The Melian Dialogue

“The Melian Dialogue” is a relatively short passage found in the middle of the larger History of the Peloponnesian War, and yet it has had an outsized influence in the development of the theory of Political Realism. Thucydides stages the dialogue as a dramatic debate between viewpoints, and its position in the middle of History serves to highlight its importance from the author’s viewpoint. The dramatic imagining of the episode on Melos stands out from the larger work and serves as a vehicle for a contest between political principles.

The History of the Peloponnesian War concerns the moral, political, and economic ramifications of Imperialism and Hegemony, as the growing Athenian empire struggles to hold itself together and engages in a protracted contest for supremacy with the equally powerful Spartans. At the outset of "The Melian Dialogue,” the Athenian delegation frames its demands within the context of the recent past, alluding to their role in the Greco-Persian Wars as giving them a “right” to rule the Greek world. By building their hubristic aspirations on a foundation of past glory, the Athenians unwittingly follow a model established in another Greek art form: the tragedy. Like the tragedies of Sophocles and Aeschylus, History tells the story of a will to power that becomes the engine of its own undoing. The Athenians grow to prominence among the Greeks for their good service during the Persian Wars. They establish the Delian League for mutual defense against any future Persian threat and liberate those Greek polities still under the Persian yoke. As their alliance and their leadership within it grows, they begin misappropriating common funds for their own use, enriching Athens itself. They become increasingly worried about their erstwhile allies. Concerned over security, they must acquire more island outposts and funds for their navy: The empire has become its own driving force. It is at this inflection point that "The Melian Dialogue” occurs. What follows illustrates the downfall of Athens at the hands of the Spartans, funded by the Persians. Lured by the promise of Imperialism and Hegemony, Athens creates the conditions that bring about the end of its empire.

In this context, “The Melian Dialogue” is less a straightforward argument for Political Realism than it is a focused debate about the rules governing the interaction between states. The dialogue takes the form of a set of interwoven competing speeches, a rhetorical sparring between advocates for Political Realism on the one hand and for lawful behavior among states on the other. The dialogue itself plays out in a dialectical tone, that is, each side attempts to persuade the other point-by-point, stripping down the logic of each statement to reach the truth of the matter. In the end, neither side has altered its position. The Melians have lost their last chance to avert disaster, and the Athenians—though they do not yet realize it—are one step closer to bringing disaster on themselves. Only the audience is left to decide which side is more persuasive; after all, the ending is a foregone conclusion, as noted by the Melians at the start.

The Melian position illustrates the interdependence of Justice and Power. The Melians make repeated appeals to the cultural norms of the Greeks, including those rooted in belief in the supernatural, but without power to enforce these norms, they get nowhere in the debate. Even in arguing for justice, they must concede the Athenian focus on expediency. They argue that if the Athenians treat them unjustly, someone else will treat the Athenians unjustly in the future. They bring up the role of fortune or chance in warfare, implying that the gods may punish the Athenians for their unjust actions. All these arguments serve only to reinforce the Athenians' central contention: Justice is nothing without power to back it up.

The Melians persist in their doomed resistance because they regard Honor and Self-Determination as synonymous. The most important value for them is not survival, but the need to remain in control of their choices. Explaining their choice to resist the Athenians even at the risk of their own destruction, they say, “it would be complete dishonour and cowardice if we who are still free do not go to any lengths rather than submit to slavery” (Section 100). Optimistically, they hope that honor will also compel the Spartans to come to the aid of their kin, but the Athenians dismiss this idea: The Spartans, they say, care about honor only when among Spartans. In their dealings with other peoples, they are the same as the Athenians: They value only expediency.

The Athenians adhere to the principle of expediency throughout this dialogue. They answer each of the Melians’ appeals through this lens. Relying on the chance of an improbable victory is as irrational as relying on “divination, oracles, and other such sources of disastrous optimism” (Section 103). Justice and honor are beside the point, as they only govern interactions between equals. It is futile for the Melians to resist on those grounds when the contest is so unequal and their survival is at stake. As for the Spartans, Athens’s peers, they play the same game of political expediency and cannot be relied upon. Neutrality is out of the question; now that they have arrived in force, they must subjugate the Melians or risk looking weak and inviting rebellion.

Thucydides stages a debate between two competing value systems—one concerned with honor and justice, the other only with power and expediency. The utter destruction of the Melian people suggests that the Athenians are right. As a practical matter and in the short term, their statements are undeniably true, as even the Melians acknowledge. No appeal to abstract justice can stop Athens from imposing its will on Melos. In the broader context of the History, however, Athens’s cruelty and hubris can be read as foreshadowing and even explaining its eventual downfall. This imagined debate—an anomaly within Thucycides’s otherwise objective and factual history—raises questions about the ethics of international relations that, 25 centuries later, remain unresolved.