History of the Peloponnesian War

I wish some of our politicians were better read. Many of the mistakes and strategy errors described by Thucydides are repeated by our representatives again and again, with the expectation of different results...?

I have no quibble with the narrator or the product. He and it are well-spoken and the reader does his best but somehow I wanted Thucydides to be more enjoyable and gripping. I bogged down on the detailed histories and speeches and intrigues and.... I felt like I needed maps and 3X5 cards and constant visual aids and coffee and dex and whatever, maybe a stiff drink? (n.b. I love Homer and it is possible modern history may be too much for me. :-)

Ok, this isn't something I could call light reading but It was really useful. I suspect my younger students will never like it but I love the fact I can have all my historical documents in my kindle and ready to use in class.

Originally written around 400 B.C., the book represents such incredible talent in authorship and translation that it dwarfs the efforts of most. To collect so much information without electronic transmission of news and write it out by hand is amazing.

I wanted to review the size and scope of the work an may get a larger copy since the type is extremely small.

I choose five stars because of the author, who was active in this conflict, and because of his immense knowledge of the geographical locations. Although it ended before the actual war did which resulted in Athens defeat, it was a great account of the times and relationships between Greeks, Medes, barbarians and the Syracusians and other tribes of Sicily and the southern half of the Italian peninsula.

The first and last words on the perennial conflict between democracy and oligarchy. The fact that oligarchy wins is not surprising. What is surprising is that the book contains the best description of both the Viet Nam and the Iraq Wars, both of them initiated by democrats proposing to make the world safe for democracy.

I started off despising my instructor for having us read this book. .. over the course of the book though my point of view changed completely. Even though this book is set 2400-ish years ago its lessons are still powerful today. I can totally see myself reading this one many times throughout my life. ... loved the pericles speeches and book 7 rocks!

The History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides, tells the story of the war of that name that took place in Ancient Greece. Thucydides recounts his history of the war in eight books
The book begins with Sparta deciding that peace has been broken and that they need to go to war. After the vote for war, there also is a plague and they bury some of the lost. Lesbos revolts and war rages among times of peace and civil war. Thucydides recounts the events that take place in Sicily and an eventual "truce" and the consequences of the conflict. He goes over many battles in different cities telling of battles treaties, movements and so on. He tells the events of Amphipolis and the fighting there, and the talks with the people of Melos. Then come the events of Sicily again, and false hope, leading to the loss of Syracuse and chances of victory. With Syracuse lost defeat sets in, and all the way to Athens there is fear. With the Athenian Army decimated and hope lost, only 400 men remain to fight a final battle, and thus the history ends.
Thyucidides tells chronologically the events of the war, and in great detail. At over 600 pages, this is a very thorough and complete translation of the book. A recommended read for anyone, and a very informative and accuarate book and a wondrful translation by Steven Lattimore. A must read

This book offers something rare: an incredibly objective account of a protracted, bitter conflict. The detailed accounts given range from the ridiculous and petty to the grand and tragic, and serve to enhance the reader's transportation to ancient Greece in the twilight of her glory.

Thucydides, may be considered the World's 1st modern historian. He writes about who and what made The Peloponnesian War a true tragic end to the power of Athens and explains the roles of the main characters.

Come on.

There were two American tourists overheard by a guard at the Louvre to remark, "Well, I didn't think this museum was all that great." "Madam," sniffed the guard,"you do not judge the Louvre; the Louvre judges you."

I am not sufficiently bumptious to render judgement on Thucydides.

This review is for the Penguin paperback edition, published in 1954, and translated by Rex Warner. This edition is still in print, and can be found here, with the only difference being a slightly newer introduction by M. I. Finley (1970). Several newer translations have been published since Mr. Warner's--a Norton Critical Edition (Walter Blanco, 1998), Hackett Classics (Steven Lattimore, 1998), Oxford World's Classics (P.J. Rhodes, 2009), and a Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought edition (Jeremy Mynott, 2013). Many of the public domain editions of this book (and print-on-demand editions) use the Richard Crawley translation of 1874.

The fact that Penguin has not found it necessary to contract a new translation almost 60 years after Rex Warner's effort is interesting--I suppose it might suggest two ideas; one, that Mr. Warner's translation is superlative, and needs no improvement, or, two, that the translation is at least sufficient, especially after considering the cost of a new one. Since I have zero knowledge of Greek, the question of translators and their styles is important to me, and to some extent I have to rely on the judgment of the publishing house--or, perhaps it's better to say that I have to rely on my impression of the house's reputation. Since I can't believe that Penguin, Oxford, Norton or Cambridge would deliberately put out a substandard text, I suspect that any of these translations would be suitable, and would really come down to the way the reader responded to the individual translator's style; I ended up appreciating Rex Warner's 1954 effort a great deal--to the extent that, while comparing it to snippets of the others, I still preferred Mr. Warner's.

