Counterparts of the Peloponnesian War - Essay Example

The Peloponnesian War involved the battle pitting of the Athenians and the Peloponnesian League under the guidance of Sparta. As a result, two immediate long-term effects occurred and, hence, affected both sides. For instance, it caused the breakdown of peace meaning Athens violated the Peace of Nicias treaty signed in 421 BC. Another effect included the introduction of the Ionian and Decelean Wars. These two wars occasioned a devastating phase of bloodshed as both sides struggled to gain victory for the acquisition of empires.

Subsequently, three long-term effects emerged from the Peloponnesian War such as the explosion of the Archidamian War (Tritle, 100). It is a war that was led by Spartan forces under king Archidamus II. The second effect entailed the contravention of the Peace of Nicias treaty that was meant to stop the war between Spartan and Athenian forces. The third effect is the Sicilian Expedition that was heralded by the Athenians to defeat their rivals. The Spartans prevailed over the Athenians because of their prolonged siege that induced diseases and starvation in the Athenian population. The Spartans later showed clemency to the Athenians by refusing to enslave them.

It is crucial to highlight that the aftermath of the war played a major role in changing Greek civilization. The tyrants that ruled Greece suspended democracy. In this sense, it became a reactionary regime that would eliminate the oligarchs and create the capacity for true democracy.

During the Peloponnesian War, Pericles demonstrated two political strengths worth noting because they contributed to the favorable outcome witnessed in the duel. First, he was a charismatic speaker who applied both rhetoric and flowery language in persuading the masses. As the leader of Athens, therefore, he integrated colorful speech with the need for his people to exact revenge against the Spartans. The second political strength that propped the stature of Pericles involved his visionary approach to issues. In the lead to the war, he had foreseen the tactics of his rivals and this enabled him to plan early. Consequently, it sharpened Pericles’s strategic skills because the Athenian Empire was at great stake and that meant marshaling his forces without any errors.

Thucydides and Plutarch are both right in casting Pericles as a tyrant based on various reasons. First, Pericles was a politician who used his gift of speech to whip emotions of bloodshed and death that resulted in the endless war between Spartans and Athenians.

Another reason was Pericles’s refusal to engage his enemies in reconciliation even after the signing of the peace treaty. The gesture signified the behaviors and mannerisms of a tyrant unwilling to stop a war. Similarly, engagement in reckless military pursuits as a means of physical glorification was a testament to Pericles’s tyranny. In other words, he invested both his energy and vision creating divisions between states without any consultations.

From various fronts, the Peloponnesian war was more defining of Greek history than the Persian war. This proposition, also held by Thucydides, is due to various facts. Firstly, the Peloponnesian war took place years after the Persian war, meaning that this was after the effects of the Persian war had worn off.

Additionally, while the Persian war had left imbalanced power among the Greek states, the Peloponnesian War tried to neutralize the power of the Greek states. After the Persian war, Athens was the most powerful Greek state. This changed during the Peloponnesian war since all of the states had to provide equal input in defense of Greece.

From the above point, it can also be argued that the Peloponnesian war enabled the Greek states to come together and integrate their resources, thereby highlighting the importance that this war had on Greek, thereby greatly defining its history more than the Persian war.