ABSTRACT Title of Document: THUCYDIDES’ DANGEROUS WORLD: DUAL FORMS OF DANGER IN CLASSICAL GREEK INTERSTATE RELATIONS. Daryl Edward Grissom, Doctor of Philosophy, History, 2012 Directed By: Dr. A.M. Eckstein, Department of History In his analysis of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides uses a single Greek word, kindunos, an extraordinary two hundred times, often with contorted grammatical and syntactical constructions which focus his reader’s attention on its use. With the assumption that Thucydides is writing for a retrospective reader who understands the outcome of the war as well as many of the smaller episodes which led to that outcome, the problem is to determine exactly why Thucydides relies so heavily on this word, particularly in instances when any number of simpler words or constructions would have provided a more straightforward explanation. To solve this problem, this dissertation examines Thucydides’ use of the term kindunos, not on a case-by-case basis as in a commentary, but on a thematic basis by constructing broad categories that help explain one aspect of Thucydides’ purpose. This dissertation shows that Thucydides uses the term kindunos in different ways in order to express to his reader the idea that there are two forms of danger threatening his contemporary world: external dangers and internally generated ones. The external dangers are the more easily defined. Thucydides’ era was filled with strife and his analysis is of a twenty-seven year long war between Greek poleis. The internal dangers, however, are harder for modern readers to define as they are a result of Thucydides’ contemporaries’ tendency to give into internal urges: the urge to act, to preserve honor, to exact revenge, and to intervene on others’ behalf. This dissertation uses Greek tragic poetry, contemporary to Thucydides’ writing, to help define these emotional urges. It also relies heavily on interstate relations theories, namely the Realist paradigm, to define the mechanics of inter-polis behavior Thucydides witnessed. But, in the end, this dissertation argues that Thucydides’ didactic message to his reader was that in an already dangerous world there is only one way for leaders to hope to mitigate the danger: they must eschew emotional urges and respond to external situations with rationality and reason instead. THUCYDIDES’ DANGEROUS WORLD: DUAL FORMS OF DANGER IN CLASSICAL GREEK INTERSTATE RELATIONS By Daryl Edward Grissom Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2012 Advisory Committee: Professor A.M. Eckstein, Chair Professor J. Bianchini Professor J. Hallett Professor K. Holum Professor G. Staley Professor D. Sullivan © Copyright by Daryl Edward Grissom 2012 ii Dedicated to my family... To my mother, Sally, who sat with me all night long when I wrote my first elementary school research paper. She taught me the value of planning ahead. To my father, Eddie, who has supported in everything I’ve ever attempted. He taught me the value of hard work and “stick-to-it’iveness.” To my wife, Erin, who has stood beside me without question or hesitation from the first day we decided to pursue this path. She has taught me meaning of love and patience. To my daughter, Pandora, who just wanted me to finish this so I could go on vacation with her. She has taught me to appreciate what is truly important in life. To my academic father, Dr. Art Eckstein, who has been my advisor, toughest critic and strongest supporter throughout this project. He has taught me how to write. To my academic mother, Dr. Jeanne Rutenburg, whom I consider to have been my “other advisor.” She showed me what real exuberance for teaching looks like. iii Acknowledgements This work would not have been possible without the immense support of so many individuals. At the risk of offending those whose work also deserves individual acknowledgement, I would like to thank the following individuals personally. The Department of Greek and Latin at The Catholic University of America was the first group of scholars to put faith in my potential as a scholar. They admitted me to their program to pursue my M.A. despite the very real possibility that the work might be overwhelming for such a non-traditional student as I was. Special thanks must go out to Dr. Sarah Ferrario who taught me Greek in an intensive course and then continued to work with me, providing the confidence that I could indeed make this dissertation a reality. The Department of History at the University of Maryland welcomed me with open arms and helped me broaden my focus through a comprehensive course of study. Special thanks must go out to Dr. Ken Holum whose perspective on history is very different from my own. This difference, of course, has made me a better historian and a more well rounded student as I continually wrestle with the questions he poses. The Department of Classics at the University of Maryland allowed me much liberty to work with their faculty and participate in their courses. They not only helped me sharpen my skills in the classical languages, but provided comprehensive resources to help me further my studies. Special thanks must go out to Dr. Steven Rutledge who sought out every opportunity to allow me to personalize his courses in such a way as to challenge me and further my work on this dissertation. And finally there is my committee. Each of them influenced the final product in some positive way. The defense was as it has always been intended to be, an engaging conversation among scholars with varying perspectives, all of whom are simply seeking to advance our understanding of antiquity. Thank you all for your support through the years. iv Table of Contents Dedication............................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................iii Table of Contents................................................................................................................iv Chapter 1: The Question......................................................................................................1 1.1 General Thesis...............................................................................................................1 1.2 Literature / Scholarship Survey.....................................................................................7 1.2.1 Relevant Scholarship on Thucydides.............................................................8 1.2.2 Literary Theory: Basic Concepts and Definitions........................................18 1.2.3 Modern Interstate Relations: Basic Concepts and Definitions.....................22 1.2.4 Thucydides 1.23.5-6: A Realist Perspective.................................................31 1.2.5 Conclusion: The Two Forms of Danger .......................................................47 Chapter 2: Thucydides’ Analysis of External Dangers......................................................50 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................50 2.2 Κίνδυνος as General State of Nature.........................................................................52 2.2.1 Danger: A Constant For All Poleis...............................................................53 2.2.2 Danger: A Constant Within the Polis...........................................................79 2.2.3 Danger: An Impersonal Force......................................................................99 2.3 Κίνδυνος as an Aspect of Rational Tactical/Strategic Planning..............................108 2.3.1 Κίνδυνος in Military Planning: Three Non-Athenian Examples of Coup d’Oeil.....................................112 2.3.2 Κίνδυνος in Military Planning: Demosthenes’ and Lamachus’ Athenian Examples................................122 2.3.3 Κίνδυνος in Military Planning: Three Spartan Examples.......................134 2.3.4 Κίνδυνος in Military Planning: Groups Exhibiting Coup d’Oeil.............................................................143 2.3.5 Κίνδυνος in Military Planning: Athenian and Spartan Coup d’Oeil........................................................155 2.3.6 Conclusion: Rational Plans Account for Κίνδυνος.................................163 2.4 Κίνδυνος and Profit Maximizing Behavior............................................................164 2.4.1 Κίνδυνος: A Measure of Potential Reward.............................................167 2.4.2 Κίνδυνος: A Component of Chance (Athenian Examples).....................179 2.4.3 Κίνδυνος: A Component of Chance (Non-Athenian Examples)............184 2.4.4 Conclusion: Κίνδυνος as a Potentially Profitable Gamble.....................193 2.5 Thucydides’ Analysis of External Dangers: Conclusion........................................194 Chapter 3: Thucydides’ Analysis of Internal Dangers..................................................198 3.1 General Introduction...............................................................................................198 3.2 Κίνδυνος and the “Ethos of Action”.....................................................................202 3.2.1 Defining the Greek “Ethos of Action”.....................................................205 3.2.2 Thucydides Defines Greek “Ethos of Action”.........................................213 3.2.3