Consequences of Individual Ambition Over Collective Interest in the Speeches of Nicias and Alcibiades

In the beginning of Book Six of his account of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides

describes the differing political views in Athens in relation to its conquest of Sicily. The

Egestaeans of Sicily are asking their powerful allies, the Athenians, who have just emerged

victorious in a major battle against Sparta, for help in war against the Selinunites. The Athenians,

divided as to whether or not to respond, call a meeting in which two of their most prominent

citizens, Nicias and Alcibiades, make speeches for and against the conquest, respectively. Nicias’

arguments against the conquest, on the one hand, are logical and reserved, as he is thinking what

is best for Athens as a community. Alcibiades’ oration, on the other hand, is riddled with blind

ambition and irrational passion for war because he is seeking only personal gain through the

Athenian invasion. After hearing the two speeches, the Athenians side with Alcibiades and

decide to go to war, resulting in their humiliating defeat. Thus, Thucydides illustrates, with his

recount of these speeches, that the selfish desires of men for money and power can drive them to

act irrationally for personal gain and endanger the community as a whole.

First, before he presents either of the species, Thucydides gives his own descriptions of

Nicias and Alcibiades in which he conveys his belief that former is right in attempting to

dissuade the Athenians from war while the latter is foolish in trying to encourage them. He

claims that Nicias was, “chosen to the command against his will, and who thought the state was

not well advised” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 8, Line 4), suggesting that Nicias

analyzes the current state of his city rationally before making any decision. With Alcibiades, on

1

the other hand, Thucydides reminds us that he was thought to be, “an aspirant to tyranny”

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 15, Line 4) and was delivering this speech to, “thwart

Nicias as a political opponent and also because of the attack he had made upon him in his

speech” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 15, Line 2). This conveys the notion that

Alcibiades does not care about the actual condition of the city and that he is just exploiting this

opportunity for his own benefit. Already, Thucydides has placed Nicias in a favorable light and

has emphasized Alcibiades’ flaws, communicating his belief that acting in the interest of the

country as a whole is honorable and acting out of self-interest is shameful.

Nicias, who speaks first, knowing that his personal desires could be harmful to Athens as

a whole, argues that this conquest of Sicily would only harm his fellow citizens and, in placing

aside his passion, is able to make a series of logical justifications. He reminds the Athenians first

that he himself would benefit from this war, “and yet, individually, I gain honor by such a

course” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 9, Line 2) but that he values the state over his own

honor, “I have never spoken against my convictions to gain honor” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6,

Section 9, Line 2), thus showing his ability to suppress his passion for glory.

Nicias then gives the Athenians several reasons to avoid war, all of which are logical

because they are free from the irrationality of passion and personal ambition. Firstly, he says,

Greece itself is politically unstable after years of war where, “some of the most powerful states

have never yet accepted the arrangement at all. Some of [them] are at open war with us; others

(as the Spartans do not yet move) are restrained by truces renewed every ten days”

2

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 10, Line 3). It is unreasonable to begin the conquest

against Sicily as Athens is, “only now enjoying some respite from a great pestilence and from

war” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 12, Line 1), a fact that Nicias was able to see because

his rationality was is not blocked by ambition. Secondly, Nicias reminds the Athenians that,

“even if conquered, [the Sicilians] are too far off and too numerous to be ruled without

difficulty” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 11, Line 1). In this case, Nicias is thinking

beyond the result of the conquest and realizes that even if the Athenians do win, they will not be

able to benefit much from their victory. Nicias’ speech to dissuade Athens from war is

reasonable because he is able to overlook his passion for glory and actually analyze the probably

and consequences of winning such a conquest. Thus, Thucydides presents Nicias as an honorable

Athenian citizen who knows that the results of greedy ambitions could be harmful to his country.

The second element of Nicias’ speech is his belief that whatever the final decision of the

Athenians is, whether they should decide to go to Sicily or not, it should not be made in passion

in haste but in reason. Nicias knows that many of the young Athenians in the crowd are eager to

gain honor from such a conquest but knows that if they act out of this desire, they could put the

entire country at risk.

“And if there be any man here, overjoyed at being chosen to command – who seeks to be admired for his stud of horses, but on account of heavy expenses hopes for some profit from his appointment, do not allow such a one to maintain his private splendor at his country’s risk, but remember that such persons injure the public fortune while they squander their own” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 12, Line 2).

3

Nicias fears that the passion for glory is blocking reason in the minds of the Athenians and uses

his speech to show that their, “ardor is untimely, and [their] ambition not easily accomplished”

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 9, Line 3). He asks the Athenians to do as he has done and

act, “surest for the country at large, and safest for [those] who are to go on the expedition”

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 23, Line 3). Thucydides illustrates with this recount that

he understands Nicias’ fear that the passion for glory of the Athenians will inhibit their ability to

think rationally. Nicias knows, however, that, “against [their] character any words of [his] would

be weak enough” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 9, Line 3) and thus fears for Athens’

safety when Alcibiades, a man who speaks only out of passion and desire, steps up next to speak

to the Athenians.