Unfortunately, the Penguin editions are lacking in supplementary material and good maps--this 1954 edition has four maps placed on the last pages (and it appears that the newer editions follow the same pattern), which I thought failed to match the intricacy of the text. It seems to me, based on the available 'look inside' features provided by the store, that all of the other choices have pro and cons associated with them, whether that be trade-offs between content, price and translation. The Cambridge edition, while the most expensive, has 30 maps placed at appropriate places within the text, and other material that seems as though it would be helpful to the student. The Oxford has a fifty page introduction and 9 maps, and is one of the least expensive options. And, while the Norton has no look inside feature, previous experience with these editions tells me that they generally have an interesting selection of supplemental essays and critical interpretations, which, as a non-student, I've always enjoyed for giving me a broader perspective.

I don't think any of these would be a bad choice for the initial experience with this work, and any particular version might be all the Thucydides one feels he or she needs. But with the penguin edition, even though I liked the translation, I also felt as though I was missing a lot of context, especially when it came to geography and familiarity with the different peoples. It wasn't until after I'd already begun reading that I learned of The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War by Robert Strassler, which uses the older, Richard Crawley translation, but appears to be jam-packed with supplemental material. For myself, this looks like a good solution and companion to what I've already read, and if, someday, I were to run across the Norton Critical edition, I would consider picking that up as well, simply for the critical essays.

As to Thucydides himself, all I can say is that I enjoyed the work immensely. With many of these ancient works, I've been intimidated, thinking that I will not be able to appreciate them in all their complexity. Part of this problem is due to the older translations, which could sometimes be so stilted that I just couldn't penetrate their meaning. I've run into several like this, and it's been a barrier to enjoying them for what they are worth. I did not have that problem with Warner's Thucydides--the style is formal, but not in a heavy-handed way, and relatively clear. Thucydides himself, as I understand it, was not the plainest writer--his own style is complex and layered, and it seems as though all the translations I was able to look at reflect this.

For those readers who are only interested in the events of the war itself, Donald Kagan's The Peloponnesian War might be a better choice. But Thucydides is more than simply an account of the war. In it's own way, his history is also an inquiry into values, and an examination of human nature. It is certainly not history as we generally think of it today, yet regardless of its deficiencies, it also seems greater than a just a narrative. It is mandatory for anyone interested in historiography.

There are four main translations of Thucydides available for the English reader:

Thomas Hobbes' 1628 version. Although made over 300 years ago this translation is still considered a classic by many in the English-speaking world. Hobbes is best known for writing "Leviathan" that classic work on Politics that all College students in the Western world for the past 200 years had to read. Do you like Shakespeare? If so give this edition a try. Hobbes vigorous and lively Jacobean English prose will enchant those more literary minded souls - however, Hobbes version has been noted for some inaccuracies due to his lack of proper understanding of the original Greek language text.

William Smith's 1754 translation. Most know of Crawley and Hobbes works but Smith's excellent 18th century version has been almost forgotten. I think you can only get it in a used edition on abebooks dot com. Smith's prose is as majestic as you you expect for a 18th century translation. While a bit hard to read for most modern readers Smith's prose is worth the effort if you stick with him. Some things were not meant to be "dumbed down". I compare reading Smith's Thucydides to plowing through Whiston's translation of Josephus.

The mid-Victorian (1874) Richard Crawley version is the one that most English speaking people were familiar with until the Penguin Books edition came out. This is a much easier version to understand than the Hobbes and Smith translations. While still retaining a very formal prose style it captures the Greek much more accurately than any previous version. This translation has the best balance between literary style and accuracy to the original text. This is the edition that many of our Grandparents and Great Grandparents read in school or College. Modern Library puts out a very affordable edition.

Rex Warner's Penguin edition. This is the version offered here. Warner is excellent for those who want to avoid the archaic and more challenging prose of Hobbes, Smith, or Crawley. He is very clear and lucid in his rendition of the text. This edition is more suitable for modern readers who want an easy to read prose that maintains accuracy. I think that Warner's translation is the only serious rival to Richard Crawley's version. For those of you who are first embarking on your exploration of Thucydides I would recommend this edition.

Thucydides writes in the Peloponnesian War that he wants his work to endure for all ages. In his opinion, the war was not only the greatest war which had ever been fought but was certain to be emblematic of future wars between men.

The book is timeless, of course, from a variety of perspectives. It is arguably the first work of modern history in that Thucydides tries to separate the veridical from the legendary. It is the major account for a civil war that would influence all of subsequent Western history. And it contains some of the most well-known oratory in all of classical civilization.

I would argue, however, that this work is also particularly resonant to our era. While for most people of the twentieth century history seemed to teach the lesson that democracies were victorious over totalitarian regimes this was directly counter to the experience and themes of Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War is, among other things, a rational account of why democratic Athens lost to totalitarian Sparta.

In short, Thucydides seems to think that Athenian democracy was successful when its leaders actually led the people and refused to cater to their whims.

This Athenian demos seems to have been, for all the glories of Athenian civilization, a rather undistinguished lot. Socrates could not find one of them who could explain the nature of virtue and they replied by finding Socrates guilty of corrupting the young and executed him. Thucydides also shows example after example of power hungry or glory seeking pseudo-leaders such as Alcibiades or Cleon using the desires of the demos to achieve their own ends.

Not to point a finger at any current leader but it would be obtuse to not perceive the parallels with the current rise of nationalism around the world. How many leaders of democratic states actually see themselves as needing to control some of the noxious desires of their electorate and how many simply pander to the “people’s” opinion?

