Hey folks! This week’s documents shed light on the charged atmosphere of the Peloponnesian War. How are the people of the time seeing the conflict and what it meant to be a citizen of their city?

The Plague at Athens by Thucydides speaks about a lethal plague that hit Athens after the invasion of the Peloponnese in Attica. The symptoms that followed this sickness were various and progressive. Some of them include intense headache, redness, inflammation of different parts of the body, and bleeding. This sickness can also affect different parts of the body, including the stomach. One of the most devastating things about this disease was the way it was affecting society. People began to feel the hopelessness and lack of determination, and they chose to live in the present and not care much for the future. Often, people would get sick while trying to care for others who were affected. For those who had no one to care for them, they would die slow and agonizing deaths in neglect. When infected with this disease, it was easy for people to lose hope and then succumb to the disease; the only hope was hearing about those who had gotten the disease and survived. The survivors of this disease built an immunity to it; they might contract the disease a second time, but they would not die from it. 

The plague of Athens by Thucydides takes accounts from the period after the Funeral of Perikles. Perikles is noted for being a famous Orator and general who's death was almost a national event requiring the population to come into the city to mourn. During this period of mourning the Sparta forces appeared and placed the city under siege. During this Siege we see the spread of a disease that ravages the population causing a degradation of social and religious norms. Thucydides goes on to explain how norms about how we treat the dead have changed with bodies piling up and pyres being stolen or over crowded. one of the most impactful parts of these writing are the discussion of how people already affected and recovered would go out of their way to show compassion "Yet it was with those who had recovered from the disease that the sick and the dying found most compassion. These knew what it was from experience, and had now no fear for themselves; for the same man was never attacked twice"

In Thucydides’ “ The Plague at Athens,” he describes how a devastating illness struck the city during the early years of the Peloponnesian War. A key moment that stood out to me was a comment he said in regards to how neither medical experts nor religious practices could stop the plague, which clearly showed how unprepared and frightened the Athenians were. Thucydides’ main message was that the plague did not only kill people but also disrupted daily life, diminished morale, and exposed how fragile Athens really was under pressure. This document provides insight to us how the overcrowded, unhealthy conditions were formulated with the Athenian strategy in bringing everyone inside the walls of the city. It directly challenges the confident image Perikles gave in his Funeral Oration, where he praised Athens’ unity and strength. Thucydides instead shows a city breaking down under fear, illness, and chaos. In the end, this account helps us see how deeply the plague affected Athens during the war and raises questions about what the disease truly was and how it may have contributed to Athens’ defeat.

The passage I selected is “A Charge of Sacrilege” by Andocides. I found it interesting because it sheds light on the fragile nature of being an Athenian citizen during the Peloponnesian War, where religion, politics, and law were closely connected. Accusations of impiety, such as profaning the Mysteries, could quickly be used as political tools to eliminate rivals or gain rewards. The state even offered financial incentives and immunity to informers. The fear, factionalism, and wartime stress created a chaotic and untrustworthy public trial system, leading many citizens to go into exile or face unfair convictions based on questionable evidence. This passage shows how fragile justice and civic trust were in Athens, where even citizenship and life could be put at risk by rumors, manipulation, or religious scandals.

One of the passages that got to me was the one written by Thucydides that reads, "People altered, at their pleasure, the customary significance of words to suit their deeds: irrational daring came to be considered the manly courage of one loyal to his party; prudent delay was thought a fair-seeming cowardice; a moderate attitude was deemed a mere shield for lack of virility." This caught my attention because he precisely demonstrated how war muddles moral standing and redefines the meaning of language itself. Another would have to be the following snapshot of war: "a violent schoolmaster," wherein he refers to the harsh aspects of the school master giving leanings to those disorders, shaping their characters and societies. Thucydides seems to be saying that civil war not only destroys the cities physically but also corrupts the cities in their moral core. When societies turn against each other, trusting one another becomes cumbersome, moderation is viewed as weakness, and wrongs or deceptions are stimulated. One thing that I learned about that period and location was that this was written in classical Greece in the time of the Peloponnesian War. It was torn internally in city-states like Corcyra by the pro-democratic and pro-oligarchic faction divisions, each being supported by larger powers such as Athens or Sparta. The passage shows the conflict in all dimensions: political, military, and moral. It is about the way influence affected every thought, word, and deed. Civic order and ethical standard might crumble under such pressure, when loyalty to one's faction was esteemed over loyalty to truth or justice. In this way, Thucydides's account is both a historical observation of Greek society in the fifth century BCE, and it is timeless warning about how war and political divisions corrupt human nature and destroy the very foundations of civilized life.

