The Education Of Alciabides By Socrates

ISBN: 1585100692

Socrates, a man who needs no introduction, was a teacher of Alciabides, a fellow Athenian born of stock and raised under the care of Pericles, an accomplished politician and general. Socrates took it upon himself to moderate the intense ambition of Alciabides, who would later become a hawkish general at the prodigal age of 30.

Upon the eve of the massive Athenian invasion of Sicily, which Alciabides convinced the Athenians to undertake, he was implicated by his enemies in the defacement of religious statues and effectively exiled. He switched sides and helped the Spartans finish off the Athenians in the Peloponnesian Wars by giving them invaluable information. Once he extracted all he could from the Spartans, he aided the Persians, until finally returning to help Athens once again in their moment of weakness against the rising oligarchs, only to be bitterly exiled again.

The four texts in this book show dialogues between Socrates and Alciabides about life, experience, and politics when Alcibiades was around 21 years old and already a rising political star. (The two most significant texts are Alcibiades I and Alcibiades II.) These two men also had a love affair, as customary in those times. Within the dialogues is a strong homoerotic component where Socrates not only wants to educate Alcibiades, but seduce him as well.

Introductory highlights from the translator:

Was Socrates in any way responsible for the ultimate failure of Alcibiades? Socrates tells us he had two loves, philosophy and Alcibiades (Gorgias 481d-482b). But what did he see in Alcibiades in the first place? What did he try to teach him, and how did he try to teach it? Why did he fail?


…these works provide us with a rich discussion of how Athens’ greatest philosopher loved and tried to teach her most talented and most ambitious youth—and why Athens turned on both of them.


Alcibiades also made enemies among the Spartans, most notably King Agis, whose wife Timaea he was widely believed to have seduced (Alcibiades 1121b-c). In 412, when he learned that the Spartans intended to have him killed, Alcibiades took refuge with the Persian satrap Tissaphernes, and offered advice to yet another of Athens’ traditional enemies.


Alcibiades came to love Socrates, but not to love philosophy. Without this greater love he was overcome by his love for the glory only the fickle people of Athens could give—and take away.

Alcibiades was a chameleon who would switch sides to preserve his own skin and power, placing himself above the state. He made sure to always possess value for those he was dealing with to prevent them from killing him outright. He was a talented, extraordinary man that Socrates failed to temper, and who made too many enemies along the way. Those enemies examined all his actions with a microscope and exaggerated all his perceived errors. Once he was exiled a second time from Athens, he returned to the Persians, who he thought would welcome his presence. Unfortunately for him, they were now allied with Sparta, an enemy of Alcibiades at the time, and so he was killed.

Starting with Alcibiades I, Socrates schools his student to realize he does not know what he thinks he knows, and therefore has no real standing to make an upcoming political speech in front of the Athenian government. He shows this through a long line of questions that seems more like pestering and leading the witness, but of which the logic is sound (to prove one point, he builds up with a dozen or more questions). It did not seem enjoyable to be on the receiving end of Socrates’ line of questioning, and if he was alive today I have no doubt he’d be labeled difficult, or even a troll.

Socrates: Can you name anything greater than what’s just and admirable and what’s good and what’s advantageous?

Alcibiades: Certainly not.

Socrates: And isn’t it about these things that you say you are confused?

Alcibiades: Yes.

Socrates: But if you are confused, isn’t it clear from what came before that not only are you ignorant of the greatest things, but not knowing them you think that you do know?

Alcibiades: Probably.

Socrates: Then alas, Alcibiades, what a condition you suffer from! I hesitate to name it, but since we two are alone, it must be said. You are wedded to stupidity, best of men, of the most extreme sort, as the argument accuses you and you accuse yourself. So this is why you are leaping into the affairs of the city before you have been educated. You are not the only one to suffer from this; most of those who manage the affairs of the city are the same way, except a few—perhaps your guardian, Pericles.

Socrates suggests that most human harm is caused through ignorance by someone who thinks they know but doesn’t. Socrates describes how you know when someone is not ignorant:

Socrates: …those who understand something do understand it, that they are able to produce someone else who understands it.