Alcibiades’ speech is filled with passion for personal gain and, as Thucydides illustrates

with his recount, is therefore extremely illogical. Thucydides, before the speech, describes

Alcibiades as, “exceedingly ambitions of a command by which he hoped to reduce Sicily and

Carthage and personally to gain in wealth and reputation by means of his successes”

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 15, Line 2). The Athenian’s speech does nothing to

contradict this statement as he encourages his countrymen to go forth with their conquest of

Sicily with him as their commander, “Athenians, I have a better right to command than others”

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 16, Line 1). Alcibiades is extremely passionate for this

war in Sicily and therefore uses whatever arguments can to convince the Athenians, all of which,

however, are consequently irrational.

4

One illogical flaw in Alcibiades’ speech is when argues that nobody should be content

with what possessions they have, “we have reached a position in which we must not be content

with retaining what we have” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 18, Line 3) and that this

conquest would bring much power to Athens. However, the consequences of this war, as Nicias

counters with, would only weaken Athens. First, Sicily is a strong country with cities, “full of

hoplites, archers, and dart throwers, [that] have triremes in abundance and multitudes to man

them; they also have money” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 20, Line 4). Sicily would be

very difficult to conquer but more importantly, even if with a victory, would be extremely

difficult to keep rule over as its, “cities are great and not subject to one another, or in need of

change, so as to wish to pass from enforced servitude to an easier condition, or to be in the least

likely to accept our rule” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 20, Line 2). Furthermore, Athens

has not even secured its own rule as of yet, for example over the Chalcidians, “for in fact the

Thracian Chalcidians have been all these years in revolt from us without being yet subdued”

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 10, Line 5). Alcibiades claims that the Athenians should

want more power but he does not realize that they have yet to even solidify their victory against

Sparta. Thus, Alcibiades’ claim that there is much wealth to gain from the Sicilian conquest is

false because he is not actually thinking of the consequences of the war as he is blinded by his

ambition.

Another contradiction with Alcibiades’ speech is that while he claims Sicily is politically

unstable enough to conquer, he forgets the current situation in Athens where his fellow citizens

are also very much divided, not only on whether or not to proceed with this conquest but also in

relation to the other Greek cities. He begins by describing Sicily’s fragility,

5

“The cities in Sicily are peopled by motley rabbles, and easily change their institutions and adopt new ones in their stead…every man thinks that either by fair words or by party strife he can obtain something at the public expense…from a mob like this you need not look for either unanimity in counsel or unity in action” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 17, Lines 3-4).

Although Sicily may be unstable, it still has enough money, men, and distance from Athens to

defend itself well in war, as Nicias had already claimed. Furthermore, Alcibiades’ statement is

very irrational because Athens is politically very similar to Sicily, where its citizens are divided

on the issue of the conquest – hence the reason for these speeches by Nicias and Alcibiades – and

in its relationship with the other Greek cities. A very weak alliance currently exists between

Athens and Sparta that “will continue to exist nominally, as long as [Athens] keeps quiet”

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 10 Line 2). In attacking Sicily, Athens would not only

threaten this alliance but would also be exposed to a response from Sparta since it, “would not

delay [its] enemies a moment in attacking” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 10, Line 2).

Thus, because his ambition and desire for power is so great, Alcibiades does not recognize that

all of his arguments for the conquest of Sicily are illogical and flawed.

A possible interpretation of Alcibiades’ speech that would place the Athenian in a more

favorable light would be that he claims the Athenians should proceed with this conquest in order

to help their allies, the Egestaeans. Alcibiades states that Egestaeans, “are [their] confederates,

and [they] are bound to assist them” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 18, Line 1). This,

however, is a very unsound argument because Alcibiades is only using this justification of war as

a cover for his more personal ambitions. He immediately continues by claiming that the alliance

between Athens and Egesta came about so that the Egestaeans “might so annoy [their] enemies

6

in Sicily as to prevent them from coming over here [to Athens] and attacking” (Peloponnesian

War, Book 6, Section 18, Line 1). It would be against Athens’ best interests to return to help the

Sicilian city and would contradict the original purpose of the alliance; the Sicilian conquest, as

earlier proven, would only weaken Athens and Egesta. Sicily is a country; “placed so critically”

(Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 10, Line 5) that in interfering with matters there, Athens

would risk destroying all of its successes after defeating Sparta.

Thus, Thucydides shows with his account of the speeches of Nicias and Alcibiades that

the passion for power and ambition for money can blind men of reason, as it has with Alcibiades,

and lead a city to catastrophic outcomes. For the Athenians do eventually agree with Alcibiades

and decide to go to war but only fall to defeat, “they were beaten at all points and altogether; all

that they suffered was great; they were destroyed, as the saying is, with total destruction, their

fleet, their army – everything was destroyed…such were the events in Sicily” (Peloponnesian

War, Book 7, Section 87, Line 5). Moreover, Alcibiades betrays Athens, after they begin to

realize the conquest is falling into failure, when he joins the Spartans, “I hope that none of you

will think any the worse of me if after having hitherto passed as a lover of my country, I know

actively join its worst enemies in attacking it” (Peloponnesian War, Book 6, Section 92, Line 2).

Thus, the speeches of Nicias and Alcibiades, the betrayal of Alcibiades, and the defeat of Athens

all contribute to Thucydides’ assertion that the individual desires of men are harmful the benefit

of the whole and will only result in its fall.

7

Citation;

"The Landmark Thucydides [Hardcover]." The Landmark Thucydides: Thucydides, Robert B. Strassler, Richarb B. Crawley, Victor Davis Hanson: 9781416590873: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2013.

Word Count:

2129 words

8