Dr. Maas is the William Gaines Twyman Professor of History at Rice University. His research interests are in ancient Greece and Rome, late antiquity and early Byzantium.
Spencer: A political scientist, Graham Allison, used the phrase the “Thucydides Trap” to refer to the idea that war is always the result when one power threatens the power of another. How does Thucydides express his ideas regarding the inevitability of conflict between two strong powers in the History of the Peloponnesian War? Also, why is Thucydides so important to understand within the field of international relations in addition to history?
Dr. Maas: I do not entirely agree with Allison’s reading of Thucydides. He writes from the perspective of contemporary political science, and the “Trap” that he mentions is his own formulation, not Thucydides’. When Thucydides wrote in the fifth century BC, some thinkers had already begun to look for causal principles for natural phenomena. In that same spirit, he seeks to find the causes of the great war between Athens and Sparta, the Peloponnesian War, which he thought was the greatest war ever fought. Thucydides calls his work historia, which we translate as history. That is a bit of an anachronism, however, for the field of history (or political science) did not yet exist. For him, historia means “investigations.” Thucydides is a man asking us to think deeply and honestly about the causes of human action, considering all available evidence. His work is an intellectual breakthrough. For him, the ultimate cause of the war was fear, which he sees as the basis of human activity. In the case of the Peloponnesian War, he concludes that the Spartans started the war because they feared the growth of Athenian power. He says that this is the “least talked about reason” for the war. He wants his readers to consider the nature of fear and its role in human behavior. His analysis is subtle, and he uses different words to indicate different aspects of fear. He thinks that the Athenians, the Spartans, or any political community, can have a lot to lose – and that they knew it, too. He is also aware of what happens when a society ceases to flourish and starts to fall apart under the influence of fear. He shows us that in these circumstances social norms are broken, citizens start killing each other, and lies become truth – a very Orwellian perspective. For example, he discusses the revolution in Corcyra and how the social fabric was shredded in civil conflict. I think it is concern about the possibility of social catastrophe that led him to investigate why the war broke out. He concluded that the Spartans were fearful of the growing power of the Athenians, and the Athenians were afraid of losing their primacy. Thucydides is talking not so much about a balance of power, but a shift in the metrics of power and who is perceived to be in a paramount position.
Spencer: When the political scientist Graham Allison uses the term “Thucydides Trap” to understand the inevitability of the current tension between two major powers like China and the United States, would you argue that this is an anachronistic use of Thucydides by applying the phenomena that Thucydides observed to modern-day international politics?
Dr. Maas: Thucydides is certainly thought provoking, and he intends to be. He thinks there are lessons to be learned from close, honest analysis of evidence, and that his investigations might have lasting value, as they do. We are still studying him. However, I do not think of his work as a cookbook with hard and fast recipes. We should be very cautious about invoking inevitability. Thucydides may tell us why Sparta and Athens went to war and what the consequences were for Athenian society and empire, but he also shows us how with wise and steady leadership, such as the Athenians enjoyed under the ascendancy of Pericles, a community can flourish and not let fear control social action. So yes, I do think Allison’s use of Thucydides is a bit anachronistic and that it betrays certain contemporary perspectives. By all means, though, we should keep engaging Thucydides from all of our analytical positions. He would want us to see how his ideas are relevant to today’s circumstances.
Spencer: In the Mytilenian debate, we see a debate square off between Cleon and Diodotus after enough Athenians felt their original decision to kill the Mytilenians (after the Mytilenians had revolted against the Athenians) was overly cruel. In the debate, Cleon advocates for the Mytilenian citizens to be given the death penalty. On the other hand, Diodotus advocates for them to be spared. Diodotus seems to focus on the benefits of political expediency for the Athenians when he argues that the citizens should not be executed despite the fact that his position is very advantageous for the Mytilenians since it would spare them. What does Thucydides’ account of this debate reveal about human nature and politics?
Dr. Maas: Neither of them is directly concerned with notions of justice or morality in a way that we might expect today. What they are talking about is what would be the best course of action for Athens. The idea of fear lies at the heart of their debate. They are concerned about what Athens has to lose, and which response to the revolt will serve Athenian purposes best. Cleon argues that Athens will have less to fear if they massacre the Mytilenians. Diodatus asks what is to be gained by taking revenge. The question of restoration of Athenian honor, which Athenians felt was threatened by the revolt and which animates the debate, is a reaction to fear. The decision they reach about the rebels is based on what will create less fear. Thucydides’ presentation of the debate is crystal clear, devoid of sentiment, and extremely unnerving.
Spencer: Thucydides writes what many would consider something very similar to a disclaimer in his introduction regarding the nature of the speeches he records. Could you please talk about what this disclaimer is and why Thucydides’ ability to write these speeches should be respected, instead of critiqued by modern-day standards, within the field of historiography?
Dr. Maas: I think your use of the word “disclaimer” misrepresents Thucydides’ efforts. Thucydides’ discussion of his historical method is great for a number of reasons, and we should praise him for his efforts to be factual and up-front about his data. First of all, remember that in the fifth century BC, recording the speeches would have been impossible. Even if we did have recordings, people interpret speeches differently, a fact that Thucydides knew well. That is why he spoke to as many people as possible who had actually heard the speeches. Thucydides is trying to get to the heart of what was really said, and he is trying to crystallize the truth. He gets evidence from all sides and he tells us what the people meant to say, trying to be as objective and honest as possible. He has chosen a few speeches, distilled them to their essence, and then used them to develop his ideas as he unfolds his greater narrative of the war. For example, he uses the debate of Cleon and Diodotus in order to juxtapose their positions. They stand for different things and different ideas. Considering them leads us to think about the specific circumstances as well as more general issues, just as we are today. In a sense, he is guiding our thoughts. In the modern day, many people believe that there is such a thing as pure objectivity, but I think that is a fantasy. Any investigation, whether of history or science, involves the perspectives of the analyst. We must recognize that fact and take it into account, not dismiss it. To get back to Thucydides, he is very clear in presenting what a speaker had to say, though not necessarily verbatim. At the second level, he is a historian building an argument, telling a story, and giving an analysis – that is why the speeches are so important. They are milestones in his account, and they are not idly chosen. They represent greater themes that he is trying to develop. That is why he tells us about what Pericles has to say in his famous Funeral Oration near the beginning of his book. The oration gives us a picture of what human flourishing might mean in a successful community. With this speech, Thucydides also implies what the Spartans are starting to fear. As we go through the narrative, we see how the speeches help him make his larger point, but that certainly does not invalidate their value. We should respect Thucydides’ objectivity and his relentless effort to record the facts correctly. We also have to respect the fact that he is working with the data he has so painstakingly assembled. He is not simply stating that the facts speak for themselves, and he points the facts in the direction that he thinks can best illuminate his analysis. He seeks objectivity and also seeks honesty. When we follow Thucydides and attempt historical investigation, we must be honest above all other things. Thucydides is one of the most relentlessly self-aware and honest political analysts I have ever read.