| Title | : | Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1585675660 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781585675661 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 313 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 2006 |
Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World Reviews
-
Great book for fans of 300 or just a history buff.
I liked it so much I felt compelled to order a Greek salad for lunch.
-
Great insight into the battle of 480BC where the losers won and the winners really lost. I wonder whether anyone has ever worked out what would have happened without the intervention of the traitor Ephialtes or if some Spartan hoplites had been guarding the Path of Anopaea? How many Persians would the Spartans have killed? As it was, they polished off 20,000 (with the help of their Theban and Phocian allies).
-
-Sobre las culturas y políticas implicadas, aunque también sobre la batalla.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. El libro Termópilas (publicación original: Thermopylae. The Battle That Changed the World, 2006), con el subtítulo La batalla que cambió el mundo, es una aproximación a Lacedemonia (Esparta, para que nos entendamos mejor, seguro…) y al Imperio aqueménida, a las Guerras Médicas que enfrentaron a los persas con las ciudades-estado de la Antigua Grecia y a la batalla de las Termópilas en concreto.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com.... -
This is an interesting book to read--and a pretty quick read, too. It is the story of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas and the Spartan 300 stood against Xerxes' mighty host at a narrow pass. Ultimately, they were betrayed by another Greek, and Xerxes sent troops by a narrow pathway to outflank the Spartan position. In the end, the Spartans died and the massive army--and accompanying naval force--moved toward Athens and defeat at Salamis to the naval forces of the allied Greek city-states. Cartlede identifies the Persian-Greek War as critical in the development of western civilization. He notes that this was (page xii): ". . .a clash between Freedom and Slavery. . . . In fact, the conflict has been plausibly described as the very axis of world history." I am not sure how convincingly that the case is actually made, but it indicates the importance of the batle in Cartledge's mind.
First, there are some very useful maps that help one understand the gegoraphy of the battle, as well as the pathway taken by Xerxes in his invasion of Greece.
Second,the book begins by looking at the world scene before the battle even began. He outlines the ancient world at about 500 BC, including the development of the Persian Empire (and the Achaemenidean dynasty, featuring kings such as Cyrus the Great, the unfortunate Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes). He also describes the dynamic and unsettled nature of the Greek city-states and the colonies that they planted throughout the Meditteranean. A considerable emphasis, of course, is placed on the culture and polity of Sparta, explaining, in part, why the 300 were ready to die. The book argues that Leonidas and the soldiers under him knew that they were to die. He likens them to others who fought, knowing that death was inevitable (e.g., kamikaze pilots).
Third, the battle itself. It is somewhat disconcerting to have him depend so much on Herodotus' rendering of the story. However, he weaves in much detail on the actual geography of the battle site, the cultural background, and so on.
Fourth, and an interesting effort in itself, he discusses the impact of the battle on history and culture, including a listing of movies related to the battle and the political side of some of these movies. The final chapter returns to his theme that the battle--and the entire Persian-Greek War--represents a "turning-point in world history" (the subtitle of the chapter). He concludes with a quotation from William Golding, Nobel laureate, who, after having visited the battleground, said (page 211): "A little of Leonidas lies in the fact that I can go where I like and write what I like. He contributed to set us free."
Again, I am not sure how strong that case is, since Thermopylae was a defeat; it would appear that subsequent naval combat at Salamis and a disastrous defeat of the Persians by the Greeks at Platea were more important events (and one wishes that the author had discussed even briefly that battle as well as Salamis, to understand better the totality of the war). All in all, though, a nice volume on the Greek world of its time. -
Cartledge, professor of Greek history at the University of Cambridge, examines the famous battle of 480 B.C. Most of us know about the Battle of Thermopylae, where a small Greek army held off a much larger Persian army at a pass in the mountains. The result was defeat for the Greeks with 300 Spartans, led by their king, fighting to the death.
Cartledge points out that the brave stand inspired the Greek city-states to keep fighting the Persians and win the final battle. It has been forgotten that there were more Greeks on the Persian side than in the "Greek army." Many Greeks would have been willing to make a deal with the Persians. As Cartledge relates, the Persians forced the people under them to pay tribute, but their governing was not very oppressive. They were actually very tolerant of all the different religions in their empire.So it was incomprehensible to the Persian King Xerxes that the Greeks would stand up to the awesome multinational might of the Persian Empire. But many of the Greeks, such as the Spartans and the Athenians, had an idea of "freedom" ( despite the Greek city-states being slaveholding societies ).
The victory of the Greeks in their war against the Persians led to the flowering of "Classical Greece" with the development of art, philosophy, and democratic self-government in Athens, critically important in developing our present Western civilization -
I'm so disappointed that I have to DNF this book. I have had this sitting on my bookshelf since 2007; I bought it immediately after watching the brilliant 300 at the cinema when I decided I wanted to learn more about the Spartans and that period of history. I was finally going to tick this one off the list in 2018 but actually, I'm just not interested in reading it at all any more. It's been gathering dust on my shelves for eleven years and I found myself bored after one chapter so I'm afraid it's time to let it go and donate it to a charity shop.
-
300. Zack Snyder slo-mo. Chiseled abs. Epic clashes. Goosebump-inducing quotes.
A conflict of Freedom against Tyranny. But were the Greeks so innocent? And were the Persians an empire of evil?
Paul Cartledge provides much needed context to the 5th Century BC world that the Graeco-Persian war took place in. He goes over the dynamics of the Persian Achaemenid Empire, the fractured nature of the Hellenic (Greek) city-states, and delves into the intricacies of Spartan culture. With Herodotus (the Father of History) as his guide, Cartledge explains the timeline of events that lead up to the Thermopylae, and us readers become able to understand the motivations of King Xerxes and the Persians as well as the reasoning for why such a small force was sent to defend the Hot Gates.
There were three appendices that delve deeper into Herodotus and the validity of ancient historical sourcing. I found these analyses very interesting and they have me eager to get to Herodotus’ Histories.
