Classical Leadership Lessons of a Caribbeanist.

Golden Years w/ Pericles

Tuesday 9:40-11am Classroom session and 7-9pm self study
In the module for this week, we looked at the life of the political and military leader of Athens, Pericles.set during the Golden Age of Athens, 480 - 404 BC, we looked at the war between the Athenians and the Delian league against the Spartans and it's Peloponnesian allies as reported by Thucydides. Because of the numerous wars with the Persians, the people of the Aegean agreed to form an alliance to defend themselves against future Persian threat. Eventually this "league of nations" or more appropriately city-states grew formidable and economically prosperous because of the tributes imposed upon its nation states. During this period of wealth, Pericles, the leader of Athens used this collected wealth to grow the Athenian naval fleet and to undergo numerous constructions within his city, the most notable of which was the Parthenon on the Acropolis. A marvelous feet of engineering and architecture,even by today's standards.

THe Spartans and their Peloponnesian allies voted to go to war with Athens, because of the threat that Athens posed as a growing force, their wealth which was construed as misappropriated from the league, and because the threat of the Medes were no longer as pressing. They sent to Athens a list of demands which included: 
  1. That Athens lift their siege of Potidaea, 
  2. That they reverse their decree which blocked commerce with Megara
  3. That they grant autonomy to Aegina

Pericles was faced with a decision. The Athenians, as punishment, had besieged Potidaea, who was once part of the Athenian empire but had rebelled with the help of the Corinthians in 432 BCE. In the same year, the sanction was placed on Magarafor supposedly trespassing on land sacred to Demeter (the goddess of earth), sheltering slaves that had fled from Athens and for the killing of an Athenian herald who was send to reproach the city-state. Aegina is another island off the coast of Attica that had rebelled against Athens in 457 BCE before being brought under their control. Athens is said to have promised Aegina autonomy but never delived on that promise

I wonder what would have been the motives of the Spartans in sending these three demands to Athens, knowing very well that these 3 city/states would have had grievances with Athens. It almost appears to me that the move by the Spartans would have been in the hope of war, because surely they would have seen these demands as unreasonable for such a noble state as Athens to comply with. On the other hand, if Pericles and Athens would have agreed to the terms, it would have necessarily have meant that Potidaea, Megara and Aegina would have been aligned to the Spartans for relieving them from under the bond of the Athenians. A move that would have leveraged Sparta's alliances within the Aegean, making it certainly easier to conquer Athens in the future if this was indeed their ultimate goal. The move (demands) by the Spartans had very much to gain either way, by Athens accepting or denying. Yet at the same time, these demands had very little to loose, for if the Athenians declined the demands, the Spartans could choose to go to war or not, and would still in the end, place a spotlight on the Athenians as unreasonable, and would rouse the irritation Potidaea, Megaraand Aegina because a dialogue would be raised regarding their condition of subjectivity. The Athenians then, if because of the demands sent by the Spartans,  had decided to go to war for these reasons only would have lost their support, and would have seemed tyrannical, over zealous and greedy for gain by conquer, allowing the Spartans to easily gather alliances against them for war.

Thus Pericles response was both reasonable and wise when he declared that the matter would not be decided by the Spartans but by the course of law. The Athenians saved their reputation by agreeing to law instead of out-rightly refusing the demands of the Spartans, a move that seemed both just and balanced. They appeared to also subject themselves under the rule of law, as every city-state should. but although their reply was good, the demands themselves as I have stated in the paragraph before, put incredible pressure on Athens, and I think they were truely forced into war by the Spartans, who doubtless wanted it, growing weary of the Athenian power in the Aegean. 

Image result for pericles

Thursday 9:40-11am & Common session 7-8pm
At face value these demands would appear a reasonable cost of avoiding war, but I think that the situation demanded of Pericles a 2-sided argument. To show why this view of avoiding war had merit, and to oppose this with refutations of his own, highlighting the facts of why the Athenians must not be persuaded to avoid war, going in depth that attempts have been made at avoiding war by following the treaty signed with the Spartans to no avail. He does this in the following excerpt:

"I hope that you will none of you think that we shall be going to war for a trifle if we refuse to revoke the Megara decree, which appears in front of their complaints, and the revocation of which is to save us from war, or let any feeling of self-reproach linger in your minds, as if you went to war for slight cause. [5] Why, this trifle contains the whole seal and trial of your resolution. If you give way, you will instantly have to meet some greater demand, as having been frightened into obedience in the first instance; while a firm refusal will make them clearly understand that they must treat you more as equals."    

