Pericles: Athenian Leader in War and Reconstruction - Essay Sample

Introduction

Pericles was an Athenian leader that was responsible for the reconstructions of Athens in the aftermath of the Persian war. He was also the leader of Athens during the Peloponnesian war which, coupled with the plague of Athens that devastated the city, reveal the qualities that made him a great leader. During the Peloponnesian War, and despite the misfortunes that befell the city of Athens, Pericles was an astute commander who managed to quiet the dissenting voices blaming him for the misfortunes of Athens as a result of the plague and the war. He managed to convince the people that the war was in the best interest of the city and the state; thus, his course was justified. Consequently, he came out as a man of knowledge despite his limited power (Gill, 2020).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Subsequently, Pericles was a courageous leader who was willing to stand up for danger which he demonstrated by urging his people to prepare for all types of disasters. Furthermore, he was willing to fight to preserve the dignity of Athens and despite his defeat in fighting for Athens; he later successfully convinced the people that he had won. His greatness as a leader was also demonstrated in his ability to focus on his goals despite the hatred and unpopularity of his people. He considered unpopularity and hatred from his people as temporary as opposed to the future brilliance and glory that would follow his success (Gill, 2020). As such, he was a leader that was willing to undergo hardships and suffering to achieve his goals and for the benefit of his people and the city.

Were the Athenians right to refuse to allow Melos to remain neutral?

The decision by the Athenians to attack Melos during the Peloponnesian wars was not right in that the invasion was not based on any moral justification rather it was a superior state exerting its power on a lesser state for the sole reason of exhibiting its power with the hopes of dissuading future rebellions in its areas of influence (Mulligan, 2018). Although the people of Melos claimed their descendants to be of Spartan origin, the people on the island of Melos did not, however, pledge their loyalty to Sparta and had chosen to remain neutral in spite of Sparta being at war with Athens for a considerable period. Thus, in this regard, Athens did not have any valid reason for forcing the people on the island of Melos to pledge their loyalty to Athens.

The chief reason for the attack on the island of Melos by the Athenians was that Athens felt it could no longer tolerate the presence of an impartial party in their areas of influence; thus resulted to sending representatives to otherwise force the people of Melos to cease their neutrality stand and surrender to the will of the Athenians. Furthermore, it was unjust for Athens to demand that Melos abandon their neutrality in favor of Athens as according to the law of nations the Melians had the right to remain neutral and as the island had remained independent for a long time, they were not ready to easily give up their freedom to such rights. Additionally, all nations also had the right not to be attacked by any other states without provocation, and by the mere fact that Melos, was neutral, it posed no threat to Athens and deserved the right to be excluded from the war (Mulligan, 2018).

What does Machiavelli think of Agathocles?

In evaluating the various means a prince can come into power, Machiavelli employs Agathocles as an example of how one can acquire power through violence. Agathocles was a man not born into a high ranking family, who instead rose through the military ranks and become the eventual king of Syracuse through murder. In the eyes of Machiavelli, Agathocles was a wicked man, although he does recognize Agathocles' great energy and efforts in becoming a military commander in Syracuse. Subsequently, Machiavelli points out that although Agathocles' ability enabled him to become king, his conduct cannot be termed as virtuous; thus although Agathocles obtained power through murder he did not, in Machiavelli's view, attain glory (Machiavelli, 2016).

Subsequently, Machiavelli thinks Agathocles' cruel act in obtaining power are justified, though evil, as Agathocles commits such evil acts only once to the benefit of his subjects and they are not repeated. In this regard, Machiavelli admires Agathocles; however, he is careful to qualify his approval as the actions of Agathocles reveal that he is devoid of consciences. Consequently, Agathocles' criminal acts may have given him power, but he would never be placed among the great rulers in history whose acts are to be imitated and admired. Ultimately, Machiavelli acknowledges Agathocles' physical courage and audacity but does not attribute his rise of power to prowess. Additionally, although Machiavelli states that Agathocles would never be honored, he does recognize the effectiveness of his methods (Machiavelli, 2016). Consequently, the refusal to attribute Agathocles' achievements to prowess is an implicit criticism of Agathocles' evil acts.

Were Britain and France justified in declaring war on Nazi Germany?

The declaration of war on Nazi Germany by the United Kingdom and France was justified as Hitler was not waging a just war. With regards to the theory of just war, the reason for going to war are required to be just as opposed to going to war for the sole reason of recapturing things taken during a previous war or for retaliation to punish people (Frowe, 2016). Nazis Germany's reason for going to war was precisely to undo the treaty formed after a previous war, the First World War, which was not favorable to Germany's interests. On the other hand, Britain and France were justified in declaring war on Nazi Germany as the protection of basic human rights that is for those people living in areas invaded by Hitler's forces demanded the use of force from a more superior adversary. The declaration of war on Nazi Germany was also justified in the sense that for Britain and France, it was their last resort. Before the formal declaration of war, various parties from Britain had tried to appease Hitler with the aim and hope of avoiding a global conflict (IWM, 2018).

However, Hitler did not honor any of the agreements made and rather employed deceit and manipulation that led to the invasion of Poland by Hitler's forces thus prompting the beginning of the Second World War. Concerning revisionist reductive individualists, the proposal that war is an individual responsibility downplays the role that collective responsibility, group agency, and complicity plays a role in the morality of war. Consequently, in the highly hierarchical structure of the military, soldiers are expected to follow orders despite being engaged in a just or unjust war (Frowe, 2016). As such, the revisionist theory of the reductive individualists would not be suitable or applicable in the strategies of warfare. Soldiers are merely tools for achieving the goals of the state, and individuals' beliefs on the morality of war are not considered in decisions to declare war or strategies employed in the war.

Was the United States justified in fighting a war in Vietnam?

The war in Vietnam by the United States was not just war for various reasons. For starters, there was no just cause justifying the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. The primary reason for the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War was to prevent the spread of communism in Asia, which would, in turn, jeopardize the interests of the United States. However, this reason was not sufficient as a report by the Central Intelligence Agency before the United States' involvement in the war showed that a failure in Vietnam succumbing to the communist rule would not result in devastating setbacks for the United States (Lawrence, 2018). Thus, the war, as well as the United States' involvement, was unnecessary.

Subsequently, the Vietnam war was unjust in that there was no formal declaration of war, rather the president thrust the country to war by subverting the Congress, that although had given the president the mandate to protects its interests in Vietnam, Congress expected the president would consult it in the event of an official declaration of war. Additionally, the United States' intentions of limiting the spread of communism were not the right intention as it is not the business of any country to get involved in the governance of other countries (Lawrence, 2018). Furthermore, the war was not the last resort; rather it was a means of rapidly and easily removing communism in South Vietnam, an objective that was ultimately not achieved.

References

Frowe, H. (2016). Collectivism and Reductivism in the Ethics of War. In K. L. Rasmussen, D. Coady, & K. Brownlee, A Companion to Applied Philosophy (pp. 342-355). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Gill, N. S. (2020, January 4). Biography of Pericles, Leader of Athens. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from: https://www.thoughtco.com/pericles-leader-of-athens-120215

IWM. (2018, January 10). How Europe Went To War In 1939. IWM. Retrieved from: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-europe-went-to-war-in-1939

Lawrence, M. A. (2018, March 29). Was the Vietnam War Necessary? The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/opinion/vietnam-war-necessary.htmlMachiavelli, N. (2016). The Prince. Irvine: Xist Publishing.

Mulligan, G. (2018, September 21). Genocide in the Ancient World. Brewminate. Retrieved from: https://brewminate.com/genocide-in-the-ancient-world/