In Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, the conflict between Athens and Sparta is illustrated not only with direct, fact-based accounts of war, but also with dramatized orations and debates that are intertwined in the narrative. Through the resulting interplay between speaking and waging war, two activities both highly and equally valued in ancient Greek society, a striking parallel emerges between these two essential modes of human communication and interaction. This binary, with discourse acting as a function and extension of war, is perhaps best exemplified in the Melian Dialogue. In the passage, the two opposing sides of the dialogue are portrayed as representing contrasting political ideologies: Athenian realism, driven by the forces of empire and conquest, is juxtaposed with Melian idealism, with its bulwarks of hope and honor. Beyond the content of the arguments themselves, Thucydides explores power dynamics and concepts of justice through the structure and framework of the dialogue, as well as through its language and rhetoric. Specifically, the Athenians use their arguments as political tools, metaphorical weapons on the battlefield of speech. In controlling the nature and trajectory of the dialogue, the Athenians assert intellectual and ideological dominance, which parallels their later military triumph over the Melians but prefigures their eventual downfall. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In the opening of the Melian Dialogue, both Athenian and Melian representatives attempt to structure the nature and flow of the debate. The two sides' efforts to assert control and dominance over the proceedings bring subtle changes in the power dynamics: while the Melians are the ones who start by stipulating the audience, the Athenians soon take over. The Melians' attempt to structure the debate immediately fails as the Athenians use the Melians' choice of audience against them: "'So we must not speak before the people, no doubt in case the mass of the people must listen once and for all ". and without interruption an argument of ours which is both persuasive and incontrovertible, and should therefore be misled. This, we realise, is why you bring us here to speak in front of a few"" (5.85-89). In this criticism, the Athenians undermine the power and intellectual authority of the Melians by suggesting the Melian council's lack of popularity with the public. They do this while simultaneously strengthening their own position, generating anticipation for their upcoming “persuasive and incontrovertible” arguments. There is also a deliberate move on the part of the Athenians to elevate the nature of the dialogue to a level of philosophical abstraction, away from the grounded discussions that would be present in a typical negotiation: "Then we on our side will not use any fine phrases that say, for example, that we have a right to our empire because we defeated the Persians, or that we have now come against you because of the wounds you have done to us - a great deal of words that no one would believe. And we ask you on your part not to imagine influencing us saying that you, though a colony of Sparta, did not join Sparta in the war, or that you never did us any harm. "" (5.85)In establishing the terms of the negotiation for the ensuing dialogue, the Athenians assert theirs. domination and pave the way for their own ideological arguments Even before actual discussions begin, Athenians demonstrate their impressive oratory skills and their ability to use speech as an effective tool..