The path to understanding what you undertand and don’t understand comes from knowing yourself:

And don’t you think it’s disgraceful, if even the women of our enemies have a better idea of what sort of men we’d have to be to take them on than we do ourselves? Rather, you blessed man, be persuaded by me and the inscription at Delphi: Know Thyself—recognize that these are your opponents, not those you think. We will surpass not even one of them, if not through care and art. If you fall short of them, you will fall short of becoming a name among the Greeks and barbarians, something you seem to me to love as no one has ever loved anything else.

A lot of Socrates’ arguments are set up in a way not only to enlighten the young Alcibiades, but to lavish praise upon his soul or appearance.

Socrates makes the argument for what sounds similar to the philosopher king concept of his student Plato, whereby leaders must possess wisdom, moderation, and expertise before they attempt to lead.

Socrates: What about on a ship, if someone has the authority to do what seems right to him, but lacks the mind and the excellence of a helmsman—do you see what would happen to him and to those on board with him?

Alcibiades: I do—they’d all perish.

Socrates: Then in the same way, whenever a city or any office or authority lacks excellence, it follows that they will do badly?

Alcibiades: Necessarily.

Socrates: So one must not provide tyranny, my excellent Alcibiades, either for himself or for his city, if you two are to be happy, but excellence.

Alcibiades I ends with Socrates’ foreboding in that he has failed to properly educate Alcibiades:

Alcibiades: Well, this is how things stand, and I will begin from this point forth to care for justice.

Socrates: I’d like you to keep on doing that. But I am filled with dread, not because I do not trust in your nature, but because I see the force of the city and fear that it will overcome both me and you.

Alcibiades II starts off with a lesson of “be careful what you wish for.” The more I read ancient Greek texts, the more I realize that a lot of our modern beliefs and maxims have come from them. The construction of our reality is based upon their ideas.

You also see that some of our fellow citizens—and this we haven’t merely heard from others, but know ourselves at first hand—desired to become general and achieved this, but some of them are even now still in exile from this city, while others have ended their lives. Those who are thought to have done the best came through many dangers and fears, not only while serving as general, but when they came back to their own home, beseiged as they were by informers in no less a siege than that they endured at the hands of the enemy. The result is that some of them would pray to never have been general rather than to have served as general. Now if the dangers and labors led to some benefit, it would make sense. But, as it is, it is quite the opposite.

You will find that it is the same way concerning children, that some who prayed before now to have them, had them, only to fall into misfortunes and griefs of the greatest sort. Some of them had children who were completely bad, and spent their whole lives in grief. Others’ children were good, but met with misfortune which took them from their parents, who thus met with no less ill fortune than the others and would wish that their children had never been born.

But even though these things and many others like them are so very clear, it is rare to find anyone who would refuse what is given, or, if he were going to get something through prayer, would stop praying. The many would not refuse tyranny, were it given to them, or the generalship, or many other things that, when present, do more harm than benefit: they would even pray to get them, if they don’t have them already. A little while later they sometimes change their tune, unpraying the things they had prayed for at first. I can find no way to deny that it is truly vain for men to blame the gods by claiming that bad things come to them from the gods. “But they themselves by their own recklessness”—or foolishness, which we should call it—“have pains beyond what is fated.”

Another interesting thought:

So it is profitable for most people neither to know nor to think that they know, if, that is, they are more eager to do the things they know or think they know, and in so doing will be harmed most of the time rather than benefited.

In other words, it is better not to know, because if you think you know, it will cause you to embark on something that is sure to cause self-harm. People who decide on what will benefit them based on ignorance neglect to see the costs.

The Symposium text has Alcibiades drunkenly describing their intellectual and intimate relationship. He reviews both the strengths and weaknesses of Socrates and his skilled seduction powers, all in the presence of one of the philosopher’s other male lovers. It appears that Socrates seduced Alcibiades through complimentary and flowerly language while withholding all physical affection, putting Alcibiades in a state of confusion and insecurity. In modern times we do the opposite: we keep our speech void of affection and intimacy while quickly getting physical.

The text was at times too heavy on homosexual themes but I did enjoy Socrates’ thoughts on experience and life. The texts are short—you can probably finish them all in a couple of days. If you are interested in Ancient Greece, the comittment to finish these texts is quite modest.

Read More: “Socrates And Alcibiades: Four Texts” on Amazon

39 thoughts on “The Education Of Alciabides By Socrates”

  1. Incidentally Paul Johnson and CCW Taylor argue that Socrates did not get physical, but rather politely turned down Alcibiades’ advances. In an ancient honor shame culture, that’s just the way things like that were done.