Regarding the layout of the book, I was not impressed. There was little space for marginalia and referenced page numbers were often incorrect. Editing could have been improved, but these are minor infractions.
Conclusion: A book well worth reading for those with an interest in the Ancient Greek world. For those looking for a novelized version of the Battle of Thermopylae, I would recommend Pressfield’s Gates of Fire or Frank Miller’s 300 graphic novel, which the movie is based on. Casual readers may be bored, but I think students of history will derive many benefits from reading this book. -
El ensayo ideal para profundizar en la época de la batalla de las Termópilas y en sus protagonistas y el complemento perfecto a
El espartano de Javier Negrete o a la peli/cómic 300 -
Strength in effort if not in numbers. A coalition based not on politics or political co-operation but of an alliance for mutual defense – sworn in by oaths in the name of witnessing gods. The importance here being that this pact is religious and a breach would be sacrilegious to include a sectarian transgression. More than 31 Greek cities formed this alliance – the leaders of this forthcoming battle of the time would be the Lacedaemonians or better known collectively as the Spartans. Leonidas and Xerxes; both leaders being respected by their lands and abilities. Leonidas is the one however that gets recalled to history more (seemingly) than Xerxes. Leonidas is not remembered for the “win” of the battle; but, for the “loss” of the same and the bravery to which he and the "300" fought to the death. The famous “300” (though the correct number is 298) as two survived; one commits suicide (Pantites) and the other (Aristodamus) is shamed for a year that leads up to the Battle of Plataea. As Aristodamus ends up fighting with a suicidal fury (his black mark had been removed before this battle began) he was looking to avenge his Spartan failure in Thermopylae and ends up being cut down in Plataea. He is awarded no special honors for this effort as he fought beyond the constraints of the disciplined manner that Spartans were known for at the time.
This book is highly academic in my opinion. It was a pleasure to read as it makes other books of other wars and battles by other authors that much easier to get through. My favorite phrase in this book is attributed to Socrates “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being”. Professor Cartledge certainly has a passion for this topic within these pages, the review of current day photos of various artifacts now in several museums around the globe was nothing less than outstanding – this photos in my opinion brought the story to life for a very real time frame to History and Military History specifically. Where would we be today without the recorded history of Herodotus? His accounts were instrumental in this book and for the history of the Spartan “300”. We learn of many cultural norms of the BCE era to which this book covers; however, we also see a link to us here now through the ages. This is the first account and record of an Alliance ever established and something the Romans and all nations going forward would employ.
Simply a terrific wonderful book that every person who is interested History and Battles and Wars should pick up and read. -
Excelente documentación de las Termopilas. Ya había leído varías novelas que mencionan esta batalla y la verdad quería algo leer algo acerca de la historia.
-
Si me animé a comprar este libro fue porque quería saber más sobre los hechos históricos comprobados, más allá de la dramática versión de los cómics de Frank MILLER, y en la contratapa de esta versión dice:
"La descripción que hace CARTLEDGE de la batalla tiene una especial intensidad y fuerza. Una excepcional recreación de uno de los acontecimientos seminales de la historia del mundo"
...bueno, ya terminé de leerlo, ¡y sigo sin encontrar dicha descripción!, lo que me enseña una vez más que no debería creer todo lo que dicen las contratapas de los libros :(
En realidad,
Paul CARTLEDGE, un historiador profesional que se ha especializado en la cultura helénica, se concentra en analizar el contexto de la batalla, desde los antecedentes culturales 100 años antes de la misma, la situación política entre el Imperio Persa y la liga de naciones que conformaba lo que ahora conocemos como Grecia, hasta el impacto que ha tenido en el mundo moderno. A la batalla en sí se le dedica un capítulo (el 7) que abarca escasas 16 páginas de las 345 del libro.
El texto, escrito en el estilo académico, riguroso y saturado de referencias a otras fuentes bibliográficas, propio de los investigadores universitarios, resulta tedioso, y hace difícil la lectura. Yo me aburrí enormemente y sin pena confieso que me saltaba párrafos y párrafos de reflexiones sobre las sutilezas políticas que hacían que cierta ciudad griega apoyara o no a los persas, o a sus compatriotas...
En resumen, si lo que quieres es un relato emocionante, pero apegado a los hechos comprobados, de la mítica Batalla de las Termópilas, éste no es el libro. Para entender el vasto contexto cultural y tener una opinión educada de la política greco-persa, el contexto y las consecuencias de la batalla, ¡éste es tu libro!. -
Carltledge’s reputation as the world’s leading Laconologist is richly deserved, and this short work continues to display his rock-solid scholarship, excellent prose-styling, and clear passion for the subject. It is, however, a bit more hagiographic and laconophilic than his longer work The Spartans, which gives a more balanced view of Lakedaimonian contributions not only at Thermopylae, but throughout the polis’ history. It’s to be expected, I guess. Thermopylae is a dramatic moment in world history, and certainly a signal one in the history of Sparta. But a more frank and skeptical rendering is called for, and I hope we might get one from Cartledge in a revised edition some day.
-
Book: Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World
Author: by Paul Anthony Cartledge
Publisher: Harry N. Abrams (2 November 2006)
Language: English
Hardcover: 376 pages
Item Weight: 558 g
Dimensions: 12.7 x 2.54 x 20.32 cm
Country of Origin: USA
Price: 2809/-
‘In late August 480 BCE a smallish Greek force of some seven thousand or so commanded by King Leonidas of Sparta and headed by a privileged force of specifically picked Spartan champions stood up to an enormous imperial Persian army of invasion under the supreme and personal command of Xerxes, Great King of Persia.
The manner of the Greeks’ and especially the Spartans’ defeat was absolutely crucial at the time, in that it provided the relatively very few ‘loyalist’ Greeks with the will and the example to continue to resist, and to go on, eventually, to throw the invaders back and out of Greece and the Aegean islands….’
