Org Mobile Site
Hello all,
Following in the guise of such threads as "The world without Rome" and "the most succesful sucessor" I wanted to post a thread to provoke some discussion. For this I would like people to discusss the similarities between two of the Mediterranean's most studied clashes: The Peloponnesian War and the First Punic war and hear whether people think they were effectively the same conflict but in different times, locations and between different peoples or if there are only superficially comparable.
For example, in favour of the former argument it can be said that both were ostensibly conflicts between naval powers (Athens, Carthage) and land based powers (Sparta, Rome) with victory being achieved by the land based power only when that polity had developed a sufficiently strong fleet. Also in favour of this argument is that it was Sicily not the various powers homelands which decided the outcome of these conflicts and that Syracuse played a vital role in both wars.
Alternatively it could be argued that apart from the comparison of naval versus land power, the Peloponnesian War and First Punic War were nothing alike. One was a regional struggle between fellow Greeks whilst the other determined the fate of the Mediterranean and was between two powers of completely different cultural and lingustic natures.
I open the floor to my fellow members....
DISCLAIMER: I am aware that the Peloponnesian War occurs outside of the EB timeline and thus would be better suited to being placed in the Monastery rather than the EB forum however I feel this thread would attract both more attention and a greater variety of arguments in the EB forum.
Following in the guise of such threads as "The world without Rome" and "the most succesful sucessor" I wanted to post a thread to provoke some discussion. For this I would like people to discusss the similarities between two of the Mediterranean's most studied clashes: The Peloponnesian War and the First Punic war and hear whether people think they were effectively the same conflict but in different times, locations and between different peoples or if there are only superficially comparable.
For example, in favour of the former argument it can be said that both were ostensibly conflicts between naval powers (Athens, Carthage) and land based powers (Sparta, Rome) with victory being achieved by the land based power only when that polity had developed a sufficiently strong fleet. Also in favour of this argument is that it was Sicily not the various powers homelands which decided the outcome of these conflicts and that Syracuse played a vital role in both wars.
Alternatively it could be argued that apart from the comparison of naval versus land power, the Peloponnesian War and First Punic War were nothing alike. One was a regional struggle between fellow Greeks whilst the other determined the fate of the Mediterranean and was between two powers of completely different cultural and lingustic natures.
I open the floor to my fellow members....
DISCLAIMER: I am aware that the Peloponnesian War occurs outside of the EB timeline and thus would be better suited to being placed in the Monastery rather than the EB forum however I feel this thread would attract both more attention and a greater variety of arguments in the EB forum.
What's amazing to me is that Rome didn't get any persian gold :P
But imo, on one side we have a war won by Rome, while on the other we have Athens almost committing suicide...
But imo, on one side we have a war won by Rome, while on the other we have Athens almost committing suicide...
Superficially comparable only. Different times and different factors involved. The war with athens and sparta is more like the social wars rather than the punic wars. The idea of Rome and Carthage fighting was less a war of ideology (and freedom to a lesser extent) and more of friction between country borders and jurisdiction over the island.
The Punic Wars were about territory and hegemony. But who is to say that the Peloponnesian Wars were not the same in that regard?
Well there are a lot of similarities, from todays pov. But I don't think you could speak of a rollback of history. In both wars you have the ever-present struggle for Territory, hegemony and Ideology. I think both wars were focused on Hegemony while Territory and Ideoligy only played minor roles. In addition both Wars are divided into 3 segments by modern Historians. From a gamer pov(I know that's really professional working method) you could also say It's basically a (landbased) Military oriented power defeating a (seabased) Trade oriented Power. In that case you could however also compare the two with the first Hanse-Denmark war.
On the contra side you have the fun fact that unlike the Romans the Spartans were... well ... Spartans and merely defeated(thus not vanquished or conquered) the Athenians and even let them(the Athenians) tell the tale. Which, as we know was different with rome. Further we have the difference in consequence(somewhat due to the aforementioned): While Sparta mainly restored the balance of power in hellas but with the enfeebment a war naturally brings with it "invited" Phillip to conquer Hellas, Rome gained hegemony over the western Mediterranean without the prospect of a neglected "barbarian"-King rushing in and conquering both of the compeditors and managed to "breathe free" and expand it's territory.
