Hemocrates and the Peloponnesian War - I, Me and Myself

Sujaan Lal

Dr. Lorraine Pangle

Intro to Greek Political Thought

Thucyidides

Hemocrates and The Peloponnesian War: I, Me and Myself

        I like war. Don’t get me wrong, its not the senseless violence and destruction that intrigue me. Rather, the little boy inside me marvels at the idea that a conflict between people can lead to the clash of armies and inspire emotion that can unite an entire nation. Most literature I have come across does an excellent job of recounting the particulars of the war in question, but what struck me about The Peloponnesian War, was Thucydides’ effort to paint a picture that captured the emotions and motivations of those, whether by chance or by choice, were thrust into the conflict. He did so by presenting speeches of leaders from each faction which help provide an “inside scoop” of the thought process and psyche of the elite during the conflict. Hermocrates, a well-known figure in Syracuse, plays a large role in the book with his speeches that question the reasons and basis for why the Athenians fought the way it did.         

        Hermocrates’ stance and philosophy become increasingly clear with each speech he delivers. His three main orations, attempt to sway his audience away from support of the Athenians. He first speaks to the Sicilians in a call to arms to prevent Athenian success. His second and third speeches concentrate on the Syracusans and their preparation as well as the Kamarinians who he urges to create an alliance with the aforementioned Syracusans. Although, each speech has a different audience, his message is the same. He stresses that the common good is the most important thing for mankind itself with. However, he also asserts that it is human nature to search for power and glory. Thus, the ideal is to fulfill this need to achieve the maximum result.         

        Hermocrates first speech is direct and to the point. Even though the Athenian threat to Sicily is imminent, he asserts that the instinct to conquer is something that is innate. He doesn't place blame on Athens for their desire to expand and suggests that it is “part of human nature to rule those who yield.” (Thucydides 4.61)^[1]. This justification shows that Hemocrates believes that one should not fight what comes naturally. In the case of his speech, his argument is taken to somewhat extreme lengths in the fact it is used to warrant an invasion, but he shows that people should use their own might to follow their desire to gain power. His argument, however, is not unilateral. He makes it clear that a defending force should role over to the will of an onslaught. Rather it is the same human instinct that should drive one to defend and resist “encroachment” (Thucydides 4.61). Self -interest seems to make people believe that they have the right to whatever they can get and this mindset results in people going to great lengths to protect what they have and constantly desire more. Thus, fighting is inevitable because equality is impossible with those who are inherently concerned with themselves. 

        A great speech wouldn't be great if it didn't have a proposed plan behind it. In his lectures, Hermocrates aforementioned attitude influences the strategies he puts forward. He denies that the Athenians intend to help the Leonites, writing them off as untrustworthy. The betrayal of the Ionians proved that their alliance was only for the Athenians own benefit and Hermocrates in his speeches remained convinced that all others would face a similar fate. The Ionian story is another example of how ambition will always trump any compassionate act. Benevolence, he asserts, is just another more subtle way of putting one’s own desires above others. In his second speech, Hermocrates makes an assumption that every city only cared about their own territory and this assumption is what shaped his message to the Syracusans. He attempts to unite Sicily and Carthage by appealing to the selfishness that, as he has deduced, defines all human beings. His strategy is to unite them by showing the one thing they all share; “that the danger is to all”(Thucydides 6.34). He uses his audience’s natural tendency and their fear to get what he wants, a very shrewd tactic for an orator.  However, he also establishes that it is very near impossible to people to change by contending that selflessness is impossible for human beings. 

        After establishing that greed is what is at the very core of all people, what remains to be answered is why people knowingly accept this reality. Hermocrates responds by claiming that it is all about results. In his third speech, he explains to the Kamarinaians that choosing to stand alone to weaken the Syracusan forces is in fact the wrong decision because it reduces their own chances of survival.  In this sense, Hermocrates is a pragmatist and therefore his arguments are decidedly secular in nature. This fits with his message, because any religious influence would probably result in much less military success. Even though killing, and deception are harmful to one’s spirit, one finds it necessary to win a war. Manipulation and blackmail are clearly morally wrong, but Hermocrates feels he must pressure the Kamarinainans away from neutrality, which would “avoid no hostility”, (Thucydides 6.80) into an alliance simply to preserve the idea of Syracusan victory. To satisfy his people, he must act in an immoral way and thus he prioritizes end over the means.