…………Leonidas and his 300 Spartan warriors are surrounded by Persian forces.
The Spartans deflect blow after blow with their shields as enemy soldiers collide against them like a wave in a storm.
Spears shoot out of the Spartan line like lightning, tearing through enemy flesh, but they are infinitely outnumbered; countless begin to fall.
Shields are splintered, spears broken in two, Leonidas and his 300 Spartans retreat up a hill to make their final stand. Suddenly, an arrow enters the chest of the great king.
Leonidas falls to the ground as his blood soaks into the earth around him.
The Battle of Thermopylae went down in history as one of the most awe-inspiring fights of all time……..
The invasion of Greece by the Persians was predicated on vengeance more than anything else. Xerxes, the ruler of the Persian Empire, had lived with the atrocious defeat of his father’s forces by the Greeks at the Battle of Marathon.
His father was Darius King of everything and everyone from Egypt to West India, but he never managed to overcome the Greeks. The incapability to overwhelm the Greeks was both a distressing blow and an embarrassing blunder for the ruling family of Persia.
Xerxes was determined to crush the insolence of the Greeks once and for all.
Ten years after the failed invasion of Greece by Darius, Xerxes would launch his own campaign into the heart of the country to the west. This time, however, the Spartans of legend would join the battle. There would be so much bloodshed and annihilation during the Battle of Thermopylae that the final stand of the 300 would never be forgotten.
In 480 B.C.E., Xerxes and his forces began marching towards the center of Greece towards Athens. At the time, numerous Greek city-states were warring with one another.
But when Athens received word of their approaching doom at the hands of the Persians, they pleaded with the other Greek city-states to form an army to stop the invasion force. The Athenians had been able to fend off Darius and his forces in the past, but Xerxes commanded an army many times larger than his father's.
Surprisingly, Sparta answered Athen's plea for help. Up until this point, Sparta had stayed out of the conflicts with Persia. But the leaders of the great city-state saw this new threat to their people and land as too great to ignore and decided the Persians must be stopped at all costs.
Nine chapters plus an Epilogue make up this book.
ONE - THE ANCIENT WORLD IN 500 BCE: FROM INDIA TO THE AEGEAN
TWO - THE DYNAMICS OF EMPIRE: PERSIA OF THE ACHAEMENIDS, 485
THREE - HELLAS: THE HELLENIC WORLD IN 485
FOUR - SPARTA 485: A UNIQUE CULTURE AND SOCIETY
FIVE - THERMOPYLAE I: MOBILIZATION
SIX - THERMOPYLAE II: PREPARATIONS FOR BATTLE
SEVEN - THERMOPYLAE III: THE BATTLE
EIGHT - THE THERMOPYLAE LEGEND I: ANTIQUITY
NINE - THE THERMOPYLAE LEGEND II: FROM ANTIQUITY TO MODERNITY
EPILOGUE - THERMOPYLAE: TURNING-POINT IN WORLD HISTORY
Though the story is often told as if these 300 Spartan warriors were the only defenders of the pass of Thermopylae, there were more Greek soldiers standing alongside of them than popular culture acknowledges.
Another 600 perioikoi or “peers” came, men from territories of Sparta that were still not full citizens, and 600 servants, making a total of about 1,500 men from Sparta itself. Joining them were 3000 more hoplites from the city-states of Corinth, Arcadia, Mycenae, Tegea, and Matinea, 700 from Thespia and 400 from Thebes.
The Phokians sent 1,000 men, and according to Herodotus, the Locrians sent all of the forces they had available, likely around another 1,000 men.
Herodotus’ final number of Greeks present at the battle is 6,000. While Diodorus believes that it was closer to 7,500.
Both numbers are considerably higher than the classic tale of the brave 300 standing alone, but as they were facing an enemy in the hundreds of thousands, the odds were still significant.
At the least, the Greek forces would encounter twenty Persians to one of their own. It was likely closer to between fifty and eighty Persians per Greek hoplite.
At the same time that the Spartans were leading the land defenses, the Athenians, possessing the greatest naval force of the Grecian peninsula, led a large force of ships to the straits of Artemisium to engage the Persian navy and prevent them from transporting the army around Thermopylae by sea, thus bypassing the Greeks best defensive position.
During the carnage, Leonidas fell.
His men surrounded their king and fought off the hordes of enemy soldiers. They managed to grab Leonidas and pull his body to safety until he passed away from the wounds.
At the time of the Battle of Thermopylae, Leonidas was somewhere between 50 and 60 years old. He was by no means a young man, but Spartan warriors started their training as teenagers and would serve in the military until their 60s, so it is not surprising that Leonidas was still fighting at this age.
The fact that he killed so many enemies while also commanding the Greek troops at the Battle of Thermopylae makes him one of the most respected warriors of all time.
After Xerxes and his forces moved on, Greek citizens recovered the bodies of the dead soldiers, including Leonidas, and buried them at Thermopylae.
After the Persian War ended, a stone monument in the shape of a lion was erected on the spot where the 300 Spartans were buried. On it, the words
“Go tell the Spartans, thou that passest by;
That here obedient to their words we lie,” -- were written by the poet Simonides.
Fundamentally, he was saying that the 300 Spartans who said they would fight to the death to slow the advance of the Persian army were true to their word.
There is no doubt that Leonidas, his 300 Spartans, and the other Greek soldiers who fought in the Battle of Thermopylae slowed down the Persian advance through Greece, but there was a much more important effect that the battle had on the Greek populace.
After the story of the 300 spread across the lands of Greece, more and more people felt it was their duty to fight. This was a matter of pride for many and a way to avenge the deaths of the 300 Spartans who had fallen at the Battle of Thermopylae.
It was also clear at this point that the Persians were coming for everyone, and all men who could fight needed to do so. The Spartans stopped the Persian forces at the hot gates for several days and did significant damage to their ranks and morale. The Persian soldiers who fought against Leonidas and his 300 Spartans would not soon forget how vicious and deadly they were.
