To what extent did Athenian and Spartan strategies develop during the course of the Archidamian
War (431 – 420 BC)?
Through the course of the Archidamian war, the strategies of both Athens and Sparta changed
drastically. It was perhaps inevitable that both sides would have to try out different strategies in
order to effectively challenge each other, as they traditionally held very different arenas of warfare.
This was a constantly evolving war, perhaps also because it saw the influence of a range of vastly
different leaders. This can be seen in the writing of Thucydides, Plutarch and Aristophanes.
At the start of the Archidamian War, Thucydides tells us about Sparta’s strategy of invading Attica
annually and targeting crops, trying to draw Athens into a fight. These invasions took place through
the first half of the 420s and were a traditional form of Spartan warfare. However, this was
ineffective as the type of crops grown in Attica were hard to destroy and the residents of rural Attica
were evacuated into the city. Sparta were forced to change tactics. Through this we can see that
Sparta’s strategy was forced to develop and would continue to change over the course of the war as
they tried to find an effective method of challenging Athens. Thucydides may be seen as reliable
here, as he lived in Athens at this time and would have had first-hand experience of the actions of
the Spartans within Attica. He wouldn’t have had access to the strategists within the Spartan forces,
so he would not have necessarily known the reasons behind Sparta’s changing tactics. Nevertheless,
his description of this original strategy is very useful in showing the ways Spartan warfare would
develop in the coming years.
Athenian strategy at the start of the war was also one which changed fairly quickly. They adopted a
strategy advocated by Pericles, which focused on avoiding hoplite battle with Sparta and instead
keeping the empire under control and making limited defensive responses. This strategy, which
involved evacuating the countryside of Attica and waiting out the initial Spartan invasions, proved an
effective way of conserving resources at the start of the war as it is described by Thucydides. He
presents a speech of Pericles’ which argues that Athens will be able to survive the war if they follow
his strategy, and Thucydides seems to agree with this point of view, as he later says that this military
judgement was sound. As an Athenian general, Thucydides would have himself seen the way this
strategy was being used. He may therefore be a reliable source when discussing the strategies
adopted by Athens. However, it is possible that he presented Pericles overly positively due to his
aristocratic background, as a contrast to the later Cleon.
However, after the death of Pericles, a more aggressive strategy was adopted by Athens – this is seen
through Demosthenes and Cleon’s campaign in Sphacteria and Pylos in 425. Cleon is presented by
Aristophanes as a key figure who drove the war forwards, and he places the blame for the war purely
on Cleon. However, this may be seen as the aristocratic Aristophanes being prejudiced against Cleon,
as he refers to him as ‘the tanner’ because of his lower-class background. He may have also had a
personal grudge against Cleon as he accused Aristophanes of slandering Athens in one of his comedic
plays. Cleon is also presented as an opportunistic and overly aggressive warmonger by Thucydides,
but this may be criticised as Thucydides also had an aristocratic point of view and was even exiled
due to a decree proposed by Cleon. Therefore, the suggestion that Cleon was the main reason the
war continued and was an overzealous warmonger may be seen as an exaggeration by these two
authors. Nevertheless, it is clear that he represented a huge change from Periclean strategy. These
accounts may have been shocked by his seemingly aggressive tactics due to how quickly it seemed to
change from Pericles’ defensive tactics, exemplifying the degree of change which Athenian strategy
underwent at this time.
War (431 – 420 BC)?
Through the course of the Archidamian war, the strategies of both Athens and Sparta changed
drastically. It was perhaps inevitable that both sides would have to try out different strategies in
order to effectively challenge each other, as they traditionally held very different arenas of warfare.
This was a constantly evolving war, perhaps also because it saw the influence of a range of vastly
different leaders. This can be seen in the writing of Thucydides, Plutarch and Aristophanes.
At the start of the Archidamian War, Thucydides tells us about Sparta’s strategy of invading Attica
annually and targeting crops, trying to draw Athens into a fight. These invasions took place through
the first half of the 420s and were a traditional form of Spartan warfare. However, this was
ineffective as the type of crops grown in Attica were hard to destroy and the residents of rural Attica
were evacuated into the city. Sparta were forced to change tactics. Through this we can see that
Sparta’s strategy was forced to develop and would continue to change over the course of the war as
they tried to find an effective method of challenging Athens. Thucydides may be seen as reliable
here, as he lived in Athens at this time and would have had first-hand experience of the actions of
the Spartans within Attica. He wouldn’t have had access to the strategists within the Spartan forces,
so he would not have necessarily known the reasons behind Sparta’s changing tactics. Nevertheless,
his description of this original strategy is very useful in showing the ways Spartan warfare would
develop in the coming years.
Athenian strategy at the start of the war was also one which changed fairly quickly. They adopted a
strategy advocated by Pericles, which focused on avoiding hoplite battle with Sparta and instead
keeping the empire under control and making limited defensive responses. This strategy, which
involved evacuating the countryside of Attica and waiting out the initial Spartan invasions, proved an
effective way of conserving resources at the start of the war as it is described by Thucydides. He
presents a speech of Pericles’ which argues that Athens will be able to survive the war if they follow
his strategy, and Thucydides seems to agree with this point of view, as he later says that this military
judgement was sound. As an Athenian general, Thucydides would have himself seen the way this
strategy was being used. He may therefore be a reliable source when discussing the strategies
adopted by Athens. However, it is possible that he presented Pericles overly positively due to his
aristocratic background, as a contrast to the later Cleon.
However, after the death of Pericles, a more aggressive strategy was adopted by Athens – this is seen
through Demosthenes and Cleon’s campaign in Sphacteria and Pylos in 425. Cleon is presented by
Aristophanes as a key figure who drove the war forwards, and he places the blame for the war purely
on Cleon. However, this may be seen as the aristocratic Aristophanes being prejudiced against Cleon,
as he refers to him as ‘the tanner’ because of his lower-class background. He may have also had a
personal grudge against Cleon as he accused Aristophanes of slandering Athens in one of his comedic
plays. Cleon is also presented as an opportunistic and overly aggressive warmonger by Thucydides,
but this may be criticised as Thucydides also had an aristocratic point of view and was even exiled
due to a decree proposed by Cleon. Therefore, the suggestion that Cleon was the main reason the
war continued and was an overzealous warmonger may be seen as an exaggeration by these two
authors. Nevertheless, it is clear that he represented a huge change from Periclean strategy. These
accounts may have been shocked by his seemingly aggressive tactics due to how quickly it seemed to
change from Pericles’ defensive tactics, exemplifying the degree of change which Athenian strategy
underwent at this time.