  2. Greek/roman/Persian homosexuality was different from modern homosexuality in that it wasn’t effeminate. It was based on a power hierarchy.

    1. Agreed. In Plato’s dialogues, there is a point where someone says they fuck women to have children and they fuck boys to have fun. But in the same dialogue, Socrates harps on about practicing both poetry AND gymnastics so that one does not become a brute OR an effeminiate bitch. It was probably more like consensual prison sex.

  3. Glad I mentioned the gay stuff or else this post wouldn’t have gotten any comments.

    1. Typical, it just shows where everyone’s head is at. This kind of sexually driven thinking is exactly the kind of thinking that Socrates would advocate against. The root of the relationship between Socrates and Alciabades was that Socrates valued wisdom and virtue above all else and was able to control himself, which made Alciabades want him more. Modern men, take note. This is applicable in just about every facet of human interaction, especially with women.
      On another note, if you’re really interested in the teachings of Socrates, I highly recommend the Phaedo. It’s an account of Socrates’ discussion on the existence of the soul right before he drinks the hemlock that kills him. It was also one of the most passed around pieces of literature in the Nazi concentration camps.

    2. Socrates’ education of Alcibiades is interesting when compared to the education of Cyrus. Both advocated restraint for the sake of ‘excellence’ (‘arete’). But Socrates’ arete stems from within, while Cyrus’ from without.
      No wonder Machiavelli considered Xenophon equal, if not superior, to Plato.

  4. Socrates is one of my favorite philosophers. Not because I particularly agree with his philosophy but because he is the true model of a philosopher. He really lived and breathed the things that he preached. We can all take note from his example and do the same thing with what we learn here at ROK, and out in the field.

  5. Sorry about expanding on the “gay stuff,” but I am interested in how rampant homosexuality manifested in ancient Greek culture. I am not much of a student of ancient Greece, so these things elude me.
    Obviously, it seems rather unnatural. Sure, on a random basis, some percentage of the male population would be naturally homosexual. I don’t think that aspect would be any different then than it is today. But to have such a large percentage of men, especially the elite men, of a society practicing homosexuality? The only explanation for that is that there was something in the culture that encouraged it. I don’t understand specifically what that was.
    I am curious because I wonder if there are any contemporary parallels. There seems to be an obsession with the virtues and purity of homosexuals in the Western world these days. You know, they all want to marry because they are so pure of heart, and so on. I wonder where that will lead us. To a culture similar to ancient Greece?
    Greeks seemed to usually kick ass when in a way, had the dominant culture throughout the known world, and they knew how to keep women in their place, so it is not all bad. Still, I’d feel awfully out of place if I had to sleep with other men on my way to the top.

    1. Not an expert myself, but I once heard, and think there is much truth in it, that the culture of homosexuality came from the culture of the phalanx and hoplits, from the close male-bonding in the soldier units. This is also where the notion of democraty stems from. It is probably not as simple as that, but try research on these things first to get a fuller picture.

      1. Modern infantry Marines will act pretty gay sometimes, as a joke, but won’t actually be gay, or have sex. They are no less close than any other warriors of history. The Marines were the only branch to poll against repeal of DADT.

        1. Well, maybe this is because of a _culture_ difference.. It’s also very plausible that homosexuality was only common among the more elite of the society (in Athens, Sparta was another thing) as e.g. Aristophanes make the commoners look with suspicion on it in one of his plays.

    2. Keep in mind that the three types of love as known in ancient Greek language are not well understood in the Germanic languages as separate. I’m not in denial that there were gays in Greece, but I do tend to think that there is an agenda to blur the distinctions between eros, agape and philia by academia when they translate all three as “love” and then coo over mis-constructed translations as indications of homosexuality.
      “I love that man” said by a male about another male in English is usually tinged with some level of homosexual definition, even if he clearly means he loves him as a friend. The distinctions are blurred that much. In ancient Greek, it could and usually would mean that he loves him fraternally as a token of admiration for his character and development ‘philia’ and have nothing whatsoever to do with ‘eros’.
      That’s not in the least to deny what is clear in some ancient Greek history, but to make it everything is disingenuous at best. And modern academia excels at being disingenuous.

  6. Socrates was basically a troll to the Athenian government. It’s why they broke out the ban hammer, errr, execution.

    1. Socrates was a deconstruction agent of a government which held incorrect premises. A lesson to be learned even from that, really.

  7. Here is something from the article: “The more I read ancient Greek texts, the more I realize that a lot of our modern beliefs and maxims have come from them. The construction of our reality is based upon their ideas.”
    Continue reading the classics. There was a time when the classics were required because they contain many of the ideas, concepts, and constructs that play out in human existence. The Greeks and the Romans saved us from the toil of having to reconstruct metaphors, analogies, and constructs for the things produced by the interactions between men, the interactions between man and society, and the interactions between societies. Unfortunately, the classics have been redacted from our system of education and replaced with educational quackery, and we are struggling to make sense of the things already described by the Greeks and Romans.
    People should give serious consideration to the idea of exploring classic texts in order to promote an understanding of the world around them for it is the classics that have already encapsulated these things in their tales, epics, and metaphors (I’ve seen more than a few persons liken the so-called “red pill” to Plato’s cave analogy, and the ideas of the ideal woman often seems a description of Penelope). There are many lists of “must read” classic texts floating in cyberspace as well as websites devoted to Classical education, and these can be a source for anyone seeking to not only deprogram themselves from the quackery that has been passed off as contemporary education but as a means of developing the mind.

    1. Not to forget Odysseus, who exemplifies ‘sophron’, the optimal application of all other virtues (ie self improvement).

      1. I have mixed feelings about Odysseus. The Odysseus in “The Odyssey” is, in fact, a characterization of an ideal man as well as highly idealized manliness. However, his cleverness and clever use of speech was characterized by future authors as problematic. In “Metamorphoses” he comes off as fraudulent when debating Ajax over who was to receive the armor of Achilles (Ajax was clearly more deserving). Dante places Odysseus in hell for is use of rhetoric as a tool of self interested deception (here is where I liken Odysseus to Al Sharpton). Of the few classic texts I’ve read, I’ve come to appreciate the Odysseus of “The Odyssey” but I tend to favor Aeneas and Achilles over Odysseus. To his credit though, Odysseus effectively does something that Roosh alludes to in his post, reproduce his complete understanding of virtue in his son Telemachus. But this is one of the reasons why the removal of classic text from education has been a disaster, it removed the concept of the ideal man from society and the void was replaced by an ignorant and informal depiction of men that came via feminism. The end result was a population of confused men who disparaged the powers and abilities that they naturally possessed, and these powers and abilities were used to erect (pun intended) Western civilization, a society that promoted both advancement and individual rights. It was this type of society and its constructs that sheltered women and children from the ravaging forces of nature. Feminism and contemporary liberalism unknowingly destroys these these time tested shelters and we are seeing the results – unrestrained nature ravaging society and turning man’s natural and virtuous tendencies to protect into a sin. These perverted forces are succinctly summarized in the dysfunctional gumbo that is the Trayvon Martin case. A wayward and socially destructive male produced by a single parent household who was made into a martyr by contemporary liberalism because he was justifiably killed by a man who sought to defend his community from the unrestrained forces of nature. And of course George Zimmerman was distorted into a villain for merely undertaking the manly role of protector.

        1. The Dark Triad is strong in Odysseus (few can claim to have seduced his captors, ie Circe and Calypso) and his patron, Athena.

    2. Your comment is top notch, AlFromBayShore, I concur heartily. I do wonder at the Allegory of the Cave analogy for “red pill”. In all honesty I see that allegory as a perfect encapsulation of OO programming techniques, but wonder at its applicability to red pill. A shadow cast on a wall not being the true but unseen object, is still a shadow of the actual object, whereas red pill, at least in my view, seems to proclaim that the shadows cast on the wall are lies in and of themselves as the object, still unseen, that they derive off of is itself a lie (feminism, and it’s shadow casting of shadow redefinition of men from the feminine imperative). Can you enlighten me on this, I am perhaps taking it at too shallow a view?

