I am reading the late Donald Kagan's [takedown of] Thucydides. Thucydides, as an 'istorian, was a fan of Pericles. Kagan, for his part, was not. Although I shall admit that Kagan's take is honest.
Pericles and Thucydides shared some aspects in common: they were aristocrats who hoped to appeal to the popular demos. Thucydides seems to have grown embittered by the demos, as it came to evolve over the course of "the war". He accordingly starts the clock with the Megaran Decree in 431ish BC. Kagan preferred to start it at 460 BC, which ended 445 BC with a weaker Athens; and, it appears, the more bellicose Cleon aimed for a restoration to 460 BC.
And then there's where to stick the end of the conflict. Fortunes wax and wane as wars progress. We judge war leaders by their overall success or failure. Thucydides picks 404 BC when Athens failed. Cleon would, I assume, prefer we pick 420 BC when Sparta sued for peace. As Thucydides writes, Pericles started a good thing which Cleon ruined. An opponent would write that Cleon fixed Pericles' mess, which then Thucydides hisself helped ruin.
'Coz, erm, Thucydides wasn't great as a general. Demosthenes made some errors early in his command; but Athens (more so her allies) saw that Demosthenes was willing to learn from his errors, and gave to him a second chance. That chance being Cleon's presence, along with some lightly-armed missile troops. Thucydides by contrast boned up his command so hard that Athens threw him out of the whole city.
No comments:
Post a Comment