Thermopylae

Customer Reviews

• An Analysis of Thermopylae and its Meaning for the West

  Professor Cartledge's main intent in writing this book is, I think, to illustrate how the idea and ideals of Thermopylae have remained constantly relevant to the West, from the immediate aftermath of the battle to the present day (e.g., consider the recent [and over the top] movie "300"). Maybe the most striking and compelling point made by the author in this regard is the following: The Spartan defense of Thermopylae, as a "morale" victory rather than a purely strategic one, was as important to the West as were Gettysburg, Verdun, or the Battle of Britain. If the Greeks had succumbed in the Persian Wars, Hellenic culture would never have fully flowered under the rule of the megalomanical "King of Kings", and consequently Western Civilization would have been profoundly altered, if not extinguished outright.
  
  Since the primary mission of the book is more historiographical than historical, the treatment given in the book of the Persian Wars, up to the Lacedaemonians' doomed defense of Thermopylae Pass, is somewhat less than exhaustive. In fact, the narrative is just enough to give the general reader a decent grasp of events. But in the course of this narrative, the author still provides many interesting morsels of scholarship. For example, there is evidence to suggest that the Spartan King, Leonidas, manipulated the Oracle of Delphi, so as to insure that he (and not his co-Monarch) would be the one chosen to lead the sacrificial Three Hundred. In other words, far from being loathe to die in battle, Leonidas actually resorted to power politics to assure his suicide Command. The author persuasively argues that Leonidas' apparent hunger for a glorious death is really a manifestation of the prevailing Spartan culture; a culture that unlike that bequeathed to us from Athens, is totally foreign to present day Europe and America.
  
  All in all, the book is a thought-provoking read, with plenty of interesting insights. The one aspect of the book I did not really care for, is the author's somewhat "Spartan-philic" point of view. For instance, Professor Cartledge seems fairly enthusiastic about the uber-stringent Spartan standard of living, which allowed Lacedaemon to become the military superpower of the Greek mainland, and so aptly suited to take the lead among the Hellenes in resisting the massive invasion of Xerxes and his Persians (and conscripts). But the Spartans' harsh upbringing and martial society were not originally devised for the defense of Greece; in accordance with their ancient lawgiver Lycurgus, they were designed to enable Sparta to continue its enslavement and exploitation of the Helots, the neighboring and much larger Greek population they had dominated for centuries. (This is why I consider the Spartans' famous slogan during the subsequent Atheno-Peloponnesian War to be one of the most cynical in history. That slogan was, "Freedom for the Greeks.") It is no doubt true, as Professor Cartledge strongly implies, that because of Leonidas and his Three Hundred, we are a free people today in the West. But Thermopylae (along with Plataea) was THE contribution of Sparta to the children of Classical Greece; beyond that, there is precious little for us to cherish. As Will Durant wrote, those that praise Sparta - and throughout history there have been many such - "...did not have to live in it. They did not feel at close range the selfishness, coldness, and cruelty of the Spartan character,..., [or a] Spartan code that made vigor of body a graceless brutality because it killed nearly all capacity for the things of the mind."
  
  But still, I greatly respect the fact that the author has the gumption to express his pro-Spartan views, and the wherewithal to cogently support them. I myself must admit that, even though Sparta was to me a breathtakingly cynical and oppressive society, I have always been inspired by the deeds of those almost surreally courageous men of Thermopylae. Their epitaph by Simonides is fitting and well-deserved: "Go stranger, and tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here in obedience to their laws."
  

• Not good - but the blame lies with the editor

  The only qualification that Paul Cartledge had for writing this book is that he knows the sources. Unfortunately it's not enough.
  
  The subject is potentially compelling but the book is marred by the author's stodgy prose style, tendency to ramble and inability to structure a decent narrative. A competent editor could have improved it considerably - obviously Cartledge didn't have one (a decent editor would have removed the utterly loony attempt to find parallels between the Spartan warriors and the 9/11 hijackers).
  