As Xerxes' army marched into Greece, they were met by an even larger Spartan force, which must have been extremely menacing.
The victories at Salamis and Plataea led to the Greeks as a final point defeating the invading Persian force and pushing them out of their borders.
What are the fine-points which we carry from this book?
**It is bizarre that much of the story is forgotten or omitted, despite the large number of ancient sources that describe the action in detail. The tale today is that of only three hundred men, dreadfully holding the pass in the hopes that maybe the rest of Greece will rally, find their courage, and come to fight. Yet historians know that many representatives of Greece were present at the battle, and though 300 Spartans did fight there, so did 5700-7200 Grecian hoplites.
**Ignoring this fact abandons one of the greatest victories that came from the defeat at Thermopylae—the unity of greatly dissimilar Grecian city-states, some of which were actively at war with one another, in order to fight the Persian enemy.
**The second Persian invasion of Greece was enormously influential on the development of the idea of one Grecian people. Though inhabiting neighboring lands and speaking the same language, the Greek city-states held vastly different beliefs and cultural values, leading to great conflict amongst them. Yet when threatened by an outside power, they managed to work for their own survival. Nothing can reveal the differences between the cities better than the two largest powers of the time, the Athenians and the Spartans.
**Though the Greeks saw defeat at Thermopylae and were triumphant at Salamis and Plataea, it is the Battle of Thermopylae that had a greater effect on the western world. The unprecedented alliance of notoriously fractious Greek city-states was an important step that would change the course of Grecian history. Yet the effects of Thermopylae are felt far west of the shores of Greece.
The sacrifice of the men at the Battle of Thermopylae was without doubt a call to arms for many Greeks.
Without it, the Persians may very well have conquered the rest of Greece and enveloped it into their empire.
Around 440 B.C.E, decades after the Persian Wars were over, the bones of Leonidas were dug up and brought back to Sparta. His tomb still exists where the modern city of Sparta is today.
Great book!! Most recommended. -
Not rating this because I didn't read it properly, just mined it for information. I wanted to understand the cultural importance of Thermopylae, as I'm teaching my daughters ancient history this year, going into classical history next year, and this was an IMPORTANT BATTLE.
To be honest with you, I'm not sure I totally understand the significance that is placed on it. I get the appeal of a tragic, courageous stand of a small city-state against a massive empire, really I do. But given the choice, and going on the information I have thus far, I would really rather live in the Persian Empire than in Sparta.
This was quite surprising to me, as I had assumed more of a good guy/bad guy set-up from the big crush that the British had on the Spartans.
However, the Spartans really were the pits, in my opinion. Yes, a lot of ancient civilisations practiced infant exposure, but not to the bureaucratic-statist-eugenicist extreme to which the Spartans carried it. Also, freedom was really not an ideal in their civilisation - perhaps freedom from foreign (Persian) control, but the concept of Freedom as a person living today (in a world shaped by Christianity) would understand it would have been loathsome to them.
Also, as a woman, give me the Persians any day of the week. For instance, Persian men dined with Persian women, the king took his close female relations on campaign with him. They valued women's work and influence. The Spartans despised craftsmanship/domesticity/nurturing of any kind and forbade their women to participate in it -- one reason that they had to enslave an entire under-class to do all that stuff for them. Well, I guess if the women weren't allowed to get to know their kids then they wouldn't care so much when the head bureaucrat threw some of them into the handy nearby ravine. Probably made the whole warrior-schoolboy pederasty thing a lot easier, too.
The whole Hitler-Sparta connection is starting to make more sense.
...Am I being too harsh? -
After seeing 300 last spring I read Stephen Pressfield's Gates of Fire, and now I'm on the non-fiction version. This is a professional historian's view of not just the Battle of Thermopylae itself, but the context of the Greek and Persian worlds it fit into. The text is slow-going and tedius in moments, and very little of the book is devoted to the battle (one 10 page chapter, among 200+ pages). That said, it's great background on the political maneuverings between the Greek city states and Graeco-Persian relations as a whole. If you want the real story, this is not a bad place to go. Just don't expect a gripping read.
-
(english below)
Un libro corto e interesante para quien quiera ampliar conocimientos sobre una de las batallas más cruciales de la historia. Aunque obviamente centrado en ese hecho histórico concreto, Cartledge no se limita a describir el enfrentamiento en sí sino que explica cómo era Esparta y lo que significaba ser un ciudadano de esa polis. Lo mejor del libro es precisamente eso, como intenta hacernos entender cómo pensaban y sentían los espartanos, aunque en mi opinión lo consigue a medias. En otras obras (Los griegos de Montanelli
Historia de los griegos o La aventura de los griegos de Javier Negrete
La gran aventura de los griegos) se logra mejor, aunque claro, no con la brevedad de este libro. Esa brevedad precisamente es una de las bazas de este libro, en pocas páginas entendemos a los espartanos y nos hacemos una idea del contexto histórico, también del lado persa. Si no se tiene mucho tiempo, es una buena alternativa.
Hay sin embargo una cosa del libro que me ha molestado mucho. Ciertos argumentos e incluso anécdotas se repiten en los diferentes capítulos. Mientras lo leía me sentía atacado por sensaciones déjà vu continuas. También encuentro que abstenerse de comentar las horribles prácticas de los espartanos con los ilotas dulcifica la realidad del lado oscuro espartano.
ENGLISH
A short and interesting book for those who want to learn more about one of the most crucial battles in history. Although obviously focused on that specific historical event, Cartledge does not limit himself to describing the confrontation itself but explains what Sparta was like and what it meant to be a citizen of that polis. The best part of the book is precisely that, how it tries to make us understand how the Spartans thought and felt, although in my opinion it does so halfway. In other works (Montanelli's The Greeks or Javier Negrete's The Adventure of the Greeks) it is better achieved, although of course, not with the brevity of this book. This brevity is precisely one of the advantages of this book, in a few pages we understand the Spartans and we get an idea of the historical context, also on the Persian side. If you don't have much time, it's a good alternative.
