Pros And Cons Of Killing The Mytileneans

I would argue that the argument pertaining to sparing the Mytileneans was not one of idealistic morality, but rather one of non-interventionism (to some degree). The argument was not that the Mytileneans should be killed due to the fact that it was “wrong”, or that the Athenians had a moral obligation to spare them, but rather that it would not be in the best interest of the Athenians to commit such a deed (which was exemplified by Diodotus, as you have stated). It was argued that if punishing the Myteleneans was not to positively impact the Athenians’ situation, then the Mytileneans should not be executed. Although not explicitly stated, killing the Mytileneans would demonstrate the violent hegemony incessantly perpetuated by Athens, leading to growing resentment among the populations subjugated by the Athenians. As a result, said populations may eventually conspire to overthrow the ruling state when the opportunity arises, which would be detrimental to the prosperity of Athens. Both arguments were extensions of enacting a policy that was pragmatic in nature.

Although the Athenians utilized brute force as a means to expand their “empire”, said force inherently resulted in the construction of a powerful entity supported only by the tenuous subservience of populations subjugated by the state. A similar parallel can be drawn to the way in which the Neo-Assyrians extended their empire, and how it fell. Furthermore, the utilization of force to extend one’s sphere of influence, while ostensibly realistic before and during its implementation, will ultimately lead to the downfall of any state that incorporates such a practice into its diplomatic