War has evolved throughout history. From ancient sword fights to modern nuclear battles, one constant is that there has always been an imperial power or a group striving to be an imperial power. The Peloponnesian War was no different. The war was fought between the Peloponnesian League and Athens. In this case however, the power striving to be imperial was Athens, who, at the time was supposedly a democracy. As a democracy there are always ways to comprise. In modern society the United States makes constantly compromises. However, when democracies try to be imperial powers things tend to go astray, as was clearly the case with Athens. Several different things can happen when a democracy tries to be an imperial power, from revolts to war none
…show more content…
This shows that democracies make compromises. One of the main outspoken people who prefer another method other than death is Diodotus, son of Eurates. There are countless compromises to be bad when it comes to how democracies treat each other. He proposes a fair argument of sorts where the matter can be sorted out peacefully without bloodshed. Instead of proposing the death of the supposed traitorous Mitylenians, Diodotus proposed a simple question “how to make the Mitylenians useful to Athens” (The Mytilenian Debate). Because when all else fails, compromise allows there to be another option other than death. In this instance the other option was resource gathering. It is proposed that the revolting state pay expenses to Athens. This will allow them to “benefit in the future by the revenue-producing powers of our dependencies” (The Mytilenian Debate). Diodotus sees what Cleon is proposing and hypothesis that the aftermath of this blood shed will cause many more states to revolt. The compromise reached here is not one of mass discretion, the Mitylenians were saved. The compromise is that instead of killing innocent men, woman, and children, a payment was made on behalf of the Mitylenians. That is a compromise and that is what a democracy is supposed to do (The Mytilenian
This shows that democracies make compromises. One of the main outspoken people who prefer another method other than death is Diodotus, son of Eurates. There are countless compromises to be bad when it comes to how democracies treat each other. He proposes a fair argument of sorts where the matter can be sorted out peacefully without bloodshed. Instead of proposing the death of the supposed traitorous Mitylenians, Diodotus proposed a simple question “how to make the Mitylenians useful to Athens” (The Mytilenian Debate). Because when all else fails, compromise allows there to be another option other than death. In this instance the other option was resource gathering. It is proposed that the revolting state pay expenses to Athens. This will allow them to “benefit in the future by the revenue-producing powers of our dependencies” (The Mytilenian Debate). Diodotus sees what Cleon is proposing and hypothesis that the aftermath of this blood shed will cause many more states to revolt. The compromise reached here is not one of mass discretion, the Mitylenians were saved. The compromise is that instead of killing innocent men, woman, and children, a payment was made on behalf of the Mitylenians. That is a compromise and that is what a democracy is supposed to do (The Mytilenian