Questions about the peace of Nikias (Era of Plato's birth/ Peloponnesian war)

I will be needing some general info (and fact-checking..) since this is a bit of the backdrop in the first presentation of my second circle of seminars for the libraries..
The seminar starts with Plato, who was born a few years (3 or 4, likely) before the treaty of Nikias. That peace treaty was supposed to last for 50 years, and its premise was that all of the lands controlled by other powers up to then would be returned to the pre-war state, apart from Plataea (which would now be Theban) and Nissaea, the main port of Megara (now to be controlled by Athens).

I want to ask about Nisaea:

-Where exactly was it situated? (which bit of the thin peninsula of Megara).
-Why did Athens wish to humiliate Megara in this way? (Megara was one of the very few Spartan allies which did not want to honor the Peace of Nikias)

Furthermore:

The peace of Nikias fell through due to the cancelling of the main Athenian request, which was originally agreed upon, and was the return of Amphipolis to their control.
-How was this cancelled?
-Was the Athenian campaign against Syracuse a direct result of an attempt to bring the original treaty back in force? (the treaty of Nikias was only fully abandoned following the disaster at Sicily).

Thanks in advance

Well, to answer this question:

-Was the Athenian campaign against Syracuse a direct result of an attempt to bring the original treaty back in force? (the treaty of Nikias was only fully abandoned following the disaster at Sicily).

Click to expand...

I very much doubt it. I don't think Athens had really much interest in the peace. And, even if they were fine with the literal terms of peace, they certainly supported actions that weakened Sparta. The Sicilian Expedition wasn't the first one during the peace anyway. That was Athenian support for Argos. Now it's possible everything was done short-sightedly and not as part of a larger plan, but I very much doubt it was done to restore the peace.

Thanks

Louis XXIV said:

Well, to answer this question:

I very much doubt it. I don't think Athens had really much interest in the peace. And, even if they were fine with the literal terms of peace, they certainly supported actions that weakened Sparta. The Sicilian Expedition wasn't the first one during the peace anyway. That was Athenian support for Argos. Now it's possible everything was done short-sightedly and not as part of a larger plan, but I very much doubt it was done to restore the peace.

Click to expand...

The mechanism of making decisions such as those via voting in the assembly would have made it difficult to follow much of a long-term plan, at least while keeping it secret from the enemy.

I think the Strategos had a lot of influence in this area (which is why they were chosen by election rather than by lot). It's how Pericles stayed in power for so long.

The Sicilian Expedition itself was definitely a decision of the Assembly, though. Perhaps the strategoi had the right to make such operations without consulting the people, but the people had the power to derail any well-laid plan. Indeed, part of the reason that it was such a disaster was that Nicias realised that the people could not be persuaded to cancel their small naval operation and suggested that it be made into a huge amphibious assault as a wrecking amendment - which they promptly approved. So nobody had been planning for that!

Nikias likely was the most tragic figure there (of the 'leaders', anyway).

Btw, why did the Athenian army not try to storm Syracuse, instead of building walls and counter-walls and attacking the enemy's own wall-building (as if this was Age of Empires ). Did Syracuse have too strong defences for a direct attack? (also they had their fleet dominating inside the enemy's harbor, at least in the first parts of the campaign, and also had won - but not that easily - a battle outside Syracuse).

Personally, I don't find Nikias to be a tragic figure at all. People like to blame Alcibiades's ego (and he frankly had an ego that certainly made things worse, plus he became a turncoat), but Nikias's ego and insecurities were the reason the expedition turned into something giant that had to win big or fail miserably. In addition, he made some missteps in Sicily that seemed due to personal ambitions (I apologize on being vague on this. Many of the reasons I hold these views are based on an account of the expedition I read nine years ago, but, although I've never read a better account, I can't remember what the source was). Really, the only figure who comes off sympathetic to me is Demosthenes.

As for why they didn't just attack the walls, Greek siege strategy and technology was extremely primitive. I don't think they had the capability to pull off a direct assault. Although there were times when the sources think simply marching to the walls would have induced a panic that would have led to a surrender, Athenian forces were apparently unwilling to risk it all so quickly (which I can't say is entirely blameworthy when the stakes are so high). The sources may have been full of crap too since there's no way to objectively verify a counterfactual like that.

Attacking huge stone walls likely was not realistic in the era (or even in Alexander's time, unless one could prolong the siege for a long time), although less towering or heavily-built fortifications were routinely attacked (eg by Theban flame-throwing engines, as in Delium ).

I was mostly asking- though - if Syracuse itself had any significantly imposing wall, given it had the largest (by far) fleet in Sicily, and probably did not need huge defenses due to its position and campaigns in surrounding cities (and a stable alliance with the Doric states in Sicily).

Louis XXIV said:

As for why they didn't just attack the walls, Greek siege strategy and technology was extremely primitive. I don't think they had the capability to pull off a direct assault. Although there were times when the sources think simply marching to the walls would have induced a panic that would have led to a surrender, Athenian forces were apparently unwilling to risk it all so quickly (which I can't say is entirely blameworthy when the stakes are so high). The sources may have been full of crap too since there's no way to objectively verify a counterfactual like that.

Click to expand...

Have you heard of a Montgomery martini? He wouldn't attack a prepared position (according to the legend) unless he reckoned the odds at 13-1. Actually storming the walls of enemy forts and cities was historically very rare: even in medieval times, when artillery and siege tactics were hugely more developed than they were in the Classical world, the vast majority of sieges ended in surrender after starvation rather than assault. Note that the Spartans effectively controlled Attica for most of the Peloponnesian War and yet never tried to attack the city itself - it's just asking for trouble. Street-fighting (especially on the offensive) is difficult and messy enough at the best of times, and I can't imagine any Greek officer feeling confident to order his irregular soldiers with no communications to initiate it.

^There is also that crowning achievement of Julian, at Ktesiphon, around 700 years after the time of Nikias

Flying Pig said:

Actually storming the walls of enemy forts and cities was historically very rare: even in medieval times, when artillery and siege tactics were hugely more developed than they were in the Classical world, the vast majority of sieges ended in surrender after starvation rather than assault.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Athenians used a siege wall because that was the standard way to besiege an enemy. Even the Romans used them. Hell, Julius Caesar did a double siege wall.

Have the seminars actually happened, by the way? If so, how did they go?

Flying Pig said:

Have the seminars actually happened, by the way? If so, how did they go?

Click to expand...

Thanks for asking

Three of them (three 1-hour meetings) already did, in this second circle. First one was HORRIBLE, but the two others were rather very good, or even great. So things are stabilising to a better presentation than those i was giving in the first circle.

So next will be the second meeting of the second week, cause they take place in two libraries (2 meetings, one topic each week, and to last 6-7 weeks).