On the contra side you have the fun fact that unlike the Romans the Spartans were... well ... Spartans and merely defeated(thus not vanquished or conquered) the Athenians and even let them(the Athenians) tell the tale. Which, as we know was different with rome. Further we have the difference in consequence(somewhat due to the aforementioned): While Sparta mainly restored the balance of power in hellas but with the enfeebment a war naturally brings with it "invited" Phillip to conquer Hellas, Rome gained hegemony over the western Mediterranean without the prospect of a neglected "barbarian"-King rushing in and conquering both of the compeditors and managed to "breathe free" and expand it's territory.
Originally Posted by Arjos:
What's amazing to me is that Rome didn't get any persian gold :P
But imo, on one side we have a war won by Rome, while on the other we have Athens almost committing suicide...
I wouldn't say Athens was almost committing suicide, they certainly held their own for the majority of the war. IMO it was the expedition to Syracuse which chronically weakened Athens.What's amazing to me is that Rome didn't get any persian gold :P
But imo, on one side we have a war won by Rome, while on the other we have Athens almost committing suicide...
Originally Posted by Brennus:
I wouldn't say Athens was almost committing suicide, they certainly held their own for the majority of the war. IMO it was the expedition to Syracuse which chronically weakened Athens.
Yes, but they embarked on that expedition willingly, not to mention that their whole policy of encamping helped the plague to spread...I wouldn't say Athens was almost committing suicide, they certainly held their own for the majority of the war. IMO it was the expedition to Syracuse which chronically weakened Athens.
In overall throughout the war they kept a passive stance and the expedition was one of the worst military plans ever conceived; I say suicide because it wasn't as much a victory by Syracuse and Sparta there, but rather a lost cause...
Originally Posted by Arjos:
Yes, but they embarked on that expedition willingly, not to mention that their whole policy of encamping helped the plague to spread...
In overall throughout the war they kept a passive stance and the expedition was one of the worst military plans ever conceived; I say suicide because it wasn't as much a victory by Syracuse and Sparta there, but rather a lost cause...
Good point! I forgot about the plague.Yes, but they embarked on that expedition willingly, not to mention that their whole policy of encamping helped the plague to spread...
In overall throughout the war they kept a passive stance and the expedition was one of the worst military plans ever conceived; I say suicide because it wasn't as much a victory by Syracuse and Sparta there, but rather a lost cause...
The conflict between Sparta and Athens was not Total War (as Carthage vs Rome was), at least not at first.
Sparta and Athens relied heavily on their allies, they were both Greek, and there was also the previous common struggle against Persia.
So striking the first blow without a really solid excuse would have caused severe implications for the attacker.
I think it would make more sense to compare the Peloponnese war to the cold war (USA vs USSR).
The common struggle against Nazi germany made confrontation during the first years after ww2 very unlikely.
There was also the ideological component (Democracy vs aristocracy and communism vs capitalism).
Wars were conducted to get allies by installing governments of a similar political system, which then depended on their patron for survival. (Athenian-planted democracies compared to US banana republics or USSR communist parties).
Wars were conducted at the edge of the world (Sicily, Vietnam, Cuba(?)) in order to turn the balance of power without direct confrontation.
Well, that's just a rough take on in, I probably made some false-assumptions,comparisons, but i think you get the jist of it.
Sparta and Athens relied heavily on their allies, they were both Greek, and there was also the previous common struggle against Persia.
So striking the first blow without a really solid excuse would have caused severe implications for the attacker.
I think it would make more sense to compare the Peloponnese war to the cold war (USA vs USSR).
The common struggle against Nazi germany made confrontation during the first years after ww2 very unlikely.
There was also the ideological component (Democracy vs aristocracy and communism vs capitalism).
Wars were conducted to get allies by installing governments of a similar political system, which then depended on their patron for survival. (Athenian-planted democracies compared to US banana republics or USSR communist parties).
