The Melian Dialogue is contained in the history of the Peloponnesian War (which took place from 431 to 404 BCE) and written by Thucydides. It is an account of the confrontation in 416 - 415 BC between the people of Milos, a colony of Sparta which was at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, and Athens which was at the top of the Mediterranean Sea. Milos was a neutral island in the Peloponnese just east of Sparta. The Athenians wanted to conquer the island to impose a greater threat over the Spartans.

Thucydides writes that Melos and Athens held a meeting where they presented their arguments for and against the invasion. This meeting was held between the governing body of Milos, and several envoys of Athens. The fact that the people of Melos were excluded from the meeting, lead the Athenians to think that the governing body of Melos was afraid that the people of Melos might support the Athenian position.

The Athenians wanted to prove their strength, but got their power by destroying the weakest and most defenseless nations in the Peloponnese. These nations or "nation states" were now positioned between Athens and Sparta. This provided protection for Athens and also provided Athens with a base to attack Sparta should the need arise. Milos was more defenseless than the other Peloponnesian islands due to its location. This particular island would allow the Athenians direct access to Sparta, which is why Sparta was so keen to add Milos to their empire.

The Athenians surrounded the island with 30 ships with 1500 soldiers on board. Athens then offered an ultimatum to Melos. Surrender and pay tribute to Athens or be destroyed. If Athens were to invade Milos, it would execute all the men of the island, take all the assets owned by the people of the island, and take the women and children.

Melos tried to negotiate their way out of the situation. They use the following arguments, each of which was countered by the Athenians

1. The Melian's argue that they are neutral country and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer Melos. The Athenians counter by saying that if they accept Milos's neutrality and independence, they would look weak. Other nations will think Athens spared Milos because they are not strong enough to conquer it.

2. The Melians then argue that an invasion would alarm the other neutral Greek states who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. Rather, it is the more volatile island states and the subjects they have already conquered that are more likely to take up arms against Athens.

3. The Melian's argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter this argument by saying that the debate is not about honor, but about self-preservation.

4. The Melians argue that even though the Athenians are much stronger, there is still a chance the Melians could win. The Athenians counter that argument by saying that "only the strong have the right to indulge and hope. The strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must."

5. The Melians argue that the gods will protect them because they are in the right. The Athenians counter that argument by saying that" gods and men alike respect strength over moral arguments", and "Of gods we believe: of men we know".

6. Melos was a colony of Sparta. The Melians argue that the Spartans will come to their defense. The Athenians counter that argument by saying that the Spartans have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by coming to Milos's defense. Mere kinship will not motivate the Spartans.

7. The Melians then say it would be shameful not to fight. The Athenians then conclude the argument by saying there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy.

The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismissed the Athenian envoys (i.e. the people who were negotiating on Athen's behalf.) The Athenians then attacked Milos, killed all the men, took all the assets of the people, and took all women and children. (end)

Questions

1. From a military point of view, Athens was much stronger than Melos. Nevertheless Athens chose to negotiate with Melos rather than immediately conquer it. Why do you think Athens did this? From the point of view of a negotiator, what lesson is to be learned from this?

2. During the negotiations, Athens had Melos surrounded by ships and troops. In the minds of the Athenian negotiators, what negotiating advantage do you think this brought to them?

3The decision to fight rather than surrender on the part of Melos was made by a small number of elders of Melos, rather than by a democratic vote of the populace. Do you think the decision to fight or surrender would have been different if it had been made by a democratic vote? Why or why not?