It would not be the worst thing if American colleges selected a book for incoming students like Thucydides if it could make future leaders more cognizant of some of the perils of democracy and thus more likely to avoid them. Thucydides may not be the answer to modern nationalism but he certainly asks a still resonating question about the ultimate staying power of the project of democracy.

The story of the war between Sparta and Athens is well-told, careful with facts and conclusions, Thucydides offering neither the fun romantic details that Herodotus throws in, or so many self-justifying, "man behind the curtain" justifications of his historical method, as Polybius adds to his account of later battles. Thucydides cares about politics and war, and nothing more, it seems. But this is the period when much of Athen's greatest dramatic plays are being produced and shown, and the authoritative story of the war sets those dramas in an interesting light.

The Greeks were truly amazing. How did they manage to keep beating up on an enormous Persian Empire, vastly larger than themselves (the Persians hesitantly poke their smarting noses into this conflict towards the end, just a bit), while constantly fighting one another? Thucydides gives realistic, and small, figures for the armies sailing from town to town and laying waste. (Unlike, say, the huge numbers in Arrian's account of Alexander the Great's invasion of Persia.) He also describes the ins and outs of politics realistically, describing, as he promises, foibles and successes of all sides in this very complex war. Apparently the strength of the Greeks was precisely in its unity-within-disunity, "E Pluribus Unum." The Olympics represent that competitive nature, so different from the vast top-down empires that Greece competed with. In that sense, all this "squabbling" explains Greek success, and that also of other great civilizations that found unity within diversity: the twelve states of ancient Israel, the Warring States of China, Medieval Europe, and then the United States of America.

Another characteristic of Thucydides' account is his disinterest in religion. Also, it seems, in women, who are barely mentioned in this book. Herodotus is more fun, but Thucydides is undoubtedly the more reliable historian. And there are some fascinating episodes in this book, though Thucydides warns that he is probably making up most of the speeches that play so important a role in his account.

As other readers have pointed out, Warner gives a highly readable translation. Could use more notes, but there are at least several rough maps.

Well read by narrator David McCallion, hence the 5 stars. However: I am already interested in the book, and have read most of it before. Not sure Thucydides lends itself to easy listening if you aren't already interested.

I also object to the lack of transparency regarding the text. It took some detective work to try to determine which translation was being used. It's the 19th century (i.e., no copyright) text work of Richard Crawley. It is not the MI Finley translation that the store has for the paperback edition. Crawley's translation is freely available online. ARN publications should have given the translator credit, even if they didn't own him or anyone any royalties, and the store's catalogue shouldn't imply the audio version and the kindle version are the MI Finley translation.

Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War is an absolute must for anyone who has read or wishes to read classical history. Herodotus, who wrote of the earlier Persian war, may be recognised as the father of history, but it is Thucydides' book that became the template for classical history as a genre, a genre that would endure into the Byzantine empire and thus for a good millennium. The prose is elegant, the account well paced, the historian self-effacing. His history has both narrative depth and a bird's eye overarching coherence. Indeed, though Thucydides would have many imitators, there is an argument that he never had an equal.

The History of the Peloponnesian War tells the history of the long war between Athens and Sparta, and their respective allies, that took place between 431 and 404 BC. This is a blow-by-blow military history interspersed with diplomacy, and transcripts of the treaties themselves, as well as reports of the decision-making processes in each camp. It provides a matchless panorama of contemporary power relations and political mores. It is also a gripping account, including such episodes as the dramatic isolation and capture of an elite Spartan contingent on the island off Pylos that almost lost them the war, and of the disastrous Athenian expedition to Sicily. Be aware, however, that Thucydides' narrative ends on the twenty-first year of the war (for reasons that are unclear, since the author writes in several places that the war lasted twenty-seven years), so that if you want to follow the narrative until the end, you will need to reed Xenophon's continuing A History of My Times.

One of Thucydides' innovations was to introduce speeches in his account. These rarely were verbatim reproductions of what by said by the actors, but more often consisted of what Thucydides thought they had said or even 'what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions'. This is important, because the use of speeches was imitated by classical authors sometimes quite clumsily and to the point of making some histories semi-fictional. With Thucydides, however, the speeches often serve to convey the historian's view of the parties' relative positions, the causes of events, or his analysis of their choices. It seems that he was loath to introduce such outside material in the narrative itself, and that the speeches were his remedy to the problem.

Though he was an Athenian, Thucydides was exiled at some point for having mismanaged a campaign in Thrace. This explains both his ability to obtain information on the Lacedaemonian side of the war and his restraint from overt partisanship. He seems to have been in favour of democracy over oligarchy, unlike many contemporary or near-contemporary Greek writers, but even that is difficult to establish, such was his control over his text. There are tantalising hints, finally, that the conflict he describes was more than what he made of it: Athens led a confederacy of mostly Ionian Greeks, and Lacedaemon Dorian Greeks. Many or most of Athens's allies were democracies, while those of Sparta were oligarchies. We will never know to what extent the war may have been an ethnic or an ideological clash, however: Thucydides' history is the only surviving account.

