WI: Athenian Empire in Sicily

In 415 BC Athens decided to go to war in Sicily in support of its allies. The aim was to expand the empire to the west. Some say they desired to use Sicily as a base to conquer Carthage.

The chief advocate and one of the three commanders of the war was the young and ambitious orator Alcibiades. Though history would remember him as a sort of con man and traitor, in fact he was an exceptionally talented military commander as well as orator. However fate would deny him the chance to lead the expedition.

On the eve of the fleet's setting sail from Athens an atrocity occurred. A number of Hermai, statues of Hermes, had their penises vandalized. Alcibiades' detractors accused him of the crime. This he denied but offered to stand trial. Not to delay the expedition, he was told to leave with the fleet but was sentenced to death in absentia. His enemies wanted his supporters in the army away from Athens during the sentencing.

Meanwhile in Sicily planning the battle, Alcibiades was ordered to return to Athens for execution. He refused and betrayed his people, eventually defecting to the Spartans. This left the war in the hands of less enthusiastic commanders and the expedition turned into a major disaster. The loss of the army left Athens under defended and ultimately conquered by Sparta.

If the Hermai were not desecrated Alcibiades would remain in command and the war had a decent chance of success (although long term occupation was in doubt). This success could usher unprecedented prestige upon Athens and make a campaign against Carthage possible. Not to mention an entirely different outcome in the Peloponnesian War. It's also likely that had he remained a prominent Athenian, his teacher Socrates would not have been sentenced to death.
 
Last edited:
Something tells me that if he was sentenced to death in absentia for vandalising penises, his detractors had already determined that he should be killed off. I suspect allowing him to lead possibly Athens' greatest victory (it was a possibility) would have been too much for them and they'd have determined to find other ways to remove him from his position. If you want to arrange this, you may have to rewrite large portions of his history to remove the antagonisms.

I must confess I know little about this period, I'm just going off gut instinct here.
 
He wasn't the only commander though - there were 2 others; Nicias and Lamachus.

Him and Nicias could never agree either, according to the sources so even if he's not sentenced then your going to have to account for those two arguing the whole time - Alciabides original plan was to make allies with other cities there but his plan didn't come off.

Just done a term on this at uni :D

I'm with Falastur - I would think your going to have to rewrite a lot of history.
 

MrP

Banned
Something tells me that if he was sentenced to death in absentia for vandalising penises, his detractors had already determined that he should be killed off. I suspect allowing him to lead possibly Athens' greatest victory (it was a possibility) would have been too much for them and they'd have determined to find other ways to remove him from his position. If you want to arrange this, you may have to rewrite large portions of his history to remove the antagonisms.

I must confess I know little about this period, I'm just going off gut instinct here.

While I agree that his enemies wanted shot of him, I don't think you grasp the severity of the Mutilation of the Herms. In Christian terms think of George Washington being implicated in having sex atop the altar of a church while cursing God at the outset of the AWI/ARW. Wiki.
 
Good topic, but the OP raises many questions about the events of the expedition and the mutilation.

1) Jammy is quite correct. There were three commanders, Nicias, Lamachus, and Alcibiades. Undoing the Mutilation only stops Alcibiades from being recalled; it does not leave him in sole command. Thucydides suggests that all three commanders suggested different strategies: Lamachus wanted to mount a quick, direct, sneak attack on Syracuse, before the Syracusans could make a defense; Alcibiades wanted to spend time gathering allies from the other Greek Sicilians and the native Siciliotes; Nicias wanted to do a fair bit of reconnaissance first and then see where things were (in short to delay and be cautious as much as possible). Leaving Alcibiades in the mix does not guarantee that the expedition is a success.

2) Alcibiades had a very limited military career, both before and after he was sent to Sicily. His career indicates that his brilliance lay not so much in tactics or military organization, but in diplomacy, manipulation, and intrigue.

There's much more to talk about but I have to run. I'll add more later.
 
Top