This week we continued the Peloponnesian War by looking at the Peace of Nicias, and why it failed.
Like most things, not all peace treaties are created equal. Throughout history some treaties have worked and many others have not. Can we detect any patterns or similarities to their success or failure?
“Punic Peaces” (which refers to Rome’s complete obliteration of Carthage during the 3rd Punic War) always work because the enemy ceases to exist. A lesser version of a Punic Peace might be what England did to Napoleon after Waterloo. France technically could have continued to resist, as the bulk of their army remained intact, but the English put Napoleon in exile on St. Helena, which might as well have been the moon. His continued resistance was impossible.
But in thinking of peace treaties, most of us would not want conflict to get to that point. We prefer to avoid to save lives and avoid cataclysmic destruction if we can. But it is these kinds of treaties, where both sides retain much of their original strength, that are so hard to devise and so hard to have succeed.
Why might this be? The best treaties reflect reality as it really is, and not merely the whims or circumstances of the moment. The best treaties factor in the reasons for the war starting, as well as how both sides fought. They would also account for the current political dynamics in each country, as well as their psychological and emotional state. Treaties are problematic because reality will not be caught so easily.
After 10 years of fighting both Athens and Sparta signed onto the “Peace of Nicias,” designed to last 50 years. Alas, it never really took firm root in either society and lasted about six. Even a cursory glance will tell us why the treaty failed.
- If we follow the mantra of considering the beginning before deciding on an end, we should ask ourselves why the war started in the first place, and what each side fought for. Indeed, the war lacked a defining physical cause. One side did not invade the other. Instead, the war seemed to be over honor and perception.
- But the treaty shoved a couple of significant “dishonors” into the face of both sides. Athens had abandoned Platea earlier in the war, a stain on their honor. But now they could not get it back — the stain would be permanent.
- Sparta had “liberated” Amphibolus from Athenian clutches, redeeming their embarrassing “no-show” in Mytilene. Now, the treaty required them to give Amphibolus back to Athens.
- Corinth, one of Sparta’s major allies, did not sign onto the treaty. Naturally they would do much to try and undermine it.
At the core, the Peace of Nicias failed because it reflected temporary moods. Neither side had expended even half of its strength in the fight so far. Both sides smarted under the recent death of prominent generals (Cleon for Athens, Brasidas for Sparta). Athenian failure at Delium helped the political rise to the “dove” Nicias, but democratic politics sways to and fro. Facing dishonor, with more bullets left in the gun, both Athens and Sparta would likely begin fighting again.
We also began our look at the famous/infamous Alcibiades of Athens.
Only a democracy could produce someone like him. He was. . .
- Heedless of tradition
- A man of “action”
In addition, no one could accuse him of being a dandy . He fought in a few infantry engagements with some distinction.
I say that Alcibiades could exist only in a democracy because most other societies, especially aristocratic ones, value
- The Elderly
Political conservatives in the U.S. often talk about “returning to our Constitutional roots,” but have not had much success recently in presidential or senatorial elections. o arguments like, “That’s the way the founders did it,” have any success? I would tend to think not, and the reason might not be the willful ignorance or decadence of the electorate, but the pervading forward looking spirit of democratic cultures.