  Look elsewhere if you are interested in this topic.

• Leonidas a terrorist?

  More propoganda. I hate it when I get sucked into a book and then the author turns on the reader with his own views about things. Leonidas a terrorist? Come on! This makes no sense. Obviously uninformed. I read a book about Elvis once, hoping to get the real take on his life, only to have the author turn on him in a fit of jealousy and start psychoanalyzing him, calling him paranoid, etc. If you don't understand greatness, just leave the page blank and save us all the trouble of reading your book.

• A bit disappointing

  As the title indicates, the book is about this famous battle and the historic setting around that time and place.
  
  I had expected more about the "everyday life" of the Spartans, of their peculiar culture as opposed to Athens, but somehow it did not come across.
  
  The battle itself is not covered in any great detail, which was o.k. with me, but some people might want more details
  
  Also I found the style a bit terse, I have read much better history books.
  
  All in all, I do not recommend, at times I found it almost boring

• Lots of good stuff, but not enough action.

  The inside front cover biography in is book introduces Paul Cartledge as Professor of Greek History at Cambridge, author of several books, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and the President of Greece awarded him the Order of Honour. In short, he knows his stuff.
  
  Which becomes readily apparent as you read the opening chapters of this book which provide a good base for the rest of the work, a firm springboard that delves into various background aspects such as the state of the Greek city states and their Persian adversaries at the time with particular attention paid to the sort of society that ended up producing men like Leonidas and his companions. The style isn't exactly breezy reading and it's best if you have a bit of an idea of the subject matter before hand though you needn't be an armchair expert (ie - if you don't know who Herodotus is, this ain't the book for you). Actually reading the opening chapters made me realise that rather than sub-heading the book 'The Battle that Changed the World' the author could of named it something like 'Re-evaluating the Role of Herodotus in our Understanding of the Greek World' because there are several passages sprinkled throughout the book that shows just how seminal the father of history/lies was.
  
  Where the book fails to deliver is where we enter the second half of the thing. The author sets out his stall nicely, as noted earlier, musing about issues such as whether the mission could be deemed a suicide mission - or at least that such a possibility was factored in, and also how vital the battle was for the fate of the Western World. But when the time for a rip snorting battle scene needs writing... it turns out that Cartledge doesn't have the knack. I mean - you would think it would be almost impossible to dull down such a valiant stand - but it's managed with aplomb. Which is such a shame. And the final chapters which deal with the legacy of the battle are like pulling teeth. Mentions of plays that used the battle as a focal point being staged in Paris in 1825 or whatever... seriously.
  
  The author is on firmer ground when he reiterates how the battle steeled the Greek resolve to resist. He totally realises that the Greek fleet made massive contributions in two major engagements and of course the Persian army was finally beaten at Plataea. But the authors case for Thermopylae putting much needed fire in the bellies of the Greeks comes across as very valid.
  
  The only other aspect of this work I'd like to direct myself towards is the issue some reviewers have taken with the discussion regarding suicide missions and the 9/11 hijackers. Apart from the epilogue (which is a rejigged version of a lecture given at an earlier date) pretty much the only reference to this in pages 129-130 where the author makes note of other suicide style missions and operations conducted in Sri Lanka, Lebanon etc and 9/11 are mentioned yet IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH the author points out a number of factors that preclude studied comparison. After all, the author in his acknowledgement mentions 'the terrorist outrage in London on 7 July 2005' so he's hardly a revisionist or somesuch. I feel that perhaps his overly academic style of writing has come across as cold and conversely fired up a few reviewers.
  
  But to move along, I found this book quite good for basic set up and it inspired me to learn more about the history of the Persian Empire and if someone makes me hungry for more knowledge it would be churlish not to thank them. But if you after some sort of pay off in the battle scenes you'll be sorely disappointed and will probably end up buying a different or additional volume and as I alluded to earlier, the closing chapters are fairly lacklustre.