Machiavelli seems to allow for a far more robust conception of the relationship between morality and politics than does Thucydides, in the sense that moral standards are not viewed as language games to be used rhetorically or between equals, wildly inconsistently, or for reaffirming behavior based solely on self-interest.
The account of realism also portrayed by Thucydides takes no notice of any sort of economy of violence. Virtue is limited to judgments about individual character. Although it is difficult to tease out Thucydides’ views on the subject, he had considerable leeway in reconstructing the dialogues given, and so the effort is not entirely in vain. Thucydides’ account of realism lacks sophistication; the reasoning given by the Athenians and their allies (and enemies) appears to be not much more than sophism—at times justice/injustice are strongly appealed to, while at other times, they are ridiculed and cast aside whenever they come into conflict with the three motivations of war: fear, honor, and self-interest.
-Thucydides doesn’t endorse imperialism as much
-Views morality as a luxury for domestic affairs and individuals
-Shows more moral horror (Machiavelli is reluctant, but then relishes in his descriptions)
-Thucydides’ necessity is amoral, Machiavelli’s is moral (justification)
-Thucydides’ is descriptive realism; Machiavelli’s is both
-Necessity is more deterministic than Machiavelli’s – chance/fortuna take precedence
-Necessity is the savior of Machiavelli’ community—the opposite for Thucydides.
-Tries to depict the Peloponnesian war in as neutral a tone as possible, so it’s difficult at times to tease out his views on the relationship between morality and politics.
-He appears to absolve the aggression of the Spartans by reference to compulsion/necessity, since Athenian encroachments and expansion were calling for a response.
-His account shows conquest and submission as normal and frequent types of behavior
-Athens justifies its imperialism based on fear, honor, and self-interest, where fear is linked to self-preservation and functions as an overriding factor as to why justice is inapplicable.
-“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” This supplements the fear elements, and its justification is rooted in human nature on self-interest and honor.
-Athens: The impulse of power to dominate is a universal necessity. It is like gravity, but only in the sense that it’s irresistible. Because it is a law of nature and hence out of the control of states, no state can be blamed for indulging in this impulse.
-Thucydides in no way endorses the imperialistic impulse the way that Machiavelli does.
-Thucydides calls the slaughter at mycalessus “barbaric”
-Moral horror does not exist in Machiavelli’s piece
-Machiavelli and Thucydides both hold that necessity overwhelms justice in the relations among states
-Virtue is aggressively destroyed by necessity, and there are consequences in following virtue where necessity is instead required.
-Interstate relations are anarchic—Diodotus warns that fortune makes men take unreasonable risks
-Disaster can strike anyone, whether they deserve it or not.
-War is about “a few personal interests…and there is no decent way to end it easily.”
-The history is portrayed as tragedy
-Highlights the long-term consequences of embracing unbridled necessity, namely that it turns around and destroys the state that originated it, since the order that existed (though founded on violence and injustice) was created by the moral life.
-Diodotus and Cleon: action with moral implications bandied about with the language of self-interest
-Necessity overrides justice, but ‘might does not make right’
-Held off on creating any normative narrative about the accounts which he described, which places him squarely in opposition to Machiavelli.
-In a sense, the inhuman cruelty of the Athenians would actually be condemned by Machiavelli as perhaps empire building at the sake of losing glory
-Athenians much more candid than Machiavelli would be.
-Even Diodotus doesn’t use the same moral language that Machiavelli does.
-Honor is redefined not as a state of grace, but rather the complete absence of any weakness.
-If might had literally made right in the normative sense, then there would have been no reason for Athenian regret and contemplation about their hasty decision, so the implicit view is that moral standards are largely irrelevant to politics, although sometimes morality slips through the cracks and exerts some influence.