The Landmark Thucydides 6.1 To 6.105

Alcibiades fled to Sparta because he was summoned to Athens to face trial for plotting against the democracy. This suggests that he was aware of the consequences of his actions and believed that fleeing to Sparta would offer him protection and escape from the trial. It implies that he had a motive to avoid facing the charges and potentially severe punishment that awaited him in Athens.

After the destruction of Melos, the Athenians decided to attack Syracuse. This decision was made due to Syracuse's strategic location as a powerful city-state in Sicily. The Athenians believed that capturing Syracuse would give them control over the region and strengthen their position in the ongoing Peloponnesian War against Sparta. However, the Athenian expedition to Syracuse ultimately ended in a disastrous defeat, marking a turning point in the war and the decline of Athenian power.

Nicias attempted to dissuade the Athenians from attacking Syracuse because he believed it was unwise to start another war while the peace with Sparta was still fragile. This suggests that Nicias prioritized maintaining the peace and stability of Athens over engaging in further military conflicts.

Nicias adopted the strategy of circumvallation and blockade to defeat Syracuse in the second year of the Athenian invasion. This strategy involved surrounding the city of Syracuse with a wall, cutting off their supplies and communication, and preventing any outside assistance from reaching them. By implementing this blockade, Nicias aimed to weaken Syracuse and force them into surrender. This strategy proved effective in isolating and eventually defeating the city.

Alcibiades was charged with blasphemy and plotting to overthrow Athenian democracy. This implies that he was accused of disrespecting the gods and conspiring against the political system of Athens. These charges suggest that Alcibiades posed a threat to the religious and political stability of Athens, leading to his departure for Syracuse.

Both Hemocrates and Athenagoras were confident that Syracuse would defeat an Athenian invasion because of their superior logistics. Logistics refers to the organization and management of resources, supplies, and transportation. In this context, it means that Syracuse had better planning and coordination in terms of supplying their troops, moving them efficiently, and ensuring their needs were met. This would give them an advantage over the Athenians, who may have faced difficulties in sustaining their invasion due to poor logistics. Therefore, Hemocrates and Athenagoras believed that Syracuse's superior logistics would ultimately lead to their victory.

The Athenian generals nearly decided to turn back and give up as soon as they reached Italy because the allies they were counting on refused to join them. This lack of support from their allies would have severely weakened their military strength and made their mission much more difficult to accomplish. Without the assistance of their allies, the Athenian generals may have felt that their chances of success were greatly diminished, leading them to consider abandoning their campaign.

Nicias was unable to exploit the Athenian victory at the Anapus River because his forces lacked cavalry. Cavalry units are crucial in pursuing and harassing retreating enemies, as well as providing reconnaissance and support during battles. Without cavalry, Nicias' forces would have been limited in their ability to pursue and capitalize on the victory, allowing the defeated Syracusans to escape and regroup.

The Egestaeans used the argument that the Dorian Syracusans might eventually come to the aid of the Dorian Peloponnesians. This suggests that if Athens were to attack Syracuse, they would not only be dealing with the Syracusans but also potentially the Peloponnesians, creating a more challenging and dangerous situation for Athens.

The Spartans deposed the Athenian tyrant Hippias. This suggests that the Spartans played a significant role in the political affairs of Athens at that time. It implies that they had the power and influence to overthrow a tyrant ruler in another city-state. This event highlights the interconnectedness and power dynamics between different Greek city-states during this period.

The Athenians justified their hegemony to the Camarinaeans by pointing to their successful war against Persia. This war demonstrated their military prowess and ability to protect their allies from external threats. By highlighting this victory, the Athenians sought to portray themselves as the natural leaders and protectors of the Greek city-states, justifying their hegemony over others.