thucydides is leaving stuff out. I think he was exiled in around 425 so he couldn't have been at any of the assemblies where these decisions were discussed.

jonniebgood1

swordofislam wrote: »

I simply don't understand this. According to Thucydides the Athenians seem to have attacked Syracuse the following reasons:
Alcibiades talked them into it
They thought that they would win and be able to enslave the Syracusans and control Sicily.
The Gods had maddened them with hubris (he doesn't say this but wouldn't that have occurred immediately to his readers?)

BUT
Given that the Egestaeans claimed to be vastly wealthy and Syracuse was the main power on Sicily was it not obvious that Syracuse also must be rich?
Greek cities didn't just go around attacking each other willy nilly.
Why didn't they get some well regarded fellows to go and have a look at Syracuse?
When Alcibiades betrays the Athenians and runs off to Sparta why didn't they think 'hmm he was a wrong un'?


There is something wrong here. I think Thucydides is leaving stuff out. I think he was exiled in around 425 so he couldn't have been at any of the assemblies where these decisions were discussed.

What in particular do you think is being left out. Thucydides was exiled as you say but that is often given as a positive in that he could travel more freely among allies. The result being a more balanced all round record.
Alcibiades is hard to put in place properly. Perhaps the recorded view of him is unduly effected by his eventual return to Athens. Do you question whether Thucydides was purposefully leaving information about Alcibiades out of his writings?

swordofislam

Thucydides disliked democracy and wanted to demonstrate that the polis was too easily swayed by good looks and a lisp.


The whole expedition is so ridiculous.
The Athenians though they were battle hardened had no reason to believe that they would beat Syracuse.

Thucydides wants us to believe that the whole thing was got up by Alcibiades out of thin air.
The Athenians will do whatever Alcibiades says because they admire him so much because of his celebrity, wealth, charioteering skills, his youth, his pretty lisp and his good looks.

So the Polis love him enough to take up this absurd cause but then sentence him to death in absentia when the Hermides (I mean the statues of Hermes) are defaced.
What? That is incredibly unlikely.

Then Alcibiades doesn't go home to plead his own case even though he is so clever, such a good sophist and so beloved by the polis that he has convinced them to engage in this bizarre plan to attack Sicily even though:

1. None of the Ionian cities have firmly promised to help (Egestaea has asked for help but did they promise to do anything?)
2. The Dorian cities in Sicily will surely not help Athens
3. The Peace of Gela provides for noninterference from outsiders in Greek Sicilian affairs
4. The Spartans are still unbeaten and surely will strike at the first chance they get!
5. The Spartans are getting money from the Persians to build a Navy!
6. Syracuse is bigger than Athens!

Then Alcibiades betrays Athens and becomes a TRAITOR and no one thinks 'Oh maybe this bull**** won't work'.

Then the Athenians double down
A Sicilian League destroys them

Perhaps Thucydides wanted a specific scapegoat and because Alcibiades was a traitor he loads the blame on him?

jonniebgood1

swordofislam wrote: »

The whole expedition is so ridiculous.
The Athenians though they were battle hardened had no reason to believe that they would beat Syracuse.

not at all- the Athenians could expect support in an attack on Syracuse. It is true that these possible allies did not materialise. Also it was initially meant to be a small expedition but grew based on the wishes of some of its commanders. Any chance of surprise was lost when they decided to seek out these allies (as Alcibiades wished). You are critical of Alcibiades but the real culprit for most of the Athenians mistakes was Nicias.

You should outline clearly your opinion on Thucydides. His literature is widely accepted but there are clear reasons IMO why it could be questioned.

Manach

Thucydides however is the main source for that war. He would have an inherent bias as an exiled Athenian General, but he is always struck me as fairly even handed. He gave a well rounded impression of the Athenian leader, Nicias, a man bound in duty to lead even knowning the chances of success were slim. As to why the Athenians attacked in the first place - either a case of hubris or a chance to reclaim pride after watching their lands annually ransacked by the Spartans.