However, there is one thing in the book that has bothered me a lot. Certain arguments and even anecdotes are repeated in the different chapters. While reading it, I felt attacked by continuous déjà vu sensations. I also find that refraining from commenting on the horrible practices of the Spartans with the helots sweetens the reality of the darkest side of Esparta. -
Cartledge spends most of his time locating Thermopylae in Greek culture and, by implication, Western culture rather than discussing the battle itself. That's all well and good, since it's not a particularly new or controversial premise. Thermopylae is often presented as some high water mark of the Persian invasion of "the West" with the Spartans, therefore, as the "saviors" of civilization. There's an awful lot of speculation, supposition, and outright guesswork on that narrative, but if you're looking for a general presentation of that historical standard in approachable, even personal (the author dips into the first person from time to time, and outright expresses his own musings in conversational language) then this will work quite well. There are more fulsome and lavish examples of that premise, of course, but this is a good representation of it. I find that narrative more than a little dubious, both from a theoretical and historiographical point of view, but more on that in a bit....
This could also work well as a general introduction to Ancient Greek culture as the majority of it is locating the battle in time and place. The major figures are given a decent amount of attention, and a few ancillary names will get tossed into the mix to flesh out the period and players. So, we get a look at Athens and its leadership, a little bit about other Greek city/states, and more than a few Persian leaders. Again, there are any number of more complete works, but this is a good intro/summary for that.
Where this particular text falls sharply short is in the description of the actual battle of Thermopylae. The text handles the broad strokes, giving at this point a surprisingly small amount of attention to the Hot Gates, the three hundred Spartans, the several thousands of other Greeks who also held that line for three days, and the nominal hordes of multi-cultural Persian invaders, but one could be forgiven for thinking a book that has the name of the battle as its title would be more about that actual battle, the archeology, and historical facts as known. Rather, Cartledge's interest is in the aforementioned cultural and historical impact of the battle rather than the battle itself. In fact, the book might be better served by having it's title and subtitle reversed to The Battle That Changed the World: Thermopylae since that is really Cartledge's interest.
But that emphasis is, as mentioned, a speculation and as such a-historical. Was Western civilization preserved by the Greeks who stopped the Persians at Thermopylae, and Plataea, and Mycale, and Salamis (because any one of those battles could be put forth as the "high water mark" of the Persian invasion) or would the world have continued on pretty much as it did with Persia's eventual collapse and dissolution representing just one hiccup in the millennium old historical record? The "What if..." take on history is certainly interesting, amusing, and has a certain socio-political role, but it is a fiction. These things didn't happen, and for all the rhetoric employed, there's not a lot of concrete basis to assume that things could only have played out the way they did. Persia may have oppressed Western development, but it may have flourished under it, and the Hellenism that was enforced by later generations (Alexander et al) may have occurred just as thoroughly and lastingly as a form of cultural imperialism as a military imperialism. The argument that Greek (and, therefore, Western) culture would have been stymied by a Persian invasion ignores an awful lot of Western self-oppression and depravity. It's not like the Roman Empire was a benevolent master that fostered and supported individual freedom and the concepts of philosophy in a way that we can say can be definitively differentiated from Persia. In fact, Rome's totalitarianism, slave society and oppression may have been a more obvious problem. If only the Greeks could have saved us from the emperors too....
In reality the East vs. West conflict as as much affectation as history. Cherry-picking an historical conflict to comment on a contemporary one is as old as history itself, of course, so it's not particularly unusual to read it in this form, especially when Cartledge makes the point outright when describing such things as the 9/11 attacks and the batch of conflicts in Chechnya at the time of his writing. Those things are Arabic and Ciscaucasian, respectively, rather than Persian, and far pre-date anything like the religious, geopolitical or socio-economics of the modern day issues, but when painting historical strokes as broadly as it takes to reach back to Sparta, the imagined analogy needn't be any more exact than that. It's also where the analogy breaks down under anything more than slight investigation. Cartledge and the historians who make that case still point to the vagaries of vocabulary and the most general layout of a map as support, but Vladimir Putin, George Bush (either), Bill Clinton, Obama and bin Laden are as apt comparisons to Leonidas or Xerxes as their respective East v. West conflicts are to three days spent fighting hand-to-hand on the Greek shore. That is to say, not much. But if you take a step back or ten, squint your eyes a bit and don't focus on the vast intervening timeline then, sure, you can see an outline that might fit sideways or backwards somehow.
In truth, much of that East v. West content amounts to little more than an historical trope. One could look at the map differently and draw just as legitimate recasting of characters and events. Instead of the Spartans and the Persians in the Greco-Persian Wars we could look at the 100 Years War and claim one side or the other the defender of some aspect of Western culture that needed preserving lest modern life be very different. Were we to examine Caesar in Gaul we could suggest that the world would be much better off were we all now speaking Celtic. Consider the role of either the great conflicts of the 20th century, the actually global conflict of the American Revolution, the United States invading Mexico in the 19th century. Etc., etc., etc. If Santa Anna had rolled right through the Alamo in 1836 maybe I'd be writing this in Spanish right now in a region still considered Mexico. Further, maybe I'd have state sponsored health care and a government composed of rising mestizo politicians in the Collected Provinces of Columbia combating the Old World familial aristocrats from Spain rather than British and Northern European descended families in a polity named after Amerigo Vespucci.