Wars were conducted at the edge of the world (Sicily, Vietnam, Cuba(?)) in order to turn the balance of power without direct confrontation.
Well, that's just a rough take on in, I probably made some false-assumptions,comparisons, but i think you get the jist of it.
Sparta and Athens wasn't Total War? We didn't really have "Total War" until WWI...the concept is very, very recent. Unless you're not referring to the relatively recently coined term Total War and have a completely different concoction of the term.
Originally Posted by vartan:
Sparta and Athens wasn't Total War? We didn't really have "Total War" until WWI...the concept is very, very recent. Unless you're not referring to the relatively recently coined term Total War and have a completely different concoction of the term.
Sparta and Athens wasn't Total War? We didn't really have "Total War" until WWI...the concept is very, very recent. Unless you're not referring to the relatively recently coined term Total War and have a completely different concoction of the term.
The term was first coined by Clausewitz. That's about 100 years prior to ww1. It's also completely irrelevant.
Since Total war as a practice has always existed.
"Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population"
The conflict between Athens and Sparta did not start off that way. At first it was about getting allies, one way or the other (Persian money, Athenian planted republics, the cities of Sicily).
In a far-fetched argument, any war can be said to be a Total War as at any point in time the population can be argued to be working for the good of the state, who so happens to be in a war. I see Total War as a more entrenched, direct use of all resources and people (think of the women and everyone else "back home" who made munitions and everything else during the 20th century wars). Was this the case in antiquity? How can you show this? CA has made a great set of games, but other than a name, I don't think TW is meant to apply to antiquity (or medieval or others) insofar as its meaning today.
Originally Posted by vartan:
In a far-fetched argument, any war can be said to be a Total War as at any point in time the population can be argued to be working for the good of the state, who so happens to be in a war. I see Total War as a more entrenched, direct use of all resources and people (think of the women and everyone else "back home" who made munitions and everything else during the 20th century wars). Was this the case in antiquity? How can you show this? CA has made a great set of games, but other than a name, I don't think TW is meant to apply to antiquity (or medieval or others) insofar as its meaning today.
Fair point. In a far-fetched argument, any war can be said to be a Total War as at any point in time the population can be argued to be working for the good of the state, who so happens to be in a war. I see Total War as a more entrenched, direct use of all resources and people (think of the women and everyone else "back home" who made munitions and everything else during the 20th century wars). Was this the case in antiquity? How can you show this? CA has made a great set of games, but other than a name, I don't think TW is meant to apply to antiquity (or medieval or others) insofar as its meaning today.
I do like your analogy of the Peloponnesian War being akin to the Cold War, James Purefoy, but could it not also be argued that Rome and Carthage's starting situation was similar, the two of them having just seen off the threat of Epeiros?
Is there a Latin parody version of the America song from Team America?
on the subject of athens vs sparta the trufth is that pericles did what he could there was no way the athenians could defeat the spartans on an open batlefield so the entrechment with the slingers and 300 schytians protecting the harbour was a good plan ofc nobady would have expected the spartans to sit and wait forçing the people to be besieged for so long as to expect a plague
the reason for it was that before sparta never kept it´s armies far from their homebase due to the fear of a revolt by the helots, also the syracusan expedition was not a bad strategical move except that there where too many divisions amongst the athenian leadership wich is never a good thing (democracy doesn´t work for a warring state)
also as someone mentioned before the syrian gold helped the spartans get the upperhand by enabling them to build a fleet
athens was defeated by the cumulative power of things going wrong (pericles death the syracusan expedition and finally the plague broke them) carthage was defeated because they where afraid to fight as the barcids seem to have claimed many times a bit more of perseverance and rome couldn´t have continued going at them with so much strenght as they had been
one must remember that the 3rd roman fleet was actually volunteer work since they didn´t had the resources as a state to keep up the fight
also comparing pyrrhus and the persians is just wrong the epirotes wanted to free the greeks of magna graecia they where never intended on destroying the punii or romani so the bonds and respect beteween spartans and athenians where far stronger then beteween romans and chartaginians
