G. E. M. de Ste. Croix characterises Thucydides' understanding of how city states make decisions in the following way: "All States (‘yours’ and ‘mine’ included, just as much as others) always do what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be in their own best interests, and in particular they rule wherever they can. They provide above all for their own security, and they seek to extend their power as far as possible. In doing so, they often collide with other States. If it is they who are stronger, they will if necessary apply coercion, and the other States, just because they are weaker, will be forced back on appeals to a notional ‘justice’. But how is what is ‘just’ decided in such cases, and whose decision prevails, if not that of the stronger State? Have independent States a ‘natural right’ to remain ‘free and independent’? But how is such a right acquired? I recognise no such right. Any State may claim it for itself, or for the subjects of its enemies, but it will seldom hesitate to coerce a weaker State when that is what its own interest requires."
Choose one passage from Thucydides in which a speaker makes an argument that his city (or another city) should take a certain course of action. With reference to this passage, 1) briefly describe the contents and context [4 points], and 2) consider this passage in the context of de Ste. Croix's characterisation: Is it consistent with his assessment? Does it illustrate an exception, or maybe a nuanced case? [6 points]
There are no hard requirements for word count, but a good answer would probably run at least 600 words (notincluding any block quotations from Thucydides, if you decide to include them).