      1. I view the cave analogy as people seeing something but not knowing that that particular thing (the shadow) is a distortion of something real. All that is seen is the distortion and the viewers do not know this. If I recall, one of the viewers (or captives) frees himself and finds that the shadows are merely shadows, not the actual image. The fire that casts the shadows filters the actual image into a distortion but the captives do not know this and so, to them, the distorted image is the actual image. Keep in mind that I am recalling this off the top of my head so I am probably making some errors as to the actual analogy (the last time I read this Boogie Down Productions dropped their first album….. did I just say album?). The freed captive is the person who runs back and tries to inform the remaining captives of what is going on. The remaining captives not only resist this, they are quite comfortable with their presumption that the distorted image is not the actual image. I’m going to avoid any further mention of the so-called red pill because it is still new to me. Instead, I will liken it to a person who has had the epiphany that accompanies an understanding of economics: What is presented to the “unlearned” is the idea that government management of the economy (ie. redistribution) “helps” people. And so they advocate financing broken homes (ie. welfare subsidies) but what they don’t understand is that they are actually subsidizing a behavior that is destructive to society – the breakup of the family. And when you subsidize a particular thing, you get more of that particular thing. These types of societies have promoted out of wedlock teen births as well as the absence of both a father in the home and the entire concept of fatherhood. From this is bred a myriad of social problems that destroy communities. I once was a supporter of these kinds of programs but after acquiring a rudimentary understanding of basic economics, I came to see the actual reality of this type of social spending – the subsidizing of poverty and social problems. When I explained to others this concept, it was resisted. The usual list of epithets and denials ensued (sell out, Uncle Tom suggestions, having a hatred of poor people, siding with the rich and exploitative, etc.,).
        I’m not sure if I did an adequate job of enlightening so I’ll play it safe and say that I just gave my opinion. Feel free to correct me. The last time I read this analogy, “Criminal Minded” was booming from the sound systems of our cars.

  8. Could someone provide a starting point towards reading and studying the classics? Sadly this prized meat of the intelligentsia was omitted from my education.

    1. Check it out, here is a reading list that I got from a classical homeschooling website. I started this reading list. Explore the articles on this site. They will give you a grasp of what a classical education is as well as content areas/ disciplines to study. I’ll also include a link to Amazon for a textbook on traditional logic. Back in the day the builders of Western Civilization studied logic along with Latin Grammar, and Rhetoric.
      I couldn’t find the original article about the list of classics. That article gave to me the essential texts that were to be read in the order in which they were written.
      1) The Iliad
      2) The Odyssey
      3) Agamemnon (Aeschylus)
      4) The Bacchae (Euripides)
      5) Antigone (Sophocles)
      6) The Aeneid (Virgil)
      7) Metamorphoses (Ovid – This shit is hot!)
      8) Divine Comedy (Dante)
      9) Canterbury Tales (Chaucer)
      I strongly recommend that you use either Cliffs Notes or Sparksnotes so that you can have some commentary that helps to open up the deeper meaning of these texts. My preference is to use one of the Norton Critical Editions. These texts contain both the story as well as several interpretative articles that deconstruct the story.

      1. Great list. Although, you’ll get the most out of the classics reading the epics of Homer and the like first, the older stuff is a lot more tedious to read and will scare away a lot of new readers (I know, I tried reading The Illiad when I was 14, which is hard enough, and I still can’t get through it very quickly today). I would personally advocate to read philosophers like Aristotle and Plato first. Not that their ideas are any easier to grasp, but they are a little bit more manageable than the epics.

      2. Brilliant. Thanks. Had a crack at the Iliad once. Couldn’t persist past the naming of the ships. Perhaps I have greater resolve these days.

    2. Or, read some Steven Pressfield novels starting with “Gates of Fire.” Very enjoyable a fairly accurate.

  9. Know Thyself
    What you learn INSIDE your mind applies to the Universe, it’s the Law of Correspondence.

  10. “It appears that Socrates seduced Alcibiades through complimentary and flowerly language while withholding all physical affection, putting Alcibiades in a state of confusion and insecurity. In modern times we do the opposite: we keep our speech void of affection and intimacy while quickly getting physical.”
    Do you think he was onto something? “state of confusion and insecurity” sounds an awful lot like game. I think PUAs sell themselves short by rushing the physical intimacy in order to avoid the friendzone. In doing so, they make themselves too easy. A woman will respect you more if you hold out on her. Make her wait. Win her heart. That’s the only way to “guarantee that she will return.” No law can do what love can.
    “There lives within the very flame of love
    A kind of wick or snuff that will abate it;
    And nothing is at a like goodness still;
    For goodness, growing to a plurisy,
    Dies in his own too much:”