the reason for it was that before sparta never kept it´s armies far from their homebase due to the fear of a revolt by the helots, also the syracusan expedition was not a bad strategical move except that there where too many divisions amongst the athenian leadership wich is never a good thing (democracy doesn´t work for a warring state)
also as someone mentioned before the syrian gold helped the spartans get the upperhand by enabling them to build a fleet
athens was defeated by the cumulative power of things going wrong (pericles death the syracusan expedition and finally the plague broke them) carthage was defeated because they where afraid to fight as the barcids seem to have claimed many times a bit more of perseverance and rome couldn´t have continued going at them with so much strenght as they had been
one must remember that the 3rd roman fleet was actually volunteer work since they didn´t had the resources as a state to keep up the fight
also comparing pyrrhus and the persians is just wrong the epirotes wanted to free the greeks of magna graecia they where never intended on destroying the punii or romani so the bonds and respect beteween spartans and athenians where far stronger then beteween romans and chartaginians
Originally Posted by moonburn:
the syracusan expedition was not a bad strategical move except that there where too many divisions amongst the athenian leadership
That just says how an inept gov made a bad decision...the syracusan expedition was not a bad strategical move except that there where too many divisions amongst the athenian leadership
Originally Posted by moonburn:
(pericles death the syracusan expedition and finally the plague broke them)
Yet they recovered from the plague and then decided to invade Sicily. Most of all after the first signs of a total failure, they sent a force as big as the invading army to reinforce; so not once, but twice following bad judgement...(pericles death the syracusan expedition and finally the plague broke them)
Originally Posted by moonburn:
the epirotes wanted to free the greeks of magna graecia
Except that Pyrrhos imposed military garrisons and asked the "freed" Greeks to supply almost all the fighting forces; effectively making them subjects of the Apeirotai :Pthe epirotes wanted to free the greeks of magna graecia
hey you fight with what you got i mean if you go there to help them and they would phail to provide you all the resources they could ? remember hannibal making allies in italy and see why it was a good decision call for phyrrus hanniball used resources to protect it´s allies instead of receiving resources wich in the end broke his hability to make strategical and tactical decisions effectivly forçing him to fight batles where the romans wanted instead of his early years where the romans had to fight where anniball wanted
also the athenians had 2 choices concede to sparta and loose their empire (it was based on allies and perceived hability to defend them so admiting defeat would seal their empire´s fate and after the destruction of the boetians it would make the spartans the de facto kings of all of hellas since there would be nobady else with enough firepower and suport to face them ) or do what they did prove to all the unaligned greeks that the spartans couldn´t defend their allies by either subduing or destroying syracuse wich i may had was the opressor of all other greeks in sicily and even magna graecia so defeating syracuse would win the sympathies of all the greeks of magna graecia and sicily since then the athenians could rival carthage and the other punii whi where encroaching on greek colonies territories something that a spartan victory could never do since they where a land based power and wich sealed somehow the western greeks hability to influence their world (sardinia corsica and most of sicily lost to the punii
also the athenians had 2 choices concede to sparta and loose their empire (it was based on allies and perceived hability to defend them so admiting defeat would seal their empire´s fate and after the destruction of the boetians it would make the spartans the de facto kings of all of hellas since there would be nobady else with enough firepower and suport to face them ) or do what they did prove to all the unaligned greeks that the spartans couldn´t defend their allies by either subduing or destroying syracuse wich i may had was the opressor of all other greeks in sicily and even magna graecia so defeating syracuse would win the sympathies of all the greeks of magna graecia and sicily since then the athenians could rival carthage and the other punii whi where encroaching on greek colonies territories something that a spartan victory could never do since they where a land based power and wich sealed somehow the western greeks hability to influence their world (sardinia corsica and most of sicily lost to the punii
almost forgot the athenians where actually winning the war since their naval power enabled them to free several of spartan helot cities such as argos i believe i remember reading that the athenians in the early stages of the war would just bypass the spartan armies thanks to their navies and free city after city from the dorian opressian so they where the achean heroes of the time by freeing greeks
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO