The Pros And Cons Of The Athenians
Throughout the past and present, human beings have had a natural tendency to believe they are better than average. The people of Athens were certainly no exception. They wanted to believe that they were the best humanity had to offer. The Athenians valued freedom and for every man to fulfill his own life and desires in peace. They claimed their sense of independence was balanced out through the fact that everyone upheld fair and just laws. They prided themselves on not sacrificing their individual identities (as the Spartans did) for the sake of military discipline and superiority. They ultimately held themselves as the pinnacle of versatility, a city full of people who were jack-of-all-trades. But the reality fell quite short of the perception.
…show more content…
They also fell noticeably short of their own military ambitions and perceptions. They boasted that they were more than strong enough to hold their own and that their “diplomacy” of promising freedom for those who submitted to their rule could win over any hostile outsiders. Yet, in their attempted “negotiations” with the Melians, the Athenians essentially admitted they could not accept neutrality because they were afraid of looking weak in the eyes of their subjects. In a sense, the Athenians admitted their shortcomings right to their enemies’ faces. A stable empire with a truly strong military would not possess such a fear, at least not to the extent that its policies would revolve around that fear. Furthermore, the Melians pointed out that the Athenians’ rationale and strategy were fairly absurd: they should instead allow the Melians and others to remain neutral. By being aggressive conquerors, the Athenians will only create more bitterness, anger, and resentment among their subjects, and thus invite more hostility from their subjects and outsiders. The Athenians, letting their pride come first, rejected this argument and refused to consider the possibility of a friendly yet neutral
They also fell noticeably short of their own military ambitions and perceptions. They boasted that they were more than strong enough to hold their own and that their “diplomacy” of promising freedom for those who submitted to their rule could win over any hostile outsiders. Yet, in their attempted “negotiations” with the Melians, the Athenians essentially admitted they could not accept neutrality because they were afraid of looking weak in the eyes of their subjects. In a sense, the Athenians admitted their shortcomings right to their enemies’ faces. A stable empire with a truly strong military would not possess such a fear, at least not to the extent that its policies would revolve around that fear. Furthermore, the Melians pointed out that the Athenians’ rationale and strategy were fairly absurd: they should instead allow the Melians and others to remain neutral. By being aggressive conquerors, the Athenians will only create more bitterness, anger, and resentment among their subjects, and thus invite more hostility from their subjects and outsiders. The Athenians, letting their pride come first, rejected this argument and refused to consider the possibility of a friendly yet neutral