Sargon of Akkad

For those that don't know about the Peloponnesian war, the Sicilian Expedition in particular, the Athenians were looking to expand their empire, Syracuse was the next target. Alcibiades and Nicias had it out in the forum, and everyone voted Alcibiades way and the expedition was given vast resources and manpower in order that it might succeed (around 10,000 men - a massive amount, for a Greek city state). However criminal charges against Alcibiades lead to Nicias actually commanding a military expedition he opposed in concept.

Alcibiades had won good territory for Athens, most notably capturing Byzantium and coming home a rich and famous man, thus far undefeated in the field of battle. Nicias was known for his conservative generalship, unwilling to take risks, having thus far refused to actually undertake anything that resembled a proper battle for fear of poor consequences.

That a man of Nicias' disposition took control of the greatest risk Athens had thus undertaken is an obvious recipe for failure, but would things have fared differently if the adventurous Alcibiades been in command?

okamido

This is a great question and I personally believe that had Alcibiades been there, things would have turned out differently. No matter what was said about the way he conducted himself privately, Alcibiades always showed an understanding of military matters.

Also without Alcibiades, it only took one Spartan General to turn things around there, so the mission was precarious from the outset. However, since that Spartan was only sent based on the advice of Alcibiades after he fled to Sparta, it is unlikely the Syracusans(sp?) would have been able to muster the military know-how to defend against the Athenian army without Alcibiades, let alone with him.

scamander

Morning all,

I'm not so sure. Alcibiades had the knack of leaving the scene of the crime at the right time. As a military man I am unsure of his achievements or talents - perhaps someone can enlighten me?

The expedition was farcical and exactly what benefits it stroved to achieve are questionable at best. Certainly a simple risk analysis would make it unworkable. Opening fronts at that point was madness and certainly underlines the dangers of demagogues!

Alex III

Weather Alcibiades was there or not, I think had the Athenians attacked Syracuse as SOON as they arrived, as was suggested by Lamachus, but refused by Nicias, they would have achieved a quick victory.

As pointed out by Lamachus, the Syracusans were utterly unprepared upon the Athenian arrival, and many still didn't even believe that the Athenian fleet had come, thinking it was just rumours. Rather than trying to secure allies in Sicily (which ultimately failed), had the Athenians executed this plan, attacked Sicily by land before they built their counter walls and mobilized their cavaly, and attacked and destroyed the fleet that still would have been on shore and exposed in the Great Harbour, I think the Athenians would have easliy sacked Syracuse, and I doubt there would have been any opposition in Sicily.

As soon as they decided not to do this, the expedition was doomed to failure in my opionion, regardless of had Alcibiades been there or not. The Syracusan control of the land around the city, their effective cavalry force, and their adaquate navy ensured that they would have won a war of attrition. Not only were the Athenians barely able to secure the Great Harbour, their foritfications were not able to breach the third, and heavily fortified, Syracusan counter wall, which gave the Syracusans a clear and protected path to the north where allied or friendly cities and resources were plentiful. Not being able to cut off their supply lines is not even something Alcibiades could have done, the manpower required just not adaquate, even when 800 cavalry, 5,000 hoplites and thousands of light armed troops came to re-inforce them the force was not adaquate for maintaining, or even establlishing, a siege of that magnitude.