Greetings from Greece. Imao, the most important lesson to be learned from the Melian Dialogue, is that in times of polarization and turbulence, neutrality is not an option for the weak. If you lack the power to defend your neutrality, sooner or later, the leaders of one of the two poles will force you into taking a stance, fearing that they might otherwise seem incapable of leading their crew.

Professor Barth, awesome video! You make history so interesting - thank you.

Great video series. Look forward to the next one. There are those that truly believe in liberty and those that truly believe in tribal government hegemony. As leaders of the free world, you do not have to be imperialistic like the stance America took after being victorious and the most prosperous after WWII. We instead encouraged the great colonial powers we allied with to allow independence. The unfortunate thing was that communism/socialism was waiting in the wings to fill that power gap. So we have taken the approach to encourage western friendly governments to maintain our sphere of influence only to be undermined at home by collectivists that want collectivist governments abroad in the name of self determination. Self determination for the collectivists but tyranny for those who respect individual liberty. The libertarian values are for decentralized societies that cooperate together to maintain freedom for “We The People” had Athenians been believers of individual autonomy and “We The People” they would have allied with the Melians. Instead they acted as a tyrannical govt - making subjects of the weak. I would argue that government powers are tyrannical and would act in such a way as to take what is there’s, but since the America revolution and How we have acted since WWII there is reason to believe that governments can be run by liberty lovers and act to influence liberty from tyranny in their sphere through out the world.

Keep it up!

Live and Let Live versus Live and Let Die.

Thank you, i really enjoyed this lecture on Thucidides. As for your question, here is my opinion on this topic. The way you approach the melians "choice" presuppose that humans are still rationally openminded in front of a life threatening situation. The threat of total annihilation is somehow an abstract concept. This is why "fortune" and "gods" are both strong mental refuge that distracts humans from the harsh reality of a future hypothetical crisis. Denial or overconfidence are commons human reactions to an overwhelming situation.(i.e. Global warming "laissez-faire" or the french government optimism prior to the german invasion on 1940) Political leaders have the impossible task to make decisions on a very small portion of the informations needed to make a true rational decision. On the other side, it is true that the melians should have had a better comprehension at the outcome of the atheniens invasion and they paid the highest price for their decision. But nothing would have guarantee their wellness if they had accepted the atheniens offer. Land confiscation, food scarcity, women rapes, men taken for hard labor and war...surrendering your sovereignty is a wedge for much more then just the lost of pride, you're also sending into slavery those who you care about. There is certainly mixed feelings. The melians chose an outcome where they still had power to act upon future actions...and in the end, sovereignty and liberty are usually the best tools a political body can count on to survive. For me, that dialogue somehow testify the limits of humans leaders. "Real politik" must take in account that blindsighted humans, and not purely logical computers in a well defined world, make the political decisions.

Re: Self-interest and power are the driving forces in politics and international relations Do you think all nations (& their citizens) could see it in their self-interest to agree to follow abstract principles of justice similar to what was attempted with the creation of the United Nations after WW2? Seems to me a unifying event like preventing climate change disaster and fatigue of nations invading other nations could get citizens of powerful countries (the ones that commit most of the aggression) to desire that.

1) The Athenians make the stronger case. The Melians would've done the same if they were more powerful is absolutely true. Relying on a land power to help the on the seas against a sea power is like hoping your pet lion will defend you against a shark in the ocean. This shows how hopeless their understanding of the war was. The Athenians even tried to explain that to them. The American colonies were subject to far worse than the medians before the revolutionary War. Finally, in the name of honor, everything that the executed and enslaved people faced due to the decision of a few was truly much more dishonorable. 2) yes Athens was hypocritical, it matters because this shows their desperation. Though the fact that the melians couldn't even defend against the desperate Athenians tells us that they were crossing the line from courage to stupidity. 3) The Melians were reckless, they were reliant on lions to defend them against sharks at sea. This shows how clueless they were about everything and were destined to fall. They were warned and were given rather lenient terms but literally threw it all for ego

it appears as though this Dialogue was the beginning of the end for Athens, and Melians actually defeated the Athenians even though they were destroyed

1) Melians. I think it is always an assumption that aggression towards a sovereign state will lead to further prosperity... The Athenians only needed the Melians as allies and nothing more. Considering the size of Melos it is not clear to me that the Athenians truly viewed them as a legitimate threat. If Athens truly wanted to hold true to their principles they would not have engaged in such aggression and instead become respected allies in Melos. 2) Athens is hypocritical and it does matter. I am not sure of the history of the general sentiment in Athens, but it would not surprise me if there was a large segment of the population that potentially viewed these actions as a corruption of Athenian ideals. Sending men from your homeland to slaughter your incapable neighbors whom hold the same ideals, is not a good look. 3) Both courageous and reckless. If you don't hold true to your ideals, then whom among the population has any reason to believe or respect your authority. Although, it was somewhat reckless to resist as well. The Melians had zero chance of survival. What the Melian authorities could have done was traveled to Athens to appeal to the general population. It might have not been successful regardless considering the circumstances, but would have been an exercise of the ideals respected amongst the population that could potentially have won the hearts and minds of the Athenian people. Wishful thinking, but its an alternative.

Give War A Chance 1. The Athenians make the stronger case by far. If the Melians had the power they would do the same to Athens. Which is why powerful nations always do the same thing. They conquer until they can't. It's just a cycle and Athens is playing the part. You can't really prevent it from happening. 2. No Athens is not hypocritical, the Strong wins until they don't, and then the new Strong wins. I think the only hypocrisy is to argue against Honor. Honor and Courage is what creates strength. It is the foundation of all great nations. Athens should not have made these arguments and instead should have welcomed war to prove their might, honor, and courage to the Weak. War is a contest of cultures. Does it matter? Kind of. In the cycle, one of the major turning points of an Empire is that they become too managerial. Troops must be replinished. When you can no longer replinish your troops because you are too spread out, or you have incompetent officers, or you can't rally your citizens to fight for the nation, then the Empire has all but ended because the enemies will surely use this to their advantage. The hypocrisy is to claim that your nation is full of honor, courage, and might, but in the end they were destroyed just like every other Empire before it. 3. It was courageous. The winner wins. If they were meant to win then it would win. The Gods would favor them. If they submit then they admit that their culture and their existence is not worthwhile. In the same vein they admit that they are not worthy of The Gods' favor. Sometimes in history it is okay to admit that, to surrender your culture, and adopt the new one. There is nothing wrong with becoming "civilized". In this case the civilizations were comparable. Athens represents the Tyranny of Powerful Men. It is with great irony that Athens became just like Persia. That is the nature of history and empires. Extra Credit: With Native Americans, this is a case where colonization should have been welcome. There is a lot of false history regarding the colonization of not just the Americas, but of India, SEA, Africa, etc. Yes there were horrible crimes and accidents that should be fixed given reparations. However, the good far outweighs the bad. Civilization advancement is an overall good because it leads to objectively healthier lives and outcomes. To disagree is to argue against hospitals, schools, and technology. The ideal way forward is to infuse old cultures with new technology, but because our current European Elites deem that colonization of any kind is evil, the old cultures cannot have new technologies and are forced to stay in the near stone ages. The Chinese Elites are doing the colonizing now, with much harsher outcomes.