Lecture Notes: Geostrategic Analysis of the Peloponnesian War

Introduction

• Series Context: Originally for CaspianReport on geostrategic analysis of the Peloponnesian War.
• Focus of Final Video: Politics' influence on Athenian and Spartan strategy-making.

I. National Character

• Thucydides’ View: National character influences strategy-making.
  • Shared goals of states: Freedom from domination and desire to dominate.
  • Different behaviors: Athens aggressive; Sparta cautious.
• Athenian Optimism:
  • Driven by poverty of land, encouraging proactive behavior.
  • High strategic risks, bold but often poorly planned strategies.
  • Relied on competent leadership; failure led to catastrophes (e.g., Sicily).
• Spartan Pessimism:
  • Fertile land encouraged minimal risk acceptance.
  • Strategic patience and well-executed plans were prioritized.
  • Avoided high-risk battles, focused on minimizing losses.
• Thucydides’ Insight: Great strategies challenge national character to counterbalance weaknesses.

II. Strategymaking Institutions

• Criticism of Greek Institutions: "Over-responsibility of the executive."
  • Centralized strategy-making with harsh accountability.
• Athenian Democracy:
  • Centralized strategic planning by the Assembly.
  • Generals supervised and held criminally responsible for failures.
  • Example: Trial of the Generals after Battle of Arginusae.
• Spartan System:
  • Kings lead armies but strategy planned by ephors and elders.
  • Strong political control over military actions.

III. Athens: Strategy in a Divided Society

• Societal Division: Socioeconomic classes influenced policy divides.
  • Rich landowners vs. poor benefiting from overseas trade.
• Radical Democracy:
  • Pericles' reforms removed aristocratic checks on democracy.
  • Policy heavily favored maritime and anti-Spartan actions.
• Strategic Instability: Political conflict led to inconsistent and radical decision-making.
  • Example: Mytilenean debate, political maneuvering against Alcibiades.

IV. Sparta: The Perils of Over-Mobilization

• Traditional Spartan Society: Exclusivity and decline of citizen population.
• War Mobilization:
  • Mobilized non-citizens (e.g., helots) to sustain military efforts.
  • Resulted in new political dynamics and internal conflict.
• Spartan Leadership: Internal disputes externalized as military actions.
  • Over-mobilization led to economic strain and eventual decline.

V. Conclusion

• Greek Politics and Strategy:
  • Greek approval of moderation in strategy and politics.
  • Centralized control was essential but led to instability.
• Outcomes:
  • Athens’ radical democracy and strategic errors.
  • Sparta’s focus on military led to its downfall post-war.
• Continuation of Conflict: Hegemonic wars persisted until the rise of Macedon.