These speculations are really no more fanciful than the supposition that Leonidas wittingly or unwittingly fought to preserve a proto-Western democratic ideal in a predominantly Western European society two dozen centuries later. But that speculation is presented here and in any number of other histories as the sequence of events that not only were direct but ultimately benevolent. There's a whole lot of fanciful reading of the past to weave that narrative, and readers should be mindful that one of the functions of history as it has been presented since Herodotus is the illusion of fate and destiny where there is really only supposition and an elaborate game of connect the dots. The world as it is need not have had a Leonidas or Sparta in it. Some other historical people would have taken up that spot or it might have never occurred at all, and maybe the world would be worse for it. Or better. Or changed hardly at all. -
This was an excellent, thorough, and informative read. Thermopylae is still, some 2500 years later, a well-remembered, and defining moment in the history of western civilization. Paul Cartledge is an expert in Greek history and an excellent writer. In fact, I began reading this book and decided to read his overview of Ancient Greece first, just so I could have a better understanding of the Greek world as a whole.
This book is surprisingly short at just over two hundred pages. However, there is an excellent array of additional information which includes a timeline, maps, appendices, and a glossary. These additions add value to the book and remain a constant point of reference as people and places in the ancient world are mostly alien to the modern reader.
I think this book can be fairly divided into three sections. First, the author gives an overview of the Mediterranean world in the late 6th and early 5th centuries, BCE. The second part is the lead up to the battle, the battle itself, and the immediate aftermath. The final part is the legacy of Thermopylae and how it has been remembered throughout time. There is also an epilogue, where the author presents his thesis and argues it, in my opinion, successfully.
I could spend a lot of time going over each section, but that would be almost as long as the book. I will say that Thermopylae was a turning point in history, and though it was a defeat, the Spartans’ sacrifice inspired the Greek coalition to continue fighting and ultimately win the war. It saved western civilization as we know it, and allowed Hellenistic culture to soon flourish. The sacrifice lead to victories at Salamis, Mycale, and Plataea and the rise of the Athenian Naval Empire. Of course, a generation or two later, Sparta and Athens would enter into a long war that would disrupt everything they had worked together to achieve in the 480s and 470s BCE.
The Persians were not the despotic and oppressive force the Greeks would have us believe them to be. In fact, they were rather tolerant to other cultures and many Greeks who had already been conquered (or thought they soon would be) fought on their side. The coalition Greeks, however, stood for freedom (their version) and the preservation of their culture in its entirety. That has to be respected. Of course, what followed was the cultural tradition of the ancient Greeks, which carries on to this day. How different would Europe and the New World be without a Greek victory in the Greco-Persian War? There would have certainly not been the same ideas of democracy, morality, etc. that have spread throughout Western Civilization. -
There are probably many moments in history that could have dramatically changed the future. In Thermopylae, Prof Cartledge certainly believes that our western culture might not have existed in the way it does today if King Xerxes and the Persian army / navy had defeated the Greek city states in 480BC. If it hadn't been for King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans (plus thousands of rear guards) blocking, confusing and battling Xerxes for enough time to allow the Athenians to rally their navy to defeat the Persian navy, our world might be quite different today.
I originally picked up the book to understand the legendary 300 Spartan stand at Thermopylae, but discovered much more about the historic cultures of Persia, Sparta and a bit about Athens around 500BC. Clearly Spartan culture was so vastly different than most - men wore their hair long-women short, families were disgraced if their sons came home from war, little focus was made on buildings and structures, citizens were trained in athletics and battle training, etc. In one part, Cartledge mentioned that the Spartans sparred and prepared for battle while naked which had the Persian scouts thoroughly perplexed.
The battle itself is only a small part of the book where the last section really focused on the cultural impact to the world from Rome, Middle Ages, Renaissance, to modern times through stories, poems, etc. Democracy has a strong dependence on Greek culture - would it have not spread within the world if the Persians had succeeded?
There's much more to the book but I'll leave it there. If you like academic history you should enjoy this book.
PS - a couple of things I need to remember:
1. The Royal Road - amazing Persian thoroughfare from Babylon through Anatolia
2. Aristodamus - the sole survivor who had infected eyes and was disgraced by Sparta yet survived to fight in another famous battle of Plataea - jumping into the fray to commit battle suicide for honor. -
‘ .. was a turning point in the history of Classical Greece...’
This is less a book about the battle of Thermopylae itself than it is about the context for and consequences of the battle as assessed by Professor Cartledge. The battle between the might of the Persian empire and Leonidas and his 300 Spartans is both heroic and legendary. But is it a battle that changed the world?
Professor Cartledge makes a case that ‘The Battle of Thermopylae, in short, was a turning-point not only in the history of Classical Greece, but in all the world’s history, eastern as well as western.’ This can be quite a compelling argument, especially for those of us who see ancient Greece as the source of many of our current cultural and political values. But I think it misleading to see the battle itself as a simple battle between good (freedom) and evil (slavery). While such emotive comparisons are further enabled by making mention of the events of September 11 2001 and 7 July 2005, a more careful reading of Professor Cartledge’s writing is required to understand the context for his reasoning.
In the 5th century BC, the Persian empire was huge. It encompassed parts of India and what is now Pakistan in the east, included Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, the Levant and Egypt and parts of Macedonia. The Greeks, by interfering in Persian affairs, draw attention to themselves and thus begins a series of what Herodotus styled as the ‘beginnings of the misfortunes for both Greeks and Persians’.
The outline of the Battle of Thermopylae is relatively well known and can be simply summarised: for two days the 300 Spartans held off the might of Persia. On the third day, the Spartans were betrayed, outflanked and destroyed.
To understand this battle, it is important to understand the structure of Spartan society and its seemingly paradoxical cultural values. The real value of Professor Cartledge’s book, to me, was the history of events leading to Thermopylae and the discussion of Spartan society. I’ll leave it to the scholars to debate the extent to which this battle changed the world: I enjoyed the discussion but am not yet convinced by the conclusions.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith -
If you're a nut for ancient history, or if you were wondering about how close Frank Miller got with 300, this is the book for you. But it's not for the casual reader, so be warned. There's a lot of information that comes are you quickly, all leading you towards understanding more about the famous battle of Thermopylae and why it's still significant 2500 years later.
