Before going into more recent history, I wanted to touch base on some very ancient history. Namely, the Sicilian Expedition where Athens invaded Sicily during their war with Sparta. Take a look at this map, from the Wikipedia article previously linked:
Seems kind of crazy that Athens and their allies (in red) would invade Sicily during their fight with Sparta and Sparta's allies (in blue).
If you read the wikipedia article, you can see why it doesn't seem as crazy as it sounded at first. There was some prior history, Sicily could aid their enemy, the Athenians had initial success, there were some odd circumstances that were probably not considered predictable (i.e. Nicias's attempt to stop it backfired and the invasion became so large that a defeat was more disastrous than it could have been; also the whole strange tale of Alcibiades.)
You can dig into the weeds, of course, and argue over what played the largest role in the disaster, whether disaster was truly inevitable, and more. Yet if you pull back a little bit and look at the map, I think there are some obvious dangers.
First of all, the distance is a problem. Athens is farther away, which means there's an inevitable delay in sending supplies, communication, and response time. I particularly want to point out how hard it is to ship horses for the cavalry.
Second, the resources sent to Sicily were not there to assist with allies closer by. (I kind of agree with Pericles, who wanted Athens to consolidate their allies closer to home.) I think there's some truth to assessing the economics behind a war, though the connection is not always as clear as you'd think. Anyways, triremes are expensive, and mounting an expedition like this used a lot of Athenian economic power. Resources that could have been used elsewhere, to better effect.
There's something else that leaps out at me, though given how little Sparta knew about building a navy it doesn't seem relevant in this particular context. Back then sailors generally hugged the coastline, as you can see by the red route on the map. That means Athens is sailing past enemy territory for a large part of the journey. If the Spartans did have more of a navy, they could have blockaded or interdicted the Athenians on any attempt to reach Sicily. I suppose it's not always a bad idea. The Allies hopscotched past islands in the Pacific during World War II, and it worked. I just don't like the potential for an enemy to cut our supply lines, not unless it's a deliberate (and well thought out) strategy as in WWII.
I suppose of Sicily were some sort of key terrain, it might have justified the expedition. But it really wasn't. The level of support Sicily might have provided to Sparta was not worth the cost to Athens.
If you want to dig deeper into ancient history, there's plenty to look at. I brought it up for two reasons. The first is to point out how easy it is to know who was right and who was wrong when it's ancient history. The truth, however, is that in the here and now it's always hard to know who to believe. Who is most accurately assessing the situation. There's always white noise, always information you have to filter out. We can hear about the debate between Nicias and Alcibiades and wonder why Nicias didn't win at the time...
But if we were actually there at that point in time we probably would have believed Alcibiades instead.
The second reason? Even a couple thousand years later we can argue over what did or didn't lead to failure.
Seems kind of crazy that Athens and their allies (in red) would invade Sicily during their fight with Sparta and Sparta's allies (in blue).
If you read the wikipedia article, you can see why it doesn't seem as crazy as it sounded at first. There was some prior history, Sicily could aid their enemy, the Athenians had initial success, there were some odd circumstances that were probably not considered predictable (i.e. Nicias's attempt to stop it backfired and the invasion became so large that a defeat was more disastrous than it could have been; also the whole strange tale of Alcibiades.)
You can dig into the weeds, of course, and argue over what played the largest role in the disaster, whether disaster was truly inevitable, and more. Yet if you pull back a little bit and look at the map, I think there are some obvious dangers.
First of all, the distance is a problem. Athens is farther away, which means there's an inevitable delay in sending supplies, communication, and response time. I particularly want to point out how hard it is to ship horses for the cavalry.
Second, the resources sent to Sicily were not there to assist with allies closer by. (I kind of agree with Pericles, who wanted Athens to consolidate their allies closer to home.) I think there's some truth to assessing the economics behind a war, though the connection is not always as clear as you'd think. Anyways, triremes are expensive, and mounting an expedition like this used a lot of Athenian economic power. Resources that could have been used elsewhere, to better effect.
There's something else that leaps out at me, though given how little Sparta knew about building a navy it doesn't seem relevant in this particular context. Back then sailors generally hugged the coastline, as you can see by the red route on the map. That means Athens is sailing past enemy territory for a large part of the journey. If the Spartans did have more of a navy, they could have blockaded or interdicted the Athenians on any attempt to reach Sicily. I suppose it's not always a bad idea. The Allies hopscotched past islands in the Pacific during World War II, and it worked. I just don't like the potential for an enemy to cut our supply lines, not unless it's a deliberate (and well thought out) strategy as in WWII.
I suppose of Sicily were some sort of key terrain, it might have justified the expedition. But it really wasn't. The level of support Sicily might have provided to Sparta was not worth the cost to Athens.
If you want to dig deeper into ancient history, there's plenty to look at. I brought it up for two reasons. The first is to point out how easy it is to know who was right and who was wrong when it's ancient history. The truth, however, is that in the here and now it's always hard to know who to believe. Who is most accurately assessing the situation. There's always white noise, always information you have to filter out. We can hear about the debate between Nicias and Alcibiades and wonder why Nicias didn't win at the time...
But if we were actually there at that point in time we probably would have believed Alcibiades instead.
The second reason? Even a couple thousand years later we can argue over what did or didn't lead to failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment