When Empires Fall

Finished reading Kagan's account of the Sicilian Expedition.

What a bloody mess. Ten thousand hoplites gone! I agree with Kagan that Athens' resistance after such a setback is pretty amazing.

The account itself is now a bit clearer in my head - I admit Thucydides just confuses me on the details. I think the wall/counter-wall concept is a bit strange and I have difficulty actually visualising it, but again the use of maps by Kagan has helped a lot. I'm flabbergasted at Nicias' utter inability to do anything, especially his delay in leaving when all was clearly lost. If half the army had got away it would have been a very different story.

I've been having problems imagining exactly how to game this - Athens seems to have exhausted itself providing the money and troops for Sicily but a few years later they sent thousands of men and eighty ships to retake Miletus from the rebels. Just what resources did these cities have access to? This question is even harder if you try to apply it to Argos or Corinth.

It is critical to note that not one single strong city fell in the course of the war, except through treachery. Even Athens surrendered rather than fight to the end. I suppose only Athens could realistically endure a long siege, thanks to its fleet and the Piraean walls. Argos and other 'second rank' powers probably had to quit a lot sooner - hence the frequency of negotiated settlements. But both Thucydides and Kagan seem to think Syracuse came close to falling - again this would have changed things pretty convincingly.

I'm thinking that I would have to limit the scope of any game, at least at the start. Some options would be the east - Cocyra etc, the Sicilian campaign itself, or perhaps Argos v Sparta. This might be more manageable. Might.

The key to the game would be a oligarch v democrat game, with peace/war factions in each (major) city. The two big problems are the details of the battles and the communication issues.

Fight!