For those of you who don't know - Thermopylae is a narrow pass that runs north-south into Greece and any invader who feels like making headway pretty much has to pass through it. These days it's pretty broad, but in the time of the Spartans, it was only about 14 meters wide. And it was here that 300 Spartans and nearly 5,000 warriors from other Greek provinces held off the much larger forces of the invading King Xerxes. While the Greeks did eventually lose the battle, their bravery and self-sacrifice has resonated through history.
But how did this happen? Cartledge does a quick round-up of all the forces in play at the time, giving brief descriptions of Spartan society, the rise of the Persian Empire, and ever-fluctuating Greek politics. He paints a much more complex picture of the events than you get from films, mainly because Cartledge is an historian and Frank Miller is a storyteller. Two very different responsibilities. He then goes on to look at how the battle has been remembered, both in ancient and modern times.
It's a really neat book, and offers a lot more layers to a story that most people don't actually know much about. The Spartans were lovers of freedom, for example, but only their own. They weren't so concerned about the Helot slaves who made their warrior lifestyle possible. And Xerxes was not a totalitarian monster who held himself as a God among men. The Persian Empire was a heterogeneous one, and while not exactly the Land of the Free, it wasn't as horrible a place as it is presented to be.
History is a tricky beast, especially once Hollywood gets its hands on it. Enjoy. -
If you are a student of history, this one is five stars. I gave it three stars because the book was difficult to read because it is written by a British professor. I used the glossary often. Some of the terminology and the Latin or French quotes were beyond me and I couldn't always get the meanings from the context.
However, I recommend reading the book just to learn why the Battle of Thermopylae, though a defeat, quickly became a morale victory, and why the Spartans, though taking a suicidal stand, emphasized the Spartan values of devotion to competition and a devotion to the ideal of freedom. -
After you get all jacked up about seeing "300", read this. The real story is even better than the fictionalized one.
-
“Go Tell the Spartans passerby,
That here obedient to their laws, we lie”
This book is an analysis of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC and it’s wider significance to Western politics and culture.
Famously 300 Spartans led by King Leonidas were sent to the narrow mountain pass Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) to oppose the passage of Persian King Xerxes invasion force. They did this in the certain knowledge that their course of action would lead to their deaths but would allow valuable time for Greek city states resisting Persian invasion to prepare to defend themselves.
This book starts out really strongly, forcing the reader to visualise the dramatic geography of the battlefield, which intriguingly has changed over thousands of years due to the area’s active geology. The book then tries to engage some of the more Western existential questions about the battle head on. Would Western democratic civilisation have been offer if Thermopylae never happened and if ultimately the Greeks weren’t able to resist? In some ways the answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. The Persian Empire was in many ways happy for it’s subjects to go about it’s own way. But it would only have allowed the free thinking ways of the Greeks to flower to a certain extent.
There is then a lengthy discussion about the Persian Empire and it’s history. I can see why the author did this but I thought it was laboured on just a bit too much and seemed to drown the author’s points in detail. It was around here that I felt the book began to loose focus. To be sure, the information in itself was interesting. But then I was conscious that I had chosen to read a book primarily about the battle and not about the Persian Empire.
We then rightfully a focus on the Spartans (or Laecadamons) and their society and history. In terms of the former there were some very interesting insights, such as the controversial male bonding between young Spartans and their male mentors and the practice of dispensing with “misshapen” infants. There are some truly interesting points made about Spartan women who in many ways are no more politically enfranchised than other Greek women but surprisingly can not only own property but also take multiple husbands. Spartan society also rests on the backs of a violently oppressed slave labour class of fellow Greeks, allowing full Spartan citizens to dedicate themselves fully to war.
This is followed up by a scene setting of the background leading up to the battle. A previously erratic Spartan king, who was deposed, leave some question marks to other Greek states about how reliable in terms of being allies the Spartans could be. Yet their status as the unquestionably most powerful land based power in Greece made them a power impossible to ignore. Their initial encounter with the Persian ambassadors did lead to their slaying by the Spartans (a bit like in the 300 movie). But the Spartans’ follow up response to it tellingly showed their religious side when they voted 2 Spartans to commit ritual suicide in the presence of King Xerxes to make up for this. Xerxes dismissed their offer, not appreciating the cultural significance of their offering.
There is one chapter about the actual battle and it is bafflingly brief. To be honest, I am not sure if it was worth the wait. I would have perhaps forgiven the author for this if the ending of the book was not so drawn out, inconsistent and often just plain uninteresting to me.
Overall, I have mixed feeling about this book. I get the feeling this author needed a brutal editor to limit his indulgence into diving too much into his intellectual cul de sacs. Perhaps some readers appreciated it more than I did, but I generally like a book to have more focus on it’s supposed subject matter. That said there is a worthwhile discussion about how the Spartan legacy has continuously been used for political purposes by both democracies and dictatorships. If I was going to offer any constructive feedback I would say this book could do with a new edition that would benefit from recent cultural and political news. This book was incredibly written before the 300 film (which the author alludes to the development of) and the deplorable self declared “Spartans” in British politics who pushed for Brexit. The former in particular is now a fair few years old but is still well known, but received a lot of justified criticism for it’s portrayal of the Persians.
I understand that history is multi layered and there needs to be discussion of sources. But what makes me engaged with history is it’s genuinely gripping stories. You don’t get much more gripping than Thermopylae. I will give due praise for the author’s detailed research. But his story telling needs a lot of improvement. -
The title is somewhat misleading (though that is surely down to the publisher and not the author, the British classicist). First, the battle itself is dealt with in about twenty pages or so, the rest of the book being given to a discussion of Greek politics (rivalry between Athens and Sparta, and coalitions to oppose the Persian empire's expanse westward to Attica), Spartan culture and customs, and Persian imperial expansion. Second, "changing the world" is too broad, too nebulous to be quite meaningful. The author does make clear that at stake in this conflict were two quite different polities - the autocratic despotism of the Achaemenid Empire (founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC) and the Greek idea (both in Sparta and Athens) that a community could come together and govern themselves, that idea that underpins all democracies today. However, what made the despotism of the Persians so repulsive was not made clear.
That Thermopylae was a pivotal military engagement is clear. Upwards of twenty thousand Persian troops were killed, which caused the Persian King Xerxes to withdraw, while the main Spartan army was not involved at all. Yet Thermopylae was only one part of the Greco-Persian wars. A decade before, a Greek army of little more than ten thousand Athenians and Plataeans (without aid from Sparta) defeated a Persian army over twice that size at the Battle of Marathon, inflicting casualties at a rate of 30:1. Ten years later came Thermopylae in the summer of 480, yet even that victory-in-defeat was no more decisive in ending the war as the Battle of Salamis several months later (a stunning Greek naval victory led by the Athenians that inflicted losses on the Persians at 6:1) or the Battle of Plataea the following year, when a combined Greek army (Sparta, Athens, Corinth, and Megara) again fought outnumbered yet thoroughly defeated the Persian army, effectively ending the Greco-Persian War. So while Thermopylae was greatly important (stopping the vast Persian army from invading central Greece and buying time for the Athenian navy and combined Greek forces to gather at Plataea), it was nevertheless not the only "world-changing event."
In addition, while popular culture (particularly film) focuses on King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans, the Greek army at that battle was upwards of 7,000, including Phocians, Thespians, Thebans, and Helots (second-class "citizens" of Spartan who did all the work of their society). Furthermore, the politics in Greece were such that some Greeks fought with Xerxes army, other Greek city-states and islands sat out the war by acknowledging Persian supremacy, and even a former Spartan king, Demaratus, was a close advisor to Xerxes. Furthermore, the author also makes clear that Greek democratic ideals developed at a time when a number of Greek city-states were ruled by tyrants (local strongmen and their families), thus the picture that emerges is complex indeed. Also noteworthy was the multinational character of the Persian army, including troops from Scythia, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia, Ionia, Thrace, Macedonia, Libya, and Ethiopia, while the Persian navy was supplied by Phoenecians.
For readers interested simply in the history of the Greco-Persian War and the battles involved, Wikipedia provides quite good explanations, which also have a fair wealth of detail. In fact, for anyone unfamiliar with this period of Greek history, reading those Wikipedia articles would be a rather useful preparation for Cartledge's book. -
Desde la publicación de la novela gráfica 300, de Frank Miller y su posterior adaptación al cine, a pocos es ajeno el nombre de Leónidas y los 300 espartanos que defendieron el paso de las Termópilas en una misión suicida para detener el avance de las tropas persas de Jerjes. Sin embargo, pese a este conocimiento popular y a diversas obras sobre esta batalla, creo que la obra de Paul Cartledge nos ofrece algo más.
Lejos de centrarse en el hecho militar, este libro es un intento de contextualización de un choque entre culturas (Grecia-Persia, Oriente-Occidente) y cómo llegó a su clímax en la Batalla de las Termópilas. Remontándose algunos siglos atrás nos habla sobre los griegos, sobre qué los unía y qué los separaba dado que, lejos de ser un ente común, la cultura panhelénica era un nexo bastante débil ligado más a aspectos religioso/culturales que un concepto nacional como tenemos hoy. Este mismo ejercicio se realiza en el lado persa, analizando cómo en una rápida escalada llegó a ser el imperio más amplio y poderoso de la antigüedad.
Poco a poco vamos avanzando en la historia, desgranando detalles sobre la vida y culturas de ambos pueblos que nos van ofreciendo pistas sobre por qué las cosas llegaron a ser como fueron. Una vez alcanzado el punto de análisis del enfrentamiento, posteriormente pasamos a las consecuencias, no sólo geopolíticas del momento, sino también culturales. Cómo la actitud espartana se transmitió durante la antigüedad y se recogió en el Renacimiento para un resurgir durante el romántico siglo XIX, llegando hasta nuestros días.
No es tampoco despreciable el interesante análisis historiográfico que se hace de Heródoto, principal fuente histórica de los acontecimientos que se relatan, en una defensa de su visión como historiador y como escritor.
Una obra muy interesante para cualquier amante de la historia antigua. -
This book has been on my shelf for years. But after visiting the Thermopylae battle site last fall, I moved it to my TBR pile and finally finished it.
While there is no question that the author is a SME on the battle (and ancient Greece in general), he definitely writes for an academic audience - not the lay reader. Consequently, it took me a long time to read this relatively short book, because I could only consume it in small doses at a time. So, that disappointed me. (Having said that, I'm a former academician myself - so I understand the author's intended audience. But my understanding didn't make my reading experience any more enjoyable.)
The other major disappointment is that most of the book focuses on the lead up to the battle, as well as its legacy. Again, I understand this, given the lack of historical documentation surrounding the battle. But it was still surprising (and more than a bit disappointing) that Cartledge didn't get to the actual battle until Chapter 7 out of 9!
Still, I learned a lot about the Greek-Persian tensions during that time period. And I'm ultimately glad I read it. But I can't honestly recommend it to anyone without a deep love of history...and an even deeper pool of patience for somewhat dry academic writing. -
Una excelente lectura para una persona, como yo, que quiere adentrarse en la temática de las Guerras Médicas. Cartledge nos acerca a los hechos de la perspectiva de Heródoto [principal referencia histórica en el tema] pero también nos explica el contexto sociocultural del mismo Heródoto, dando así consistencia al relato bélico. Lectura que desmitifica el "greco-centrismo" pero que también nos entusiasma a los amantes de la cultura helénica.
También gusta leer las reflexiones del autor, que no solo describe hechos, sino los explica y opina al respecto.