Much of the history is concerned with the detailed battle movements of the three major combatants - Lacedaemonions, Athenians, and Corinthians, which can become a little tedious. BUT, and it is a big "but", there is one most important, brilliant piece of oratory - Pericles famous funeral oration, which lays out the principles of Athenian democracy. This should be made compulsory reading for all politicians of every hue. Perhaps they should be made to learn it off by heart! I would hazard a guess that it was at the heart of the first draft of the American Constitution. It is the basis of moral government and democracy, and the words ring out over the centuries with the sound of emotional and intellectual truth. If for no other reason, read this section.

I first read Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" in the sixties, when the Cold War was fast simmering towards a boiling point. Reading Thucydides at that moment, which (thankfully) passed into modern history with a whimper rather than a bang, was a revelation. The 5th-century BC historian writes a riveting account of how two major powers--Sparta and Athens--became embroiled in a twenty-seven-year war because of self-interest, mutual distrust, and buildup of arms. He then notes that he is writing his history as a lesson for mankind so that such wars will never occur again. With chilling cynicism, however, he notes that since human nature is essentially rotten, the same wars will break out over and over for exactly the same reasons.

Rex Warner's translation from the Greek is both enlightening and readable. The headings at the top of every other page allow the reader to 'skim' easily to particular topics. I shall note only two passages, which speed by despite their length, as examples: the Plague of 430 BC (Thuc. II. 47-55), and the Corcyrean Revolt of 427 BC (Thuc. III. 69-95; esp. 82-83). The first demonstrates Thucydides' brilliance as what we today would call a journalist. His account of the plague is based on keen observation of the disease, which he both caught and survived. Originating at Athens' harbour, it swept through the confines of the city, partly as a result of Pericles' disastrous policy of moving the population into an already-crowded city (Thucydides does not know about rats and lice, but he does note that all domestic animals and birds of prey, which came into contact with the stricken, died). The historian, whose narrative is considered the first epidemiology, describes the disease from its symptoms, through its crisis, to its devastating end, sometimes in recovery, most often in death. As riveting as his narrative is, Thucydides transcends straight reportage as he describes the psychological toll on the populace, who not only became demoralised, but also sank into committing normally unthinkable acts, such as sneaking out at night and dumping their dead relatives onto someone else's funeral pyre, or allowing the sick to die of neglect.

The other not-to-be-missed passage is Thucydides' narration of the Corcyrean Revolt, which is far more than an account of a mere rebellion. It is an account of propaganda, and how the very language undergoes transmogrifications of meanings during times of stress. For example, what in peacetime might be considered "a thoughtless act of agression," in wartime becomes "courage"; what in peacetime is a consider-all-sides-of-an-issue policy, in wartime, becomes cowardice; Thucydides writes: "Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was a perfectly legitimate self-defence" [Thuc. III. 82]. The passage seems especially relevant in this commercial age of mass media, when language becomes so easily distorted and misinterpreted.

Thucydides' history breaks off in 411 and thus does not cover the end of the war in 404.). Even so, its themes are so universal that they convey an immediate ring of truth that bridges the gap of the millennia.

Incidentally (and anyone, who thinks this is a spoiler, ought to avert his eyes), the war ended with what might be described as mutually-assured-destruction of both Sparta and Athens, with Macedon filling in the power vacuum.

Who should read Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War ?

* Anyone who wants to understand how free societies can descend into tyranny:

* Anyone who does not realise that merely holding free elections is not enough to preserve a society worth living in, especially if you don't combine democracy with the rule of law:

* Anyone who needs to understand how two or more nations can stumble into a war devastating to both:

* Anyone who imagines that genocide and ethnic cleansing were limited to our own era:

* Anyone interested in reading one of the first works of true history ever written.

In other words this history of a terrible war nearly two and half thousand years ago is as relevant in the first decade of the third millenium as it was when it was written, four centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.

If I had to nominate one historical work for my son and daughter to read, I would think carefully between this volume, Suetonius's "The 12 Caesars", and Herodotus's "Histories", but Thucydides "History of the Poloponnesian war" would edge it.

You cannot take every word in this book for granted, but Herodotus and Thucydides came closer to an objective search for truth than any writer whose works survive and was writing before them or for centuries afterwards.

The story of the tragic wars, initially between Athens and Sparta, which decimated Greek civilisation between 431BC and 404 BC is absolutely gripping, and Thucydides brings the story to life for me.

The translation by Richard Crawley was written more than 130 years ago, and in some versions, slightly revised by R.C. Feetham in 1903. Despite being more than a century old, I found the translation to be accessible and easy to understand. I understand from those who know more about history than I do that Crawley's translation is now preferred by current experts to the rival Victorian translation by Benjamin Jowett which provides more of a general sense of Thucydides' writing but is less good at conveying the detail.

The most irritating thing about Thucydides book is that it stops suddently in the middle of a sentence in 411 BC, shortly after the overthrow of democracy in Athens and the Athenian naval victory at the Dardanelles. E.g. well before the actual resolution of the conflict between Athens and Sparta, let alone the subsequent struggle between both cities and Thebes.

