The Athenians have no dislike of the Melians, and are happy to let the islanders live and let live within the Athenian sphere of influence, but they will retaliate without mercy if they oppose Athenian self-interest in the region. The Melians offer Athens neutrality, which Athens says would be just as detrimental to Athenian interests in the region as an open Melian alliance with Sparta, as it would set a bad example to other Athenian colonies: "is rather islanders like yourselves, outside our empire, and subjects smarting under the yoke, who would be the most likely to take a rash step and lead themselves and us into obvious danger" (Chapter XVII). The Melians say it would be cowardice to not resist, even if it seems foolish. Does this dialogue prove the rational actor theory of statehood that holds that states always act in their own self-interest? On one hand, the Athenians say they are behaving amorally and rationally. They say allowing an island to remain neutral would have set a bad example to Athenian colonies and perhaps encouraged other...

On the other hand Athenians blind belief that the Spartans would not treat them as they treated the Melians also seems foolish. Likewise, the Melians do not act solely rationally, given that the Athenians are stronger. The Athenians openly accuse the Melians of folly: "regard what is future as more certain than what is before your eyes, and what is out of sight, in your eagerness, as already coming to pass; and as you have staked most on, and trusted most in, the Lacedaemonians, your fortune, and your hopes, so will you be most completely deceived" (Chapter XVII). But is living as a colony, and giving everything to a stronger power, economically, politically, and militarily such an attractive option?
Rationalism may hold sway, but no behavior is completely unclouded by emotions, this dialogue suggests.

Works Cited

Thucydides. "The Melian Dialogue." From "The History of the Peloponnesian War."

26 Jan 2006] http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm