Athens in Crisis: The Aftermath of Sicily

The crushing defeat of Athens’ Sicilian expedition sent shockwaves through the Aegean world. When the first reports reached Athens, even eyewitness accounts from high-ranking survivors were met with disbelief. The Athenian populace, unable to accept the scale of the catastrophe – the loss of thousands of hoplites, cavalry, and skilled sailors – eventually turned their anger toward the orators, soothsayers, and omen-interpreters who had championed the expedition, as if these figures alone bore responsibility for the disastrous venture.

The strategic implications were devastating. Athens found itself critically short of manpower, ships, and financial resources. The once-mighty naval power now feared attacks on Piraeus from victorious Sicilian forces, while anticipating renewed offensives from Sparta and its Peloponnesian allies. Yet in characteristic Athenian fashion, the democracy mobilized its remaining resources: securing timber and funds for new ships, strengthening alliances (particularly with Euboea), implementing fiscal reforms, and establishing an advisory council of elders. These measures demonstrated Athens’ resilience even in its darkest hour.

The Greek World Reacts

News of Athens’ weakness spread rapidly across Greece during the winter of 413/412 BCE. Neutral states that had previously avoided involvement now saw opportunity, reasoning that had Athens succeeded in Sicily, they might have been next. Many believed the war’s end was imminent and sought to join the winning side. Sparta’s allies grew bolder, while Athens’ subject states contemplated rebellion, convinced their overlord couldn’t survive another campaigning season.

Spartan King Agis, stationed at Decelea, seized the moment. He levied funds from allies for fleet construction, exacting tribute from the Oetaeans and Thessalian subjects despite protests. Sparta issued ambitious shipbuilding quotas: 25 ships each from Sparta and Boeotia, 15 from Phocis and Locris combined, and smaller contributions from other allies totaling 100 vessels. Meanwhile, Athens scrambled to reinforce Sunium to protect grain shipments and withdrew from minor outposts to conserve resources.

The Ionian Revolt Begins

Euboea made the first move toward rebellion, followed by Lesbos and Chios – the latter being Athens’ wealthiest subject state. The strategic situation grew increasingly complex as Persian satraps Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus entered the fray, each seeking Spartan alliance to further their own agendas in Asia Minor. Tissaphernes, behind on tribute payments to King Darius II, saw Athenian weakness as an opportunity to resume collections, while also pursuing the rebel Amorges in Caria.

Sparta’s decision-making revealed internal tensions. While Agis favored supporting Lesbos, the ephors (influenced by Alcibiades and his relative Endius) prioritized Chios. The charismatic Alcibiades, now advising Sparta, played a crucial role in persuading the Spartans to persist with the Ionian campaign despite early setbacks. His personal vendetta against Agis added another layer to Spartan politics.

The Chios Campaign

Chios’ defection in summer 412 BCE marked a turning point. Athenian attempts to prevent the rebellion through diplomacy failed when Chian oligarchs (keeping their Spartan negotiations secret from the populace) sent seven ships as a ruse. The subsequent Spartan-led expedition to Chios, initially comprising 21 ships, encountered Athenian resistance near Corycus. Though the Peloponnesians suffered losses including their commander Alcamenes, they established a foothold.

Athens reacted decisively, suspending a law protecting a 1,000-talent emergency fund to finance reinforcements. The democracy demonstrated remarkable resilience, quickly dispatching squadrons under Strombichides and Thrasycles while preparing thirty additional ships. This rapid response contrasted sharply with the despair following Sicily.

The War Expands

The conflict rapidly spread across Ionia. Miletus revolted with Spartan support, leading to the first Spartan-Persian treaty (mediated by Tissaphernes and the Spartan commander Chalcideus). This agreement recognized Persian claims to Anatolia while establishing a mutual defense pact against Athens. Meanwhile, Athenian forces under Phrynichus achieved a tactical victory near Miletus but withdrew upon learning of approaching Peloponnesian reinforcements from Sicily.

The arrival of 55 Peloponnesian and Sicilian ships (including 22 from Syracuse) shifted the balance. They captured Iasus, delivering the rebel Amorges to Tissaphernes and gaining significant plunder. This success led to a revised Spartan-Persian treaty in winter 412/411 BCE, though Spartan advisor Lichas famously criticized its terms as trading Greek liberty for Persian dominance.

Stalemate and Strategic Maneuvering

As the war entered a new phase, both sides struggled for advantage. Athens fortified positions on Chios while Peloponnesian forces under Astyochus proved ineffective. The Spartan navarch’s refusal to aid Chios prompted accusations of treason from the Spartan harmost Pedaritus. Meanwhile, Persian funding became contentious, with Tissaphernes reducing pay from one drachma to three obols daily, causing discontent among Peloponnesian crews.

The naval battle at Syme demonstrated the continued unpredictability of the conflict. A Peloponnesian squadron initially bested an Athenian force before reinforcements turned the tide, highlighting how neither side could achieve decisive superiority. This engagement occurred as 27 fresh Spartan ships arrived under Antisthenes, accompanied by eleven commissioners to oversee Astyochus – a clear sign of Spartan concerns about their commander’s performance.

The War’s Broader Implications

These events marked a critical juncture in the Peloponnesian War. Athens, though battered, displayed remarkable recuperative powers. Sparta, despite strategic advantages, struggled with command issues and Persian entanglements. The involvement of Persia added new complexity, as satraps pursued personal agendas under the guise of supporting Sparta.

The Ionian Revolt revealed the fragility of Athens’ empire while demonstrating how Greek conflict increasingly drew in outside powers. Alcibiades’ machinations showed how individual actors could influence grand strategy, while the Spartan-Persian treaties highlighted the moral compromises war necessitated. As the conflict entered its twentieth year, the stage was set for further dramatic developments – including the Athenian oligarchic coup and Alcibiades’ eventual return to Athens – proving that after Sicily, the war would continue evolving in unexpected directions.