If, like me, this leaves you wanting to learn more about what happened next, your best bet is to read Xenophon's "A history of my times" which was deliberately written to follow on from Thucydides, to such an extent that it actually starts with the words "And after this."

The reputation of Xenophon among historians as a reliable source has fallen dramatically over the past few decades, and he is undoubtedly not in the same class as Thucydides as a historian, but he certainly is in the same class as a storyteller and he does complete the story of the war.

Thucydides (about 460-395 BCE) was a Greek historian who is considered the first "scientific" historian, because of his lack of reference to the gods, as well as his strict standards for gathering evidence. This book tells the story of the war between Sparta and Athens, up to the year 411.

He admits in his Introduction, "In this history I have made use of set speeches some of which were delivered just before and others during the war. I have found it difficult to remember the precise words used in the speeches which I listened to myself and my various informants have experienced the same difficulty; so my method has been, while keeping as closely as possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used, to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by each situation." (Pg. 47) He adds, "My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last for ever." (Pg. 48)

Pericles laments, "There is often no more logic in the course of events than there is in the plans of men, and this is why we usually blame our luck when things happen in ways that we did not expect." (Pg. 119) Cleon suggests, "a city is better off with bad laws, so long as they remain fixed, than with good laws that are constantly being altered." (Pg. 213)

Brasidas (who "was not at all a bad speaker, for a Spartan"; pg. 315) said, "For it is more disgraceful, at least for those who have a name to lose, to gain one's ends by deceit which pretends to be morality than by open violence." (Pg. 317) Some Athenians asserted that "One is not so much frightened of being conquered by a power which rules over others... as of what would happen if a ruling power is attacked and defeated by its own subjects." (Pg. 402)

Any library of ancient history would benefit from this excellent edition of Thucydides' epic masterpiece.

Meticulous, verbatim speeches produced by sundry sources exactly word-for-word causes me to suspect the full veracity of Thucydides than other historians of his era. Even Herodotus didn't reproduce dialogue that was held in private conclave.

I first read Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" in the sixties, when the Cold War was fast simmering towards a boiling point. Reading Thucydides at that moment, which (thankfully) passed into modern history with a whimper rather than a bang, was a revelation. The 5th-century BC historian writes a riveting account of how two major powers--Sparta and Athens--became embroiled in a twenty-seven-year war because of self-interest, mutual distrust, and buildup of arms. He then notes that he is writing his history as a lesson for mankind so that such wars will never occur again. With chilling cynicism, however, he notes that since human nature is essentially rotten, the same wars will break out over and over for exactly the same reasons.

Rex Warner's translation from the Greek is both enlightening and readable. The headings at the top of every other page allow the reader to 'skim' easily to particular topics. I shall note only two passages, which speed by despite their length, as examples: the Plague of 430 BC (Thuc. II. 47-55), and the Corcyrean Revolt of 427 BC (Thuc. III. 69-95; esp. 82-83). The first demonstrates Thucydides' brilliance as what we today would call a journalist. His account of the plague is based on keen observation of the disease, which he both caught and survived. Originating at Athens' harbour, it swept through the confines of the city, partly as a result of Pericles' disastrous policy of moving the population into an already-crowded city (Thucydides does not know about rats and lice, but he does note that all domestic animals and birds of prey, which came into contact with the stricken, died). The historian, whose narrative is considered the first epidemiology, describes the disease from its symptoms, through its crisis, to its devastating end, sometimes in recovery, most often in death. As riveting as his narrative is, Thucydides transcends straight reportage as he describes the psychological toll on the populace, who not only became demoralised, but also sank into committing normally unthinkable acts, such as sneaking out at night and dumping their dead relatives onto someone else's funeral pyre, or allowing the sick to die of neglect.

The other not-to-be-missed passage is Thucydides' narration of the Corcyrean Revolt, which is far more than an account of a mere rebellion. It is an account of propaganda, and how the very language undergoes transmogrifications of meanings during times of stress. For example, what in peacetime might be considered "a thoughtless act of agression," in wartime becomes "courage"; what in peacetime is a consider-all-sides-of-an-issue policy, in wartime, becomes cowardice; Thucydides writes: "Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was a perfectly legitimate self-defence" [Thuc. III. 82]. The passage seems especially relevant in this commercial age of mass media, when language becomes so easily distorted and misinterpreted.

Thucydides' history breaks off in 411 and thus does not cover the end of the war in 404.). Even so, its themes are so universal that they convey an immediate ring of truth that bridges the gap of the millennia.

Incidentally (and anyone, who thinks this is a spoiler, ought to avert his eyes), the war ended with what might be described as mutually-assured-destruction of both Sparta and Athens, with Macedon filling in the power vacuum.

Greek warfare, meanwhile, originally a limited and formalized form of conflict, was transformed into an all-out struggle between city-states, complete with atrocities on a large scale. Shattering religious and cultural taboos, devastating vast swathes of countryside, and destroying whole cities, the Peloponnesian War marked the dramatic end to the fifth century BC and the golden age of Greece. This historical and literary classic has insights on war and politics as useful today as they were over 2,300 years ago. Writing at a time of intellectual revolution in Athens, Thucydides provides a vivid account of the deadly struggle between Athens and Sparta. His is the first history to place such a contest in a secular context; human will, not mythology, becomes fundamental to the explanation of important events. Moreover, the connection between military and political activity is recognized. Though scholars still debate the accuracy of his account, Thucydides set a new standard of professionalism for the period. Length and complexity of detail make for slow reading, but a must read for the professional warrior.