From the tone of Pericles here he does lean to the opinion of going to war. Besides he does flatly claim this as his intention. Here we see him show himself as both political and military leader of the Athenians. He also goes in depth as to why their opponents are not suited or properly prepared for war against Athens, and then expounds at length as to why the Athenians are so great. He makes several comparisons between Athens and her enemies. Stating that they are mere farmers and without money to carry on a long and arduous battle, and how the Athenians are well able to sustain themselves. He talks about the grandness of their state, its wealth and the vigor of its men. He makes light of the Spartan way of life stating that they are indeed bred to fight, but the Athenians are well cultured and comfortable with life and yet do not need this hardship of training to show that they never shrink from battle and from loss of these material things in defense of their country.

Pericles systematically shows the unfolding of the situation,
Pericles' second speech was delivered a year after the battle had commenced, in honor of the slain, an Athenian tradition. Pericles was selected by the people, in much the same way that the President of today is expected to be at the site of tragic incidents and natural disasters to take up the role as "consoler-in-chief". He had voted to go to war much like the Athenian people and as they were grieving for their lost loved ones, he had an extra personal responsibility to release them from that grief. He began with these words:  

 "But what was the road by which we reached our position, what the form of government under which our greatness grew, what the national habits out of which it sprang; these are questions which I may try to solve before I proceed to my panegyric upon these men; since I think this to be a subject upon which on the present occasion a speaker may properly dwell, and to which the whole assemblage, whether citizens or foreigners, may listen with advantage."

I think this was a peculiar way to start a eulogy, but I do think that it was effective, for the war was still waging outside of their walls and was expected to last more years, I believe it was important for Pericles to remind his audience of their history of government, to give them a sense and remembrance of what they were fighting for and why. Even while they were bereaved of their loved ones, Pericles sought to bring them into a solidarity, something that I think was necessary, both for their continued support of the war and as a means that would consolidate that anger against their enemies. he mentions their government and their constitution as well as the freedom that they enjoy and allow their neighbors to enjoy. I have a feeling that if the war had lasted less than 12 months, Pericles' speech would not have taken on this form, but would have mentioned less of the state and why its freedom was important, and its history, and more of the memory of the slain, since the need for solidarity would have been less-- considering the threat was gone-- than the need for commemorating the memory of the dead and helping the loved-ones grieve. He did however give proper honor to the dead.

Friday Private 1am-2am
The devastating plague that ravaged the Athenians immediately after the funeral oration by Pericles during the second year of the Peloponnesian war and claimed one-third of Athenians and eventually Pericles himself was indeed a most surprising turn of events. Pericles' plan that the Athenians would leave their land outside of the large walls of the city and instead would face the threat from within the wall while the powerful navy brought supplies and provisions from oversees seemed to be a full-proof plan at the time of its conception. However the plague spread rapidly among the crowded citizenry within the walls, that seemed to hedge the Spartan alliance from danger without, greatly lowered the morale of the citizens. Pericles was soon reproached for his plan, and he gather the crowd together for yet another speech. In it he reminded them that he did indeed cast his vote for war, but that they had done the same and were not forced. He insisted that the plague was incalculable and that if it were not for its appearance, he would not have come to such low esteem among them. He exhorted them not to lose heart and admonished them, " the apparent error of my policy lies in the infirmity of your resolution." "Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address yourselves instead to the safety of the commonwealth." Pericles seeks to encourage after he points out the error of the Athenians by reminding them of their powerful naval fleet that is still at their use. I agree that Pericles needed to call to their attention the error of their ways in blaming him, but considering the grievousness of the disease that devastated the Athenian, even more than their enemies, I would have approached the speech with a little more tact than Pericles did. I believe the situation called for more encouragement for personal loss than admonishment or encouragement in naval fleets. He did do well to encourage them that they would win the war though. Pericles is eventually fined (for money laundering?) and succumbs from the disease himself after losing and gaining back his position as leader of the Athenians.

The last part of the module deals with a consort of Pericles, Aspasia and her eulogy of Pericles after he dies, as told by Plato as he recounts Socrates. Aspasiain her eulogy, did make many similarities of Pericles' speech after the first year of the war. She urged that the living must learn to imitate the dead in their valor and honor. Like Pericles calling to memory the state and government of Athens, so too does Aspasia call to memory the origin of the people as springing forth from the land, the soil itself. She uses this reference to connect with her audience in solidarity. What is interesting is that while Pericles states that it is good for a woman not to be spoken of at all whether good or bad, Aspacia (or Socrates) seems to gender her speech,as she goes into great detail to mention the mother land. "She our mother was free and pure from savage monsters." She gave honor to Athens and the marathonomachoi for victory against Asia and Darius at the battle of Marathon. secondly she stated that while those at Marathon proved themselves by land, able to ward off their enemies, The Persians by sea were, "invincible in numbers, wealth, skill and strength," whether by ships or men. The sailors of Salamis defeated them in sea. To those sailors she gave the second place of honor. She also praised those at the battle of Plataea. All this she did, like Pericles, to reinforce the greatness of Athens and to refocus individuals from themselves toward renewing their patriotism.