The document I chose was “The Plague in Athens” by Thucydides, to whose content I found to be horrific. The document was written during the Peloponnesian War, where a deadly plague broke out in Egypt and found its way into Athens. What caught my attention when reading this document was where it covered the effects the plague had on the survivors, along with those that were still infected, and I found the utterance of an old man in the document. The verse goes as such: “A Dorian war shall come and with it death”. The reason this interested me was because people at the time wondered if what was to come was either dearth or death, but when I thought about it briefly, I found that it didn’t matter which one it was because both were true. Now, for those who don’t know, dearth means “scarcity or a lack of something”, and when you look at the effects of the plague on the Athenians, you start to see it. They lacked security, proper housing, leadership, hope, and family, to name a few. Though if I had to sum this up, they lacked everything a human being needs to be sane. I think that what Thucydides was trying to communicate was that the plague was given the perfect environment the strip away the foundations of the Athenians, and make it known that it would kill anyone indiscriminately, because even Pericles sought his end by its doing. What this document tells us is that it comes from a time and place where the Athenian citizens were basically collateral damage to Pericles’ plan to win against Sparta. What I would like to know more about is what historians suspect Pericles' plan was to combat the plague outbreak, if he had one at all.

In response to the lesson I have a change of heart as it pertains to the war amongst Athens and sparta. Outside of the war i did feel as if the Athenians greed in their overall conquest was the blame for the escalation of the peloponesian war but in response to my feelings I do feel as if possibly maybe they were just ahead of the masses as it pertains to conquest

Although it seemed to .e as if Athens was always the aggressors in situation whose to say that sparta would not take the lead in aggressors if Athenians didn't take the lead ? I do still feel that Athenians took lead in causing issues with neighbors I just think they were the first ones to take the lead.

The document I chose for this week was A Charge of Sacrilege. What stood out to me most was the speaker's desperation to prove his innocence by asking the jury to think logically how could he betray his father when he asked his father to face the trial. This prove how false rumors can be damaging. I think the author was trying to show the speakers innocence by trying to separate himself from the madness concerning the scandal and to prove how quickly the people of Athens are to believe accusations and rumors that spread fast. This document shows how interconnected politics and religion were at the time. It also shows how suspicious Athens was as a society because they were ready to punish anyone who offended the gods and was even willing to listen to foreigners and slaves in exchange for immunity.

The reading I chose was The Plague at Athens. The part that stood out to me most was when Thucydides said, “Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them.” That line really hit because it shows how wild things got during the plague. People completely lost faith, hope, and order. I think he was trying to show that the plague did not just kill bodies, its broke people’s morals and unity. The same Athenians who used to take pride in their laws and religion suddenly stopped caring and just did whatever to survive.

This reading shows that Athens went from being proud and powerful to broken and desperate during the Peloponnesian War. The city that once bragged about its strength was now fighting to hold it together. Thucydides wanted people to see how fear and chaos can change everything, even in a city that thought it was untouchable. I would like to know how Athens bounced back from all this, if people ever got their faith and sense of community back. At first, being a citizen meant loyalty, pride, and sacrifice for the city, but after the plague, it was all about survival. People stopped thinking about what was best for Athens and started thinking about how to make it through another day.

I chose the Plague of Athens because it caused a breakdown of social norms and laws, as people lost faith in religion and the

possibility of an afterlife. Thucydides observed a rise in lawlessness and a focus on immediate pleasure, leading to a sense of fatalism

I believe the plague was so devastating that it killed many, including Athenian leader Pericles. Doctors were largely helpless and often

became victims themselves, as they had the highest mortality rate.and despair. I believe as a survivor, Thucydides provided an

objective, scientific analysis of the disease, focusing on physical symptoms and human behavior rather than divine intervention, which

was the prevailing view at the time. He suggested the plague originated in Africa and spread through Egypt, Libya, and other parts of

the Mediterranean into Athens. Because there are no other surviving sources for the plague, Thucydides account is the only surviving

evidence of the event and is considered a powerful and timeless analysis of an epidemic. 

