After Thermopylae: The Oath of Plataea and the End of the Graeco-Persian Wars by Paul Anthony Cartledge

After Thermopylae: The Oath of Plataea and the End of the Graeco-Persian Wars Reviews

• 
  Philip Girvan

  Cartledge quickly dismisses the notion that the Oath of Plataea has a historical authenticity as an oath sworn prior to the Battle of Plataea.
  
  Those interested in a detailed examination will want to consult other sources. However this short book is a satisfactory introduction to a key, rather underrated battle in the Graeco-Persian Wars. Most interesting for its review of the rivalry between Athens and Sparta as the respective states vie for narrative dominance in what's now understood as "Greek" history.
• 
  April

  This book was actually rather scattered and far more academic than I was expecting for a book geared towards a more general audience, not necessarily in the depth of detail presented, but in the unwieldy and often confusing sentence construction. A lot of Cartledge's argument was predicated on a basic understanding of Classical Greek culture and the specific events of the Graeco-Persian Wars, which I have but many readers may not.
  
  Having read other works by Cartledge, most notably his works on the Spartans and Thermopylae, I was a little surprised at the lack of accessibility in his writing in this one. Perhaps it was intended for a more overtly scholarly audience, despite what the prologue spelled out.
  
  While I agree with Cartledge's premise that the Oath of Plataea was a construction to serve a later historical narrative, I felt like some of his evidence very poorly presented. In particular, I thought the chapter on the stele on which the Oath is inscribed as a largely religious artifact was lost to a lengthy explanation of the place of oaths in the Greek world that was not specifically related back to the religiousity of the Oath. This was a shame as I felt that it could have been one of Cartledge's stronger arguments, but it just wasn't.
  
  Overall, there's nothing wrong with Cartledge's scholarship. His premise is well-researched, but he stumbles slightly in the execution, most probably, in my view, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of who his intended audience is. Either it is a mostly scholastic audience, which does not need his lengthy explanations of some of things, i.e., the primacy of oaths in Ancient Greece or the multiplicity of gods and goddesses present in the Classical pantheon, or it an audience composed mainly of laypeople, who will find the convoluted style of writing cumbersome and unwieldy (at least in my opinion). By trying to tread the middle ground, Cartledge somehow manages to take the worst of both those styles and combine it into a book that while informative is is singularly painful to read.
• 
  Peter Dunn

  This short book takes as its starting point a slightly dodgy inscription on an ancient stele found by a farmer in the early 20th century. This leads to a journey through: a too much neglected crucial battle, the development of the discipline of history, Athenian and Spartan propaganda wars, and a debate about east versus west including a dash through orientalism. Quite an achievement for a book that’s only 203 pages long, and that’s if you also count the index.
• 
  Catherine

  This re-examination of the Battle of Plataea does not add much Herodotus' account of the battle itself, which is unsurprising, given the paucity of reliable sources. However, that is also not its avowed purpose. This book does offer an interesting look at how the memorialization of the history has been used for propaganda at various times, and by actors as various as the individual contemporary Greek cities and the Emperor Constantine.
• 
  Steve

  I agree with other reviewers that this work could have stood a more vigorous editor. One has gone so far as to call it "tweedy", which I get, and yet cannot completely agree with. For one thing, as an academic, I have read much more painful material than this. By the standards of social science in particular, Cartledge is a paragon of comprehensibility.
  
  And yet, the reviewer has a point that the composition of this book is distinctly odd. I had the distinct, and unsettling, impression, when reading this book, that I was looking at a journal article, not a book per se.
  
  I do agree that this book's main thesis is not well supported in far too many places. For instance, the introduction repeats his intentions several times, and yet it is not as clear in the body of the work which parts support which prefacing remarks in the introduction. I think waiting until the end of the book to cover the "Oath of Plataea" as a social construction is a mistake. Better by far to put this material much earlier. Also, he does not cite any of the work in (admittedly modern) nationalism which addresses his central point about the veneration of the past as a means to achieve and assure solidarity. Admittedly this would be anachronistic, but on the other hand, as Cartledge himself makes a brief comment on the connections between Greek efforts at group identity and its continuing relevance to the present, it is not entirely inappropriate, particularly as a touchstone, a point of departure.
  
  For all that, there are lots of interesting points made here, and having read this shortly after Tom Holland's highly readable (if also a bit flawed) PERSIAN FIRE, I was well prepared to cover gaps in the story from memory. That said, a good editor would have given this book a thorough reworking cover to cover.
• 
  Craig Fiebig

  Great discussion on two levels. The first was the history of the battle of Platea and it's oft-neglected importance in the Graeco-Persian conflict(s). Contrasting its pertinence relative to the more commonly discussed Marathon and/or Thermopylae was eye-opening from a historical perspective. The second was the history of the 'Oath of Platea' and how it was manipulated to alter the arc of the narrative for the participants. Cartledge teasingly introduces the logical flaws of Said and Adib-Moghaddam but then fails to explore the discussion in any depth. This would have been a fascinating avenue, possibly warranting its own article or book.
• 
  Ellie

  As an ancient history and archaeology graduate who specialised in Spartan history, I was very excited about reading this book. Paul Cartledge is, in my opinion, the expert on Greek and Spartan history, and this book definitely lived up to my expectations. Full of information, yet easy to read, it reignited by love for Greek history. Definitely worth a read!
• 
  Jay Fisher

  I originally thought I was getting a history of the time between the Persian Wars and the Peloponessian War, instead I got something better. The book is a treatment of a single 4th century inscriptions and all the issues surrounding it including our evidence for the Battle of Platea. I learned a great deal and I am happy to see that it is part of a series of books about a single ancient object.
• 
  Philippe

  Detailed discussion of the Greek political discussions/proclamations and arguments about a mostly forgotten battle that save Hellas from the Persian empire. Interesting commentary on the fragmentation and disunity of the various Polis involved. Not for the casual reader.
• 
  Jonathan

  Ignore those clamoring for an editor.. This little book is well worth your time. A very good coda to a read through the histories.
• 
  Zardoz

  Less a study of the battle of Plataea than a academic work that rambles without a clear direction. Though interesting moments occur I would take a pass on this one.
• 
  Ruth Feathers

  kind of like getting the other side of the story.