The Melian Dialogue is Thucydides’ account of the confrontation between Athens and Melos, posing the ethical dilemma of the might of the strong against the rights of the weak.
The account of the confrontation between mighty Athens and the tiny Aegean island is in book five of The History of the Peloponnesian War (431-403 BC). It was the war between the two dominant city-states of Ancient Greece: Athens and Sparta. The former was the leader of the Delian League while the latter was the leader of the Peloponnesian League.
In 416 BC, the Athenians landed a military force on Melos and sent a delegation to coerce the islanders to join their empire. The island had been neutral up to that point, even though they shared a Dorian ethnic heritage with the Spartans.
In the Melian Dialogue, the Athenians propose a discussion wherein they will present their arguments, and, at any time, the Melians may object and pose counter-arguments. The Melians agree on principle, although they doubt that they can achieve anything. If they win the debate, the Athenians will attack and annihilate them. If they lose, they forfeit their freedom. Then the debate begins in earnest.
The Athenians wanted to subjugate the Melians not because they posed any direct threat but because they feared that autonomous states might at times rebel against them. They feared the possibility of being overthrown from the bottom rather than by a powerful force like the Spartans. They aimed to subjugate them for simply practical reasons. If they agreed to allow Melos to be autonomous, the Athenians would lose face. Hence, for them, it was important to subjugate the Melians.
The Melians, on the other hand, refused to lose their autonomy and freedom. Naturally, they disagreed with the Athenians’ proposal. They argued that if Athens subjugated them violently, then other independent states would side with the Spartans for protection. Thus, any neutral state could be a possible future enemy of Athens.
The Melian Dialogue
The Athenians began by emphasizing their military supremacy. They pointed out that they were the ones who defeated the Persians decades earlier with their fearsome naval power at Salamis and later at Plataea with their infantry. Moreover, they highlighted the idea that the powerful should get their way to move on with their militarized goals. Furthermore, they stressed that several other states were allies of theirs.
The Melians, on the other hand, had to counter the Athenians with a morally upright, idealized posture. They appealed to Athens to show their ethical behavior in the hopes that the gods might be on their side for their fair quest. They said that giving up their autonomy would be an ethical failure. That was based on an ancient notion that diplomatic or trade relationships had to include a moral component. The Melians try to appeal to a natural sense of justice
Sheer power, of course, won over ethics and justice. The Athenian army obliterated Melos. The Melian men were put to the sword and the women and children were taken into slavery. It was a punishment to the defiant islanders and a warning to other independent states that they would have the same luck if they dared resist the power of Athens.
Thucydides’ scientific approach to history
The Melian Dialogue Thucydides describes takes place before Athens besieged Melos when the Athenians were still trying to persuade the Melians to bow to their power. The Melians refused, and the dialogue consisted of the back-and-forth arguments made by both sides.
Even though Thucydides was an Athenian, he remained impartial to the dialogue between the two sides. Unlike earlier historians, who based their accounts on legends, hearsay, and divine intervention, Thucydides’ approach to describing historical events was impartial, analytical, and based on evidence. This is why he is considered the father of scientific history.
The Melian Dialogue remains relevant today in the studies of international relations and political philosophy. Thucydides raised the question: “Does might make right?” Diplomacy is about the effort of diminishing the might for the sake of right if the stronger side seems determined to win. In the case of Athens versus Melos, the interests of the stronger side put ethical considerations aside and obliterated the weaker side. This is the sad reality of conflict both then and now.
This is the reason that Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue is studied today, as the case of the struggle between realism and idealism in international affairs is eternally relevant. In periods of conflict, dominant politics are far above morals. The interests of the mightier take precedence over ethics. The dialogue takes a turn as the Athenians urge the Melians to think of self-preservation and surrender to the more powerful force. It is the argument that might makes right. This is also the reason that some scholars consider Thucydides the father of the politics of realism.
Balance of power and the Thucydides Trap
In The History of the Peloponnesian War Thucydides assesses the cause of the war, exhibiting his realist thought: “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this inspired in Sparta that made war inevitable.”
American political scientist Graham T. Allison took Thucydides’ phrase and invented the term “Thucydides Trap.” Great powers are always in fear that another great power will wage war against them and displace them. The Cold War in the aftermath of World War II is a prime example in recent history. Allison also examined the tendency for emerging powers and great powers to go to war, especially when there is a risk that the latter will be displaced by the former.
Allison conducted a study at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs on the issue. The results showed that out of sixteen historical cases in which an emerging power rivaled an established great power, twelve of them led to conflict.
What derives from the “Thucydides Trap” is the balance of power theory, according to which a state ensures its survival by preventing any other single state from acquiring overwhelming military power. When a state becomes too strong, it is possible that it will be a threat to a neighboring state with less military power.