This is one of the early classic "histories" written. Of course, Herodotus had written his "History" before. But his acceptance of the role of gods in history renders Thucydides' hard-headed accounts of the Greek internecine warfare a further advance in historiography. Thus, we begin to experience something like a real history in this volume (and that does not denigrate the real contributions of Herodotus).

This is a nice volume. The Introduction by M. I. Finley sets the stage; the translation by Rex Warner is (as far as I can tell) serviceable. The work of Thucydides comes through in this collaboration.

Thucydides' focus is on the origins of this bloody inter-Greek war. The forces of Athens (and her allies) against Sparta (and her allies) is the center of this work. He notes the cause (page 49): "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta." This is, as noted earlier, a fairly hard-headed view of history. To use contemporary terms, the author was something like a "realist."

Some major parts of the work. . . . One of these is the funeral oration by Pericles, the Athenian leader. He spoke of what made Athens special. His death, according to Thucydides, was harmful to the Athenian cause. He says (page 163): "For Pericles had said that Athens would be victorious if she bided her time and took care of the navy, if she avoided trying to add to the empire during the course of the war, and if she did nothing to risk the safety of the city itself. But his successors did the exact opposite. . . ."

This work has much of interest in it. Just one example. The Melian dialogue featured a debate between the Melians and Athenians. The Melians argued that morality was on their side. The Athenians acknowledged the argument, but also noted that they had the numbers and the weapons. This is an early debate between two schools of thought in international relations--idealists versus realists. The hard-nosed attitude of the Athenians won out in this case. . . .

In some ways, Thucydides is best understood by reading Herodotus and then comparing the two, so that one can get a sense of one of the first historians and then someone who adopts a different posture as historian. This is a very good version of Thucydides (from someone who cannot read Greek, by the way). Well worth looking at if a person is interested in the devastating Peloponnesian War.

Thucidydes' History of the Peloponnesian War was one of the most important books ever written in the history of Western civilation and world history.

In opposition to Herodotus who wrote earlier, to whom Thucidydes was a student and reader of, Thucidydes was a realist and discussed the interests, positions, and power politics that occurred between the Athens and Sparta and their respective leagues (allies; combined military operations by treaty). As opposed to Herodotus, who is sometimes known as the father of history as Herodotus was arguably the first person to write history in the sense that we know it today, and who still utilized unseen forces, gods, spirits, etc., as guiding world history, Thucidydes focused more on the human aspect and what he could gleem from his travels and research. Thus, many historians point to Thucidydes as being the true progenitor of history as we know it today.

The political intrigue, the military and political strategic considerations, the actual boots-on-the-ground description of the battles, etc. are vivid, detailed, and make for compelling reading. I especially like the stories concerning Athens and Sparta's fighting on the island of Sicily.

All students of rhetoric will also find some of the finest examples of it within its pages (i.e., Pericles' funerary oration, etc.). The descriptions of the debates within the assemblies shows the considerations that both the Athenian and Spartan led leagues and their populations had to consider.

This is the first book on international relations known and is the first work to utilize a realist interpretation of international politics. It is studied at the war colleges and by all scholars of international relations, and by all serious students of grand strategy.

This book is excellent, in the Greek sense, that is Arete.

Which superpower is the greater friend of liberty - the liberal democratic state that routinely intervenes in the affairs of minor powers, or the militaristic, oligarchic one that respects the sovereignty of even the most odious partners and despotic regimes as long as they maintain mutually advantageous relations? Can a democracy withstand a drawn-out defensive campaign with peripheral expeditions but no decisive, headline grabbing victories? Is an expensive campaign in a peripheral theatre to your primary threat always counterproductive? What happens when a democratic state persecutes its soldiers when they fail - or even when they succeed in their allotted tasks? In international relations, will the strong always do what they can and are the weak always fated to do what they must?

If you think that any of these questions are relevant today (hint - they are) you will find The History of the Peloponnesian War rewarding - Thucydides writes with a clarity and commitment to recounting events as objectively as his own engagement will allow, and produces an engrossing, timeless history that is ultimately far more than a simple recounting of events, opinions or a travelogue.

Greek warfare, meanwhile, originally a limited and formalized form of conflict, was transformed into an all-out struggle between city-states, complete with atrocities on a large scale. Shattering religious and cultural taboos, devastating vast swathes of countryside, and destroying whole cities, the Peloponnesian War marked the dramatic end to the fifth century BC and the golden age of Greece. This historical and literary classic has insights on war and politics as useful today as they were over 2,300 years ago. Writing at a time of intellectual revolution in Athens, Thucydides provides a vivid account of the deadly struggle between Athens and Sparta. His is the first history to place such a contest in a secular context; human will, not mythology, becomes fundamental to the explanation of important events. Moreover, the connection between military and political activity is recognized. Though scholars still debate the accuracy of his account, Thucydides set a new standard of professionalism for the period. Length and complexity of detail make for slow reading, but a must read for the professional warrior.

