• [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]

    court of law for their refusal to accept what could be claimed, in the context of contemporary
    diplomatic thinking, to be a legitimate and reasonable offer neutrality.
    If we examine the collective evidence of the original proposal and subsequent speeches, there are
    several important conclusions that can be drawn about the Spartan, Theban, Athenian, and Plataean
    attitudes toward neutrality. The Spartans were willing to attack Plataea in deference to Thebes (3.
    68.4) but were also very much concerned about religious scruples. Since the Spartans had once sworn
    not to invade Plataea unjustly (2. 71.2-4), it was important to Archidamus to shift responsibility for the
    attack in 429 onto the Plataeans. His offer of neutrality served this purpose admirably because it
    allowed the Spartans to maintain the appearance of acting justly (2. 74.3). Moreover, Plataea's refusal
    to accept could be (and was) later given as the legal justification for condemning the Plataeans (3.
    68.1). Neutrality had thus served a useful propaganda purpose, although observers like Thucydides
    recognized that in truth it revealed the cynical and self-serving attitude of the Spartans.
    For the Thebans, Plataea's rejection of neutrality' provided the key argument in favor of the
    imposition of a harsh punishment (3. 64.3). However, neutrality was not the real issue. Plataea's
    stubborn independence hindered Thebes' ambition to dominate Boeotia; worse still, as an ally of
    Athens, Plataea was a serious strategic threat to Thebes. What the Thebans wanted was the
    elimination of Plataea. Everyone knew this; and the Plataeans' rejection of neutrality was in no small
    part influenced by their fear that the Thebans would not honor neutrality but continue to work for the
    city's destruction (2. 72.2). In other words, Plataean neutrality was almost certainly not what the
    Thebans were seeking (or probably even willing to accept), but as it turned out, Plataea's rejection of
    the policy helped the Thebans achieve their real goal.
    [56]
     132 
    Athens' opposition to Plataean neutrality was adamant. Aside from the fact that the Athenians held the
    civilian population more or less hostage (2. 6.4, 72.2), the Athenians seemed determined to convince
    the Plataeans that rescue was possible if Plataea trusted its alliance with Athens (2.73). This was, of
    course, utterly false; and it creates the suspicion that the Athenians considered neutrality dangerous
    to their interests not only, I think, because it meant the loss of an existing ally, but also because of
    the precedent it might set for other allies.
    Belligerent pressure aside, the Plataeans themselves may have truly wanted to be neutral. Once
    76 of 236 7/9/2006 11:49 AM
    The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece http://content-backend-a.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft4489n8x4&chunk.i...
    their original appeal to the oaths of 479 was countered by Archidamus' offer to accept their neutrality,
    it was clear that if the offer were rejected, hostilities would be inevitable. The fact that the Plataeans
    consulted Athens (2.73) in spite of their expressed mistrust of Thebes suggests that they retained
    some confidence in Sparta's promises, considered the offer serious, and even hoped to convince the
    Athenians to accept the Spartans' assurances. The Athenians promised aid and sent none. At their trial
    in 427, the Plataeans did not argue that neutrality was an unreasonable offer but that their fear of
    Thebes and obligations to Athens made the offer impossible to accept (3.55). Under the
    circumstances, there was little else they could have said. In 429, their attitude toward the option of
    neutrality was mistrustful, because they knew that it depended on the acceptance and self-restraint of
    all parties involved. So, they decided not to accept the offer but to run the risk of siege rather than
    expose themselves to the double jeopardy of defying and thereby alienating the Athenians without in
    any way diminishing the Thebans' hatred and thirst for revenge. But as the outcome proved, neutrality
    was a double-edged sword, for in refusing it, the Plataeans gave their enemies a perfect legal pretext
    for annihilating them.
    V. The Failure of Corcyraean Neutrality (427)
    At the outset of his celebrated description of the Corcyraean revolution, Thucydides mentions that
    among the preliminary developments that exacerbated internal tensions were two abortive attempts to [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • zambezia2013.opx.pl