  11. Socrates is an interesting model, but perhaps not a perfect one. If he managed to get himself sentenced to death I guess it’s partly to do with his being implicated in the political turmoil of the time and partly to do with his unwelcome habit of exposing the cognoscenti as frauds and sophists.
    As Roosh’s article makes clear we are potentially all frauds to the extent we fail to acknowledge at least to ourselves the limits of our understanding, limits which define how well we are equipped to speak, teach, lead etc. So in the first instance I guess that’s a morality lesson: we can only teach to the extent we understand,
    or lead to the extent we have the understanding and experience to do so. I didn’t know much about Alcibiades but it’s interesting to discover that his failings as a student translated to his failings as a leader.
    As for Socrates, I understand that the oracle revealed he was the wisest of men. To discover if this was true Socrates debated with the great and the good, and using the Socratic method demonstrated that he was indeed wiser than the sophists, wise men etc. but only because unlike him they did not realise the limits of their knowledge, or of human knowledge itself.
    But Socrates only manages to do this by pissing off the powerful, with the not entirely surprising result that they take their revenge at the first opportunity. In the pursuit of truth he evangelises in a way that takes no account of the political circumstances of his times. Since he is no respecter of persons he does not defer to the powerful, or consider their feelings. That is to say his method of persuasion is entirely based on reason and logic. I love the idea of pursuing truth in and for itself, but politically this is a kind of studied autism. It reminds me a little of the bible bashers who stand on street corners and shout the same thing without reference to the receiver of the communication.
    In relation to this another of Socrates / Plato’s ideas is the notion of the Great Beast. This is not the beast of the book of revelations but as I recall a characterisation of what society is like when it is not directed by individual rational thinkers who seek the good in and for itself, or alternatively are led by such a rational thinker par excellence, for example a philosopher king. In such a society
    people behave like a great beast. They will approve (or vote for) whatever it is that pleases them or whatever is experienced as pleasurable, and by the same token, they will condemn or at least turn away from whatever they instinctively dislike, or which fails to please or cause them pleasure. Such a society is based upon
    feelings and emotions not reason.
    While we may need to be careful of the implications of such thinking – Plato has been condemned by Popper amongst others for his reservations about democracy for instance – perhaps it makes sense in the age of Facebook, with its ‘likes’ and popularity mongering, re-tweeting, viral videos, memes etc, all played against the backdrop of a narcissistic celebrity culture, to look again at what a pursuit of the good, through truth-seeking might have to offer us. But if Alcibiades and co. simply followed the mindless will of the beast, then it is also true that Socrates, however nobly he died, also managed to get himself killed on account of his conduct, and moreover managed to do so because he took no account of any form of persuasion other than reason. This seems to me to be a potential limit to
    Socrates’ wisdom. Any would be philosopher kings would need to combine truth seeking with a more worldly practical wisdom

    1. Without Socrates, we might not even have philosophy today. He was a martyr for our ignorance. Additionally, he was only executed in the last decade of his life. He had the opportunity to leave prison (read Crito) but choose to stay in Athens because of very interesting reasons, and above all, for his honor.

  12. This would be much more credible if his actual name, Alcibiades, was used rather than Alciabides.

    1. Just saw that it’s only mis-spelled in the title and in the first two paragraphs.

  13. Success, thy true name is Themistocles. That man knew how to adapt to any situation- he ended up being a satrap for many years in the service of the Achaemenid Empire he helped defeat years before.
    Read Thucydides’ text on the Peloponnesian War.

  14. Let’s just say I am a huge fan of the Parthian Empire. There is no shortage of things to admire about ancient (pre-Islamic) Persia, but when considering they were surrounded by debauched homo’s on all sides, the civilization seems that much more impressive.

  15. Alcibiades’ saga was a great warning about the dangers of democracy.
    Alcibiades talked the majority of Athenian voters into supporting the Sicilian expedition. They spent vast amounts of wealth to build and outfit the fleet. As soon as the set sail with most of the Athenians who supported the expedition and none of the opponents, the demographics changed,
    Alcibiades’ enemies put him on trial in absentia, found him guilty on trumped up charges, sentenced him to death, and sent a message to the fleet asking them to send Alcibiades home so they could kill him. (the same assholes who later killed Socrates) Of course Alcibiades jumped ship and ran off to Italy.
    The fleet continued on without their commander to complete disaster. Pretty much the whole expedition was killed or captured. Those captured spent the rest of their lives as slaves.

Comments are closed.