I chose to read the document about the Civil War in Corcrya. What stood out to me the most was how, in the document, people were being praised for their violent, angry seen as right, whereas someone would stand up, non-violently against their opponent, and be seen as a traitor almost. I would rather praise someone who takes the approach of reason than violence. Even in politics, hopefully, most people would agree that action towards violence is wrong and a step too far. That statement in the document just stood out the most to me. That time period and culture are very different than ours today, but still, violence doesn't lead you anywhere. There is a lot of uncertainty and hatred during this time in the document. Everyone is only looking after themselves, and doesn't really believe in their leaders because they know in the end, they are not going to provide for their city. In the document, it says that the only reason there is unrest is because of how political power is motivated by greed and ambition (section 82, paragraph).

People are looking at their government, and are going to follow their lead because they trust them. When the people don't trust or believe, what are they going to look to now for "guidance", especially during war times. I would like to find out more about the aftermath of the war, what peace looks like. Do they figure out if there's a system to keep people in check in politics? Was war worth it in the end? Will the people trust their government again and rebuild after the war? We, as humans, are also looking for answers to questions.

What really stood out to me in Perikles’s Funeral Oration was how he described Athens as a place where citizens took pride in serving their city and living freely under democracy. It wasn’t just a speech to honor the dead—it was meant to remind people what they were fighting for and why being Athenian mattered.

But in The Plague at Athens and Civil War in Corcyra, we see the complete opposite. The plague caused people to lose their sense of community, and during the civil war, values like justice and loyalty started to disappear. It’s like Thucydides was showing how easily society can fall apart when fear and self-interest take over.

These documents really show how the Peloponnesian War was more than just fighting between cities—it was also about what it meant to be a citizen and how strong a democracy could stay when everything was falling apart.

The reading that I choose was “Perikles’s Funeral Oration”. Perikles’s remark that the citizen who “takes no part in these duties” is not merely unambitious but “useless” slices straight to the bone of Athenian ideals. That one word, useless, distills his intent: to honor the fallen by elevating the society they defended. He frames Athens as a living proof of excellence, calling it both a “democracy” and the “school of Hellas,” signaling that its model of civic life stood unmatched. Every listener was reminded that their losses carried meaning that their “stake in the struggle is not the same as theirs who have no such blessings to lose.”

The speech itself comes from a tense and brutal moment, the dawn of the Peloponnesian War. It wasn’t just commemoration; it was strategy. A morale weapon. Perikles uses rhetoric to fuse grief with pride, transforming mourning into loyalty. What he celebrates reveals Athens’s value system: active citizenship rooted in merit, rivalry as virtue, and a polished disdain for Sparta’s rigid order. Yet, amid all this grandeur, women’s roles remain tightly sealed, confined to silence, their “greatest glory” being to stay unseen, unmentioned. That tension, quiet but sharp, says everything about what Athenian greatness cost.

The reading from Thucydides on The Plague at Athens piqued my interest as I had often inquired through our previous lectures and readings of the impact of wars on Athenians in a physical setting, outside of the expected loss of life from directly killing one’s opponent. This account of the plague on Athens drew my thoughts towards the pandemic of COVID-19 and even the infamous 14th century, Black Death.  

To learn of the horrific details around this ‘unanticipated devastation’ and the effects of the plague in Attica really opened my eyes to the affliction that the people suffered. It is true and rather expected as a consequence of war, as Thucydides expressed, “A Dorian war shall come and with it death”; that tragic results would occur. I believe this is part of the reason Thucydides related the brutal details around the plague. He wanted to not just express to the reader the inevitability that war would result in, but also the origin of war, why it begins—the overall purpose of war.  

We also are given the indication of the connection between the belief in the gods for protection (guidance); and even salvation that they may provide. Yet, at the same instance the notion is raised as to whether the gods have the ‘ability’ or desire to do so. Thucydides stated rather bluntly, “When the God was asked whether they should go to war…that he would himself be with them.” He further addressed, “Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them.” Despite the Athenian culture around the belief in gods, this leads me to wonder as to who Athenians really trust in more, themselves or the gods?’

What stood out to me most in The Melian Dialogue was when the Athenians said that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” That line really shows how power worked during the Peloponnesian War and how Athens viewed control as more important than fairness. Thucydides wasn’t just describing a moment in history; he was showing how people justify cruelty when they believe they’re in the right. Reading it, I felt like the Melians represented hope and faith, while the Athenians represented reason without compassion.

This document says a lot about what it meant to live in that time—where survival and dominance mattered more than moral values. It also makes me think about how easily people can lose sight of justice when pride and empire get involved. I’d like to learn more about how everyday Athenians felt about these actions, and if they truly supported this idea of power over principle.