Nicias and the Importance of Persuasive Leadership
How did Nicias fail to convince the Athenian assembly that the Sicilian Expedition was a strategic error? His arguments, while valid and logical, are not sufficient to win over the assembly to undo their vote of war. Not only does Thucydides have incomplete information about these events, but Thucydides’ prior knowledge of Nicias’s failure colors the way he reconstructs Nicias’s ineffective arguments against war. Nicias attempts to dissuade the assembly from a war it has already approved by discussing the lack of a compelling reason to aid the Egesteans, the challenge of conquering and ruling Sicily, and the fragile truce with Sparta. Because Nicias’s appeals are ultimately unsuccessful, Thucydides uses this failure as an example of ineffective leadership in the Athenian state.
Thucydides’ credibility as an …show more content…
Thucydides makes no reference to the Treaty of Egesta in the debates about the Sicilian Expedition. New evidence (Chambers, 25-31) recalibrates the date of the Treaty of Egesta to 418 BCE, shortly before the Sicilian Expedition of 415 BCE. Such a treaty would have strongly compelled the Athenians to aid the Egesteans when the 416 BCE Egestean embassy appealled for military assistance against Selinus. Thucydides does mention the obscure alliance between the Phoenicians and the Sicels (Thucydides, 6.2.32), and the important alliance between Selinus and Syracuse (Thucydides, 6.6.8-9), which suggests he did not know of Athen’s alliance with Egesta. If Thucydides did not know of perhaps the most compelling reason
How did Nicias fail to convince the Athenian assembly that the Sicilian Expedition was a strategic error? His arguments, while valid and logical, are not sufficient to win over the assembly to undo their vote of war. Not only does Thucydides have incomplete information about these events, but Thucydides’ prior knowledge of Nicias’s failure colors the way he reconstructs Nicias’s ineffective arguments against war. Nicias attempts to dissuade the assembly from a war it has already approved by discussing the lack of a compelling reason to aid the Egesteans, the challenge of conquering and ruling Sicily, and the fragile truce with Sparta. Because Nicias’s appeals are ultimately unsuccessful, Thucydides uses this failure as an example of ineffective leadership in the Athenian state.
Thucydides’ credibility as an …show more content…
Thucydides makes no reference to the Treaty of Egesta in the debates about the Sicilian Expedition. New evidence (Chambers, 25-31) recalibrates the date of the Treaty of Egesta to 418 BCE, shortly before the Sicilian Expedition of 415 BCE. Such a treaty would have strongly compelled the Athenians to aid the Egesteans when the 416 BCE Egestean embassy appealled for military assistance against Selinus. Thucydides does mention the obscure alliance between the Phoenicians and the Sicels (Thucydides, 6.2.32), and the important alliance between Selinus and Syracuse (Thucydides, 6.6.8-9), which suggests he did not know of Athen’s alliance with Egesta. If Thucydides did not know of perhaps the most compelling reason