True, Lysander was a bit of a loose cannon. He saw a direction he wanted to take Sparta and he did everything he could to move her in that direction. But when the ephors gave him a direct order he followed it.

Alkbiades may actually have been brought down by two different sides at once. Certainly, his greatest opposition came from the more oligarchically minded elite. They saw him as a demagogue and rabble-rouser who could bend the commons to his will and get whatever he wanted. To those men he was empowering the demos at their expense. On the other hand, fervent democrats saw him as a potential tyrant who would blind the people and set himself up as the supreme power in Athens. This side may have hampered him later, after the chaos of the Four Hundred, for all that he helped overthrow that very conspiracy of oligarchs.

The profanation of the Mysteries was a major event, but I actually question whether or not Alkibiades was really involved. It does sound like the sort of thing he might play at, but everyone else involved or accused was a member of one or another of the aristocratic drinking clubs. Said clubs had a strongly oligarchic slant. The chaos brought on by the accusations surrounding the profanation and the desecration of the Herms nearly tore the city apart. People were held in prison for perhaps as long as a year (imprisonment was never used in Athens as a punishment and the public jail was only meant to hold people briefly). The city was in a total panic over a suspected coup. The implication that Alkibiades was involved may have been enough to keep him from winning over the demos, however sweetly he may have persuaded them.

It is hardly surprising that the Ekklesia would be willing to blame Alkibiades for a defeat in his absence. Throughout the war, and particularly later when things weren’t going so well, they looked for any scapegoat they could find for every setback, no matter how minor. Consider the fate of Thucydides after he lost to Brasidas, or the wholly illegal arrest and execution of the generals after Arginusai. It wasn’t just, but it was hardly unusual.

The people DID love the flamboyant Alkibiades, but that made him suspect to too many leadig men in Athens. Neither the oligarchs nor the democrats were ever going to trust him, because both saw him as a man looking for his own power and aggrandizement. He was always willing to give them enough rope with which to hang him and after the failed oligarchic revolution(s) he never had a chance, not even with the people who loved him.

After having written the above, I did a bit more reading about the chaos in 415 and a few more things spring to mind. Firstly, Alkibiades was still in Athens when the accusations were made. The Assembly was holding a special meeting with the generals prior to their departure; in fact Lamakhos’ flagship was already lying off-shore. Alkibiades was first denounced in this meeting by a man named Pythonikos.

Faced with these charges, Alkibiades demanded immediate trial. Thucydides says that he had the support of most of the army and navy, as well as the Argive and Mantinean contingents that had joined the expedition, so his enemies persuaded the people to let the fleet sail right away and have Alkibiades face trial later. (Thuc., VI.28) I have come to the conclusion that the whole incident of the Herms and the profanation of the Mysteries was connected to a power grab (which failed) and I also suspect Peisander—an enemy of Alkibiades—of having been strongly involved (I’ll post the details elsewhere).

Drakus also notes that Alkibiades had a fleet twice as large as he originally asked for. That was the fault of Nikias who tried to convince the Athenians that the task force was too small as a way of blocking the whole thing. Unfortunately for him and for Athens, his strategy blew up in his face and he wound up with the fleet he asked for and the command.