Topic 2: The Fate of Melos

Submitted by: Pratik Gupta

Summary
The Siege of Melos occurred in 416 BC during The Peloponnesian War that was fought by
the Athenian empire against Spartas Peloponnesian League from 431-404 BC. Melos was
a small island which was at the time populated by Dorians. Though the Melians were of
the same ethnic group as the Spartans, they chose to remain neutral in the war. Athens
invaded Melos and demanded that the Melians surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or face
annihilation. Despite the threats, Melos refused to agree to the Athenian terms. As a result,
Athens slaughtered all Melian men and enslaved all of the women and children.

Early Siege
Ten years into the Peloponnesian War, the two feuding empires headed by Athens and
Sparta had signed a treaty of peace and friendship and had avoided open hostile action
against each other. However, this treaty did not dissipate the distrust that existed between
them. Despite being one of the few island colonies of Sparta, Melos had remained neutral
in the struggle between Sparta and Athens. Its neutrality, however, was unacceptable to the
Athenians who, accompanied by overwhelming military and naval power, arrived in Melos
to pressure it into submission. After strategically positioning their powerful fleets, the
Athenian generals sent envoys to Melos to negotiate the island's surrender.

The commissioners of Melos agreed to meet the envoys in private. They were afraid the
Athenians, known for their rhetorical skills, might sway the people if allowed a public
forum. The envoys came with an offer that, if the Melians submitted and became part of
the Athenian empire, their people and their possessions would not be harmed. The Melians
argued that by the law of nations they had the right to remain neutral, and no nation had
the right to attack without provocation. Having been a free state for seven hundred years,
they were not ready to give up that freedom. In the ancient Greek historian Thucydides
account of the War, he imagines the dialogue that took place between the Athenian and
Melian ambassadors before the battle.

Dialogue and Interpretations

The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be
destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the
situation, because in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer
what they must"

The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to
conquer them. They also pointed out that it was in the interest of all states to respect the
laws of nations: "you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of
being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right...." They reminded the Athenians
that a day might come when the Athenians themselves would need such protection.

The Athenians rejects the Melian proposal of being viewed as friend since they were
neutral in the war by the counter argument that if they accept Melos' neutrality and
independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone
because Athens were not strong enough to conquer it. In fact, their neutrality is more
dangerous for Athenians. No; for your hostility, cannot so much hurt us as your friendship
will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power.

The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will
become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. How can you avoid
making enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at case from it that one day or
another you will attack them?

The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way.
It is the independent island states that are more likely to take up arms against Athens. it is
rather islanders like yourselves, outside our empire, and subjects smarting under the yoke,
who would be the most likely to take a rash step and lead themselves and us into obvious
danger.

The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a
fight. The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one
has a reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an
overwhelmingly superior opponent like Athens. Not if you are well advised, the contest
not being an equal one, with honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question
of self-preservation and of not resisting those who are far stronger than you are.

The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is at least a slim chance
that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. it were surely great
baseness and cowardice in us who are still free not to try everything that can be tried, before
submitting to your yoke

The Athenians counter that this argument is purely emotional and not a rational risk-benefit
analysis. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their
foolish optimism. Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal one, with
honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not
resisting those who are far stronger than you are.

The Melians believe that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is
morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural
order of things for the strong to dominate the weak. Of the gods we believe, and of men
we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can.

The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter
that the Spartans are a practical people who never put themselves at risk when their interests
are not at stake, and rescuing Melos would be especially risky since Athens has the stronger
navy. it is only with numerous allies that they attack a neighbour; now is it likely that
while we are masters of the sea they will cross over to an island?
The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They say that there is no
shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms.
They also argue that it is sensible to submit to one's superiors, stand firm against one's
equals, and be moderate to one's inferiors. The Melians do not change their minds and
politely dismiss the envoys. Athenians point out that the disgrace which they talk about
often led people to do things which are even more disgraceful. You will surely not be
caught by that idea of disgrace, which in dangers that are disgraceful, and at the same time
too plain to be mistaken, proves so fatal to mankind; since in too many cases the very men
that have their eyes perfectly open to what they are rushing into, let the thing called
disgrace, by the mere influence of a seductive name, lead them on to a point at which they
become so enslaved by the phrase as in fact to fall willfully into hopeless disaster, and incur
disgrace more disgraceful as the companion of error, than when it comes as the result of
misfortune.

Conclusion
Following arguments were made by both the nations
Melian Arguments
Let us be neutral; you may alienate other states
if you attack us with no good reason.
The Spartans may help us either directly or by
invading Attica.
Wars often turn out unexpectedly.
The gods will help us since we're being
attacked unjustly.
It would be dishonorable for us to allow
ourselves to be enslaved to Athens.
Athenian Responses
We don't care about mainland states and our allies will
be more likely to rebel if we allow a small island to be
free.
Despite their talk the Spartans follow their interests
and they won't want to fight Athens by sea in order to
help Melos; even if they invade Attica, we won't give
up the siege.
Don't depend on hope; your position is precarious and
your city is in danger.
Even among the gods: "the strong rule where they can
and the weak suffer what they must."
This is not a fair fight where surrender would entail
dishonor. You're a small island facing a great power.
The difference between Athens and Melos is the motivation behind their actions. Athens
was motivated by the maintenance and acquisition of power while Melos was motivated
by purely moral sentiments. Ultimately, the victory of Realism over Idealism, or vice versa,
is dependent upon the military strength of the States. In this case, Athens possessed military
superiority over Melos, and utterly defeated the small island nation

The debate brought forth the character of the Athenians in line with the values they offer
in other places in the text such as Pericles funeral oration in which he sings the praises of
the Athenian democracy. In that speech Pericles acknowledges that what Athens had
gained, and what their ancestors handed down to them, had been obtained and enlarged by
war. Pericles points out that Athenians enjoy justice under the laws, but this is a justice
between equals and within their empire. This is what Athenians was pointing out that
justice can exist between equals. Any relationship between strong and weak is driven by
the interest of strong and not by morality. The last speech of Pericles that Thucydides
presents fits in with the Melian dialogue as well. In that speech, Pericles acknowledges that
Athens is an empire that was unjustly taken up but would be unsafe to lay down. Athens
must do what is best for Athens.

To conclude, the clash between Athens and Melos during the Peloponnesian War has much
to teach us about international affairs and the competing theories of Political Realism and
Political Idealism. History has demonstrated that the victory of one theory over the other
is dependent upon the military strength of the States in conflict. Thucydides account of
the Peloponnesian War provides a concise expression of this harsh fact: The strong do
what they can and the weak suffer what they must.