War is an act of force used to coerce the other party to comply with the aggressor’s will; as such, it primarily entails force. To defeat the adversary, the combatant must measure their energy against the opponent’s capacity for resistance (Howard, Paret, and Brodie 1976). A pivotal moment in Greek civilization was the conflict between Sparta and the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War, which is significant in Greek history as it heralded the culmination of Greece’s Golden Age, a shift in military strategy, and the downfall of Athens and the power structure in Greece was altered. This essay focuses on the causes of the Peloponnesian War and the enemy’s assessments, including their objectives and military tactics. The article will also emphasize both states’ interests, opportunities, difficulties, sources of power, and external influences.
Assessments of the Enemy
Spartans
The main interest of Sparta was agriculture, and due to its location on the productive plains of Laconia and Messenia, Sparta had a prospering agricultural economy. The opportunity presented to the Spartans was the availability of helots, who farmed the fields and were required to contribute a specific percentage of their harvest to their austere Spartan rulers. The Spartans spent their entire lives, from seven years, in combat training because they did not need to work for a livelihood. As a by-product of their extensive and rigorous training, the Spartans became perhaps the world’s greatest soldiers; thus, this was their main source of power. However, the challenge encountered by the Spartans was the helots, who significantly exceeded the Spartans in numbers and threatened to revolt. This severely restricted Spartan grand strategy as they constantly had to keep them in check.
Athenians
Regarding Athens, the challenges of population constraints and the poor quality of the Attic soil compelled the Athenians to develop into a naval country. As a result, Athens had a strong naval even before the Persian incursions, which became its main source of power. Athens was able to take the initiative in driving Persia away from the Greek coastline towns of Asia Minor owing to her maritime supremacy. The Athenian Empire had the opportunity presented by loyal allies who strengthened them. Athenians established an even greater influence over their allies, including towns in the Aegean islands that made money payments to the Athenian treasury.
Strategic Dilemma
The Spartans farmed their lands; therefore, they had little monetary assets as individuals or as governments; they had no expertise in battling overseas or any warfare that lasted a lengthy spell due to their economy (Kagan 2004). On the other hand, the Athenians had command of the sea, and battles were paid for with reserves instead of a dramatic rise in taxation beyond the Attica. If Spartans tried to make allies of Athens revolt against her, they were to back them with navy and resources because most of them were on the islands. This posed a critical dilemma to the Spartans and defined their strategy of inland fighting.
Cause of War
The Peloponnesian War resulted from the rise of Athenian dominance and the dread it instilled in Sparta. Athens, the new power, was getting stronger quicker than Sparta, Greece’s previous regional power. Furthermore, the Spartan population’s gradual decrease did not bode favorably for the future.
Assumptions
Assuming the Spartans lacked the means to wage a war that would have jeopardized the Athenian Empire, Athens was wrong; instead, the Spartans allied with the Persians, who provided the money for their crusade, running their campaign for 27 years.
Most Spartans believed Sparta to be more powerful than Athens (Kagan 2004). Additionally, Athens believed Spartans had no other methods of assault apart from the land. Yet, they were destroyed in the maritime battles, while the Spartans believed the Athenians could not engage in land combat, which was proven incorrect in Sicily.
The Overall Policy Objectives
Both Athens’ and Sparta’s great strategies included a range of means. They used techniques such as economics, diplomacy, technology, and psychology in addition to conventional military ones.
Athens
Early Athenian political objectives were to maintain the status quo because the empire’s continuance ensured Athens’ affluence and strength. Athens developed a defensive strategy to deter the adversary from seeking to disrupt the status quo. Athens didn’t need to defeat Sparta militarily (Kagan 2004). The success of the Athenian grand plan would be demonstrated if the Spartans were forced to give up their attempt to topple the Athenian Kingdom.
Sparta
To destroy the Athenian Empire and weaken Athenian dominance, Sparta turned to preventative war. At first, the Spartans tried to intimidate the Athenians into making concessions by threatening to destroy their country militarily. After attempting to persuade people through force without effect, they turned to actual combat and tried to win by fighting a crucial land battle. Archidamus advocated annihilation as a tactic on both land and water.
Strategies Developed for Winning the War
Sparta employed an annihilation strategy; they realized the sole way to achieve lasting success was to move against Athens. However, Athens initially adopted a strategy of exhaustion under Pericles’ leadership. Pericles anticipated that Spartan opinions would swiftly alter; however, the strategy did not succeed, depleting the Athenian treasury’s past expectations (Kagan 2004). Nevertheless, the Sicilian invasion signaled Athens’ transition to a massive annihilation tactic, which she would employ up to the conflict’s conclusion.
Strategic Assessment
The grand strategic assessment made by Sparta was correct because they understood that the only way to halt Athens’ progress toward dominance was to annihilate the enemy’s military forces. The strategy ultimately enabled them to win the war. Pericles’ (Athens’) judgment error was his anticipation that Spartan opinion would shift rapidly, but it took more than two decades. After Pericles’ death, they were forced to adopt an annihilation strategy due to Sparta’s refusal to yield.
Examples of the Middle East Tensions Today
After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN imposed sanctions hoping that Saddam Hussein would withdraw (Nye 2014). This approach of exhaustion failed, and an annihilation plan took its place. Additionally, the attack on the U.S. by the Taliban led to a military operation in Afghanistan, and the viable option was direct annihilation.
Clausewitz and Sun Tzu’s Theoretical Framework
The grand strategy of Sparta is a great illustration of the Clausewitzian doctrine of war, which advocates attacking the opponent directly and destroying its military (Howard, Paret, and Brodie 1976). Spartans realized the sole way to achieve lasting success was to move against Athens. According to Sun Tzu, defeating the enemy’s force without engaging in combat is the peak of perfection (Yuen 2008). This method was the initial strategy employed by Athens. Pericles’ hoped to compel the Spartans to back down through exhaustion.
References
Howard, Michael, Peter Paret, and Bernard Brodie. 1976. “ON WAR.” Web.
Kagan, Donald. 2004. The Peloponnesian War. New York: Penguin Books.
Nye, Joseph. 2014. “The Peloponnesian War.”
Yuen, Derek M. C. 2008. “Deciphering Sun Tzu.” Comparative Strategy 27 (2): 183–200. Web.