I read Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars" before reading the "History of the Peloponnesian War" and was amazed at the contrast between the styles of the two writers. Thucydides lived more than 5 centuries earlier than Suetonius and his history is much more like a modern history. Suetonius would use rumors and discuss all of the omens that lead to certain events, which he really seemed to believe. Thucydides stuck to the facts and if soldiers believed something to be an omen, he would state it that way; he didn't seem to be superstitious like Suetonius was.

The Peloponnesian War was a very long war lasting more than 20 years. The author covers most of the arguments made by the various parties for or against war during public debate. The actions and intrigues were described very well. Treaties were described and it was clear that Thucydides used original documents in putting together his history. The fact that he was a participant (an Athenian general) in the war meant that he was probably personally acquainted with many of the main players in the war, but this did not seem to bias him one way or the other.

Many lessons can be learned from this book about war, diplomacy, government and leadership. It's easy to see why this book is considered a classic.

The translation was modern and easy to understand and the reader was effective. I do wish I had a map and list of characters with me while listening. This is probably a better book to read than to listen to since there were many times I lost track of who was on which side. It would have been nice to flip back a few pages to reorient myself. I recommend this audio book, but would suggest a hard copy as a companion also.

The good: The first part of this book reads like a historical novel. Thucydides includes long, detailed speeches that he had either heard first hand, had related to him, or has paraphrased based on the circumstances surrounding the speech. While some of the speeches are more accurate then others they do help the reader understand what was going on in the minds of the people at the time. They also help to break up what can sometimes be a monotonous account of the war.

The Bad: As alluded to above, the beginning of the book is filled with speeches. There are fewer and fewer speeches as the book progresses, until by chapter 8, they are omitted altogether. This omission of speeches does make the book a little dry, and tough to get through. I found that I couldn't read the last part of the book for as long a period of time as I could the beginning, and my breaks became more frequent.

The book ends in 411 BC, 7 years before the war ended. One can only imagine how great an accomplishment this book might have been, had Thucydides been able not only to write about the entire war, but had also been able to finish the book with the detail that he started it.

The Ugly: The edition I read was the Penguin Classics edition, while the book may be a classic, the Penguin edition was far from one. The print was terrible and uneven. The chapter numbers on the left boarder of the page, where fine until they hit triple digits, and then the '1' was either half printed or not there at all. Several pages where so poorly 'inked' that you could barely make out the letters.

The maps were useless except for the one on Attica. As another reviewer suggested, pay a little more and get a better quality edition.

Overall though this was a very good book.

In 431 BC war broke out between Athens, the dominant empire in Greece at the time, and Sparta, her main rival. The first twenty years of the war are chronicled in this absorbing work: book eight breaks off mid-sentence, and Thucydides' account of the last seven years of the war has not survived.
Apart from fifteen pages in book one, in which he briefly recounts the events of the fifty years prior to the war, Thucydides never strays from the day-to-day and year-to-year details of the war. The only significant Greek historian who predates him is Herodotus, whose account ended where Thucydides' begins, in 479 BC; but Herodotus was a story-teller where Thucydides is a scholar. Reading Herodotus' "Histories" is more like sitting by the fire with a glass of brandy and an interesting friend. Thucydides reads like a textbook, and though this is one of his strengths, it also makes him a little harder for modern readers to approach. On the other hand, the very density of information feels quite modern, so that although the politics is alien, once you find your feet you'll be swept up by the story of a terrible war.
The book is full of names, places, and account of battles and intrigues. There are several maps at the back, which are a great help, but over and over again I found that a key place wasn't on the map, and there are no notes to help out. Where is Naupactus? Who are the Carians? Where do the Illyrians come from? Unlike the Penguin edition of Herodotus, which is packed with helpful notes, this edition provides the reader very little help. Too often I found I just had to wing it, guessing the importance of a name or the approximate location of a place from context. I'd recommend having a good classical dictionary handy while you read, if you're the sort who wants these questions answered.
Thucydides style is to alternate plain narration with speeches. The introduction (by Finley) makes it clear that these speeches are generally made up by Thucydides to fit what he thought would or should have been said. On the other hand, he was there for some of them, and did his best to interview eye-witnesses wherever he could, so the speeches tend to sound quite convincing.
Thucydides' passion for accuracy is what makes this book special. The account of a night battle in Sicily makes it clear how hard he worked to get the details right; he comments that this account is less likely to be accurate because the witnesses he interviewed were unable to see the whole battlefield, as they could in a day battle, and there's a fascinating chapter (book seven, chapter 44) where he talks about all the difficulties of reporting factually in these circumstances.
He sounds quite modern, and he is. He's the first truly modern historian, and would be worth reading for that reason alone. However, the story he tells, of twenty years of bitter conflict between two fine civilizations, is enthralling, and brilliantly told. Recommended.

Without this detailed history of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) written by an Athenian at the time, Thucydides, we probably would not know much of details of this cataclysmic upheaval in the Mediterranean.

