The Melian Dialogue

The Peloponnesian War was a conflict between two hegemonic powers in the Greek world, Athens and Sparta. What does “The Melian Dialogue” reveal about how such power struggles impact smaller and less powerful states or nations?

The Athenians show a callous, practical self-interest throughout the dialogue. Given that they would surely prefer a swift, diplomatic submission rather than a lengthy, expensive siege, would a more conciliatory approach have been more effective? Why or why not?

The Melians ultimately choose to resist and hope that fortune will favor them in the end, despite the superior force marshaled before them. There are numerous examples of such improbable victories in the history of warfare. What is the text saying about the role of fortune or chance in conflicts between states?

Athens is known as the birthplace of democracy. Are the ideals that govern political life within Athens at odds with its treatment of Melos? If so, how would the Athenian delegation explain this apparent contradiction?

In his apology for Athenian imperialism, the Athenian rhetorician Isocrates argued for the necessity of the Melian massacre, noting that other city-states acted just as savagely. What evidence from the text supports this reasoning? What evidence contradicts it?

At the start of the discussion, the Athenians propose the debate format after noting that they will not be allowed to address the citizenry directly. How might events have unfolded differently if the public had been given the choice of submission or resistance? Is there any evidence in the Melians’ words to support your assertion?

The Melians assert that their city, founded by colonists from Sparta, has stood free for several hundred years. During the dialogue, they at times argue for Athens to accept their neutrality, but in the end choose (in part) to place their trust that Sparta will come to their defense. Is this a reasonable assumption on their part? If not, why do they mention it?

Logos (appeals to reason), ethos (appeals to character), and pathos (appeals to emotion) are considered pillars of all persuasive writing. How are all three elements employed by Thucydides in “The Melian Dialogue”? Give specific examples to support your argument.