Today's Passage
This passage occurs at a crucial moment in 432 BCE, just before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War.
Crawley Translation (1910)
“Take time then in forming your resolution, as the matter is of great importance; and do not be persuaded by the opinions and complaints of others to bring trouble on yourselves, but consider the vast influence of accident in war, before you are engaged in it. As it continues, it generally becomes an affair of chances, chances from which neither of us is exempt, and whose event we must risk in the dark. It is a common mistake in going to war to begin at the wrong end, to act first, and wait for disaster to discuss the matter. But we are not yet by any means so misguided, nor, so far as we can see, are you; accordingly, while it is still open to us both to choose aright, we bid you not to dissolve the treaty, or to break your oaths, but to have our differences settled by arbitration according to our agreement. Or else we take the gods who heard the oaths to witness, and if you begin hostilities, whatever line of action you choose, we will try not to be behindhand in repelling you.”
Such were the words of the Athenians. After the Lacedaemonians had heard the complaints of the allies against the Athenians, and the observations of the latter, they made all withdraw, and consulted by themselves on the question before them. The opinions of the majority all led to the same conclusion; the Athenians were open aggressors, and war must be declared at once. But Archidamus, the Lacedaemonian king, came forward, who had the reputation of being at once a wise and a moderate man, and made the following speech:
Modern Translation
Take your time in reaching this decision, for the matter is of utmost gravity. Do not let yourselves be swayed by others' arguments and grievances into bringing calamity upon yourselves. Consider carefully how much in war depends on pure chance before you commit to it. As war drags on, it inevitably becomes a game of random fortune—fortune to which both sides are equally vulnerable, and whose outcomes we must gamble on blindly. People commonly make the error of starting wars backwards: they act first and only debate the wisdom of their actions after suffering defeats. But we have not yet fallen into such folly, nor, as far as we can tell, have you. Therefore, while both of us still have the opportunity to make the right choice, we urge you not to break the treaty or violate your sacred oaths. Instead, let us submit our disputes to arbitration as our agreement stipulates. If you refuse and choose to initiate hostilities, we call upon the gods who witnessed our oaths to bear witness that, whatever course of action you pursue, we will match you measure for measure in our defense.
Thus spoke the Athenians. After the Spartans had listened to both their allies' accusations against Athens and the Athenian response, they dismissed everyone and deliberated privately about the matter at hand. The majority opinion converged on a single conclusion: the Athenians were clearly the aggressors, and war should be declared immediately. However, Archidamus, the Spartan king—a man renowned for his wisdom and moderation—stepped forward and delivered the following address:
Historical Context
This passage occurs at a crucial moment in 432 BCE, just before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. The Spartans have convened a congress where their allies, particularly Corinth, have presented grievances against Athens. The Athenians, who happened to be present on other business, have just delivered this defense speech, emphasizing the role of chance in war and proposing arbitration. After hearing both sides, the Spartans are now deliberating whether to declare war. The passage introduces King Archidamus, who will argue for caution against the prevailing war sentiment. This debate represents the final diplomatic efforts before the catastrophic 27-year war that would reshape the Greek world.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Arbitration in Greek Diplomacy
The Athenian appeal to arbitration reflects established Greek diplomatic practice. Treaties often included arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be resolved by neutral third parties. The Thirty Years' Peace of 446/5 BCE between Athens and Sparta specifically included such provisions, making the Athenian argument legally sound.
Learn more →The Role of Chance (Tyche) in War
The Athenian emphasis on chance reflects sophisticated Greek thinking about warfare. Thucydides consistently shows how random events can determine outcomes, challenging the assumption that the stronger side always wins. This theme recurs throughout his work, particularly in the Sicilian Expedition.
Learn more →Spartan Decision-Making
The Spartan assembly (apella) made decisions by acclamation rather than counting votes. The ephors and gerousia (council of elders) could influence proceedings. Archidamus, as king, held significant moral authority though not absolute power in such deliberations.
Learn more →Religious Oaths in International Relations
The repeated references to oaths and divine witnesses reflect the sacred nature of Greek treaties. Breaking sworn agreements was believed to invite divine punishment. This religious dimension added moral weight to legal arguments about treaty violations.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Plutarch: Life of Pericles (29-31)
Plutarch describes the same Spartan congress from a more biographical perspective, emphasizing Pericles' role in shaping Athenian policy and the personal animosities driving the conflict.
Read passage →Diodorus Siculus: Library of History (12.39-40)
Diodorus provides a condensed account of these deliberations, offering some details about the allies' specific complaints not found in Thucydides.
Read passage →Xenophon: Hellenica (2.2.19-20)
Though describing later events, Xenophon shows similar Spartan deliberations about war and peace with Athens, demonstrating continuity in Spartan decision-making processes and the recurring tension between aggressive and cautious factions.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How does the Athenian argument about chance in war challenge traditional Greek notions of military virtue and divine favor? Is their position philosophically sophisticated or merely self-serving?
- Why might Thucydides emphasize that Archidamus was considered 'wise and moderate' before presenting his speech? What does this suggest about the decision-making process that led to war?
- The Athenians claim legal right through the arbitration clause, yet the Spartans vote for war. What does this reveal about the relationship between law and power in international relations?
- How does the structure of Spartan decision-making—hearing allies, then Athens, then private deliberation—compare to modern diplomatic or democratic processes?