Talk:Melian Dialogue

Untitled

This article is heavy on interpretations from secondary sources but lacks any reference (except for page numbers in a Penguin edition) for finding the Melian dialogue in the primary source using a reference system that's standardized for classical texts and independent of translation and printed edition. The dialogue in the fifth book of Thucydides' Historiae, sections 84 through 116, which ought to be cited as "Thucydides 5.84–116." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.50.59 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is someone's first year classical history essay. I'm not sure what the etiquette is for demolishing articles and starting over. Would that be considered more rude than publishing one's views on the "irony" of military history? Mephistopheles (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that's fair comment. It's weak on the International Relations side of things as well (Fouad Ajami famously quoted the Melian dialogue in his reply to Huntington's original presentation of his thesis in Foreign Affairs and given the topical significance of that thesis that must be a striking omission). I don't know what the etiquette is myself but do go ahead by all means if you can present a more encyclopaedic account (I don't have the time or the expertise really myself). I'll support you if you draw flak and send me a note on my user page. I'm afraid it will mean a wipe but that's the fault of this contributor for not providing a stub for others to build on. I don't think you even need to better it. I'm afraid I do think a simple stub would be an improvement on what has been provided here in the circumstances, earnest and credible attempt though it is. Perhaps it would be courteous to try to identify the contributor from the history and send him/her a note explaining what you've done and and invite them to contribute. It's a shame but the contributor really should have known better. Rinpoche (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the opinions expressed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.5.219 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is also naïve and imperceptive. Having admitted that speeches in Thucydides (as in other ancient historians) are seldom historically accurate and that the Melian Dialogue is a dramatic exercise within the History, it fails to highlight the fundamental role of the Dialogue in the moral tale of Thucidides' work, bearing witness as it does to the corruption of the Athenian demos since the sparing of the Mytilenaeans in Book III. What matters here is not the historical detail which several contributors agonise over, but the implications to be drawn. Deipnosophista (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Strategy

"Melos was a neutral island in the Peloponnese just east of Sparta; the Athenians wanted to conquer the island to impose a greater threat over the Spartans. "

It would be good to have a map/diagram showing Athens, Sparta & Melos, and perhaps charting the main waterways connecting them. Otherwise it sounds like uncited theorizing, and doesn't give any real understanding anyway. --Gwern (contribs) 11:04 5 August 2010 (GMT)

Agree Rinpoche (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Omitted information

Thucydides' history omits to mention that Melos, though nominally neutral, was a Spartan colony, founded by Sparta, a fact that may help to explain, if not excuse, the harshness of the Athenian treatment of them..

Lack of Clarity in Synopsis

This sentence: "One of the arguments in the Melian Dialogue is whether or not the destruction of Melos was a humanitarian act." There is a confusion of tenses here. How can the Melian Dialogue argue about whether the act of the destruction of Melos was humanitarian, when it has not yet happened? Does it mean "would be a humanitarian act"? There is also a confusion of just who is doing the arguing. It is a dialogue, so what the editor must really mean to say is that one of the sides (i.e., the Melians) in the dialogue argued that it would be a humanitarian act (i.e., a just act) for the Athenians to spare them, and the other side (the Athenians) rejected that argument. Whatever the case, the sentence makes no sense as written. In fact, in the argument Melians famously did point out that they were weak and defenseless and the Athenians were strong, and therefore they begged to be spared by appealing to the Athenians' renowned sense of mercy and justice ("humanitarian" is a modern word and concept and would not have been used) and the Athenians rejected these appeals with their notorious reply that "the strong do what they can and the weak do what they must" (I don't have citation at fingertips) and proceeded to slaughter the Melians without compunction. Mballen (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)