It was a war that lasted 27 years and ended with the defeat of Athens by the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta. The war spread across the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea to what is now the Turkish coast, south to Rhodes, north to Thrace (now part of Greece and Bulgaria) and east to Sicily where Athens suffered a crushing defeat from a military misadventure.

The deaths, destruction, casual taking of slaves, brutal seizure of assets from conquered people and wholesale destruction of agricultural lands make today's events in the region seem positively peaceful, even considering Syria.

What I found interesting were the descriptions of conniving, backstabbing, corruption and general contempt for democratic traditions of the time that undermined Athens' cause. Thucydides was an Athenian who owned the gold mines of Thrace and had a clear understanding of the political machinations of both Athens and Sparta.

It is lengthy reading but a fascinating first-hand account.

Another aspect I found interesting was the political speeches of the day - clear, well set out with powerful and logical arguments developed over a length of time. Those speeches provide a very clear contrast with today's mushy, emotional political appeals that provide scarcely any real content. In my view, 2,500 years ago politicians were giving better speeches than today.

If Herodotus is the Father of History, Thucydides is the first truly great historian. Building upon the foundation laid by his predecessor, Thucydides refines and sharpens the art of history into what it should have been all along. He is one of a few ancient historians whose reputation has almost never suffered among subsequent generations of historians.

Thucydides begins his history with the causes of The Peloponnesian War, a 27-year struggle between imperialist, democratic Athens, oligarchic Sparta, and the scores of constantly shifting allies that fought along with them. Though left incomplete at the time of his death, Thucydides's history spans the years 433-411 BC, encompassing the beginning of the war and its escalation through battle and political machination, Athens's ill-fated Sicilian expedition, and the interference of the Persians in Asia Minor.

This translation by Rex Warner is excellent--highly readable and lucid. The introduction and appendices offer lots of helpful information and can be read either before or after the History itself, depending on the reader's prior knowledge or preference. If I have any complaint about this edition, it is that the maps are too small and too few, leaving some important locations unmarked.

Full of real-life drama and moving tales of wartime desperation, Thucydides is just as relevant today as he was when he first perfected the art of history. Reading Thucydides is well worth your time.

Highly recommended.

I really have the feeling that I am not knowledgable enough about the period in question in the Thucydides to provide any kind of reasonable context for the work. Instead, this review will focus on some reading tips and reactions aimed at the more generalist reader who may be attempting to get through the text.

First, the text is daunting. Be patient with it, and put it down if you need to. It pays off. I'm not someone who reads battle scenes with absorption, and still I found that if I absorbed the text in small enough doses, then I was able to follow with interest.

Second, use the appendices at the back. The explanations about the Spartan and Athenian Leagues, the Greek monetary system, and the Melian dialogues were actually quite helpful in places for reading the text. These appendices are provided in the Penguin edition of the Thucydides.

Third, take notes. There are a lot of big thoughts, and I found that I absorbed them better by writing them down for myself to think about later.

It is time-consuming to attempt the History of the Peloponnesian War. It is also worth it, to my mind. I got a lot out of reading it even without being a historian with expertise in the time and region. Give it a try, and give it the space that it deserves.

"So it is now reasonable for us to hope that the gods will be kinder to us, since by now we deserve their pity rather than their jealousy."

Thucydides (c.460-c.400 BC) was an insider during the Peloponesian War. He was an Athenian commander who was dismissed after his men lost a battle in spite of the fact of his previous successes. This book was an attempt at an honest historical assessment of the Peloponesian War which was not only destructive to the Athenians and eventually the Spartans, but the war was also ruinous to their allies. The important theme of this book is that Athenian hubris replaced practicle thinking leading to Athenian imperialism and war.

Thucydides investigated this war by examining battle sites, interviewing both Athenian and Spartan commanders, and inspecting the limited sources that existed for historians at that time. He was clear that the primary cause of the Peloponesian War was fear of Athenian imperialism especially among the Spartans and their allies. One should note that the Athenians not only made enemies of the Peloponeisan League (The Spartans and their allies), but the Athenians made enemies of those Greeks who were neutral but were driven by necessity to join the Peloponesian League.

An important part of theis book which is found in the Penguin Classics edition can be found on pages 242-244. Thucydides made some poignant remarks regarding how thought and language are corrupted during times of revolution and war. He comments that manners and civility collapsed during the Peloponesian War. He also warned readers that during such crises that thoughtful, intelligent men are destroyed because too many people are willing to commit violence on behalf of demogogues rather than engage in calm reflection. This is in line with the chapter on Von Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM titled "Why the Worst get on top."

If one follows Thucydides THE HISTORY OF THE PELOPONESIAN WAR carefully, they will discover that the Athenians had considerable power and wealth. Yet, Athenian arrogance and greed resulted in a useless war that resulted in the loss of Athenian power and wealth. This book is a microcosm of the adage that, "The bigger an empire is, the weaker it is."

This book is useful in examination of the catostophic wars and revolutions of the 20th century. George Orwell made comment on the corruption of language in his essays and novels, expecially 1984. Crane Briton cites Thucydides' book in Briton's book title ANATOMY OF REVOLUTION. In other words, while this book was written c. 410 B.